All this broo-ha-ha over the "DaVinci Code"

[Okla-homey]

...got me to thinking. Lots of Christian folks are mighty upset by the novel and soon to be released film. The Holy See has even asked the faithful to boycott the film. That's cool.

The thing we aren't seeing however is rioting and killing. Should we get with the program and torch some theaters, overturn and burn cars, terrorize urban centers? I'm not even aware of any death threats against Dan Brown or Tom Hanks.

What gives? Do those mullahs just have more juice than the Big Guy in the cool vestments? Are us Christians just a bunch of religious slackers?

[etouffee]

I don't get the fuss over this movie. The DaVinci Code is a work of FICTION. It's not being marketed as factual. Yet churches are acting as though their doctrines and beliefs are seriously under attack. They aren't. If the movie was being presented as a DOCUMENTARY and asserting all the theories about Jesus, Mary M., the Church and it's little splinter clubs as FACTS, then I would understand all the hubbub. But to act so defensive about a work of fiction, at least to me, makes churches look silly and makes me wonder why they're being so defensive...unless their really is something they don't want people looking into.

[Okla-homey]

I don't get the fuss over this movie. The DaVinci Code is a work of FICTION. It's not being marketed as factual. Yet churches are acting as though their doctrines and beliefs are seriously under attack. They aren't. If the movie was being presented as a DOCUMENTARY and asserting all the theories about Jesus, Mary M., the Church and it's little splinter clubs as FACTS, then I would understand all the hubbub. But to act so defensive about a work of fiction, at least to me, makes churches look silly and makes me wonder why they're being so defensive...unless their really is something they don't want people looking into.

Well, it was only a satirical cartoon of Muhammed with a bomb for a turban. A cartoon.

This is a whole book and movie and stuff.

[handcrafted]

I don't get the fuss over this movie. The DaVinci Code is a work of FICTION. It's not being marketed as factual. Yet churches are acting as though their doctrines and beliefs are seriously under attack. They aren't. If the movie was being presented as a DOCUMENTARY and asserting all the theories about Jesus, Mary M., the Church and it's little splinter clubs as FACTS, then I would understand all the hubbub. But to act so defensive about a work of fiction, at least to me, makes churches look silly and makes me wonder why they're being so defensive...unless their really is something they don't want people looking into.

Well, I don't know about the movie, but the book has some introductory material where Brown asserts a bunch of "facts" that are nothing of the kind. He asserts that the Church's little "splinter clubs" as you call them are real. The theory about Jesus and Mary Magdalene is as old as the hills and there's never been one shred of proof. Brown is just re-hashing old conspiracy theories into a modern package with a good story wrapped around it.

He's gone out of his way to promote the book as some kind of story based on true organizations and real people, and it's not. Brown's either a liar or an idiot. If it's the latter (and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here), then obviously there's no intent to demean Christ or His Church. However, in the interview excerpts I've seen, Brown appears to know what he's doing, at least partly.

[yermom]

What gives? Do those mullahs just have more juice than the Big Guy in the cool vestments? Are us Christians just a bunch of religious slackers?

the NT made you guys all warm and fuzzy

[Okla-homey]

the NT made you guys all warm and fuzzy

That's it! That whole "turn the other cheek" thing.

Yermom, you are a genius of the first order.:D

[SCOUT]

I don't get the fuss over this movie. The DaVinci Code is a work of FICTION. It's not being marketed as factual. Yet churches are acting as though their doctrines and beliefs are seriously under attack. They aren't. If the movie was being presented as a DOCUMENTARY and asserting all the theories about Jesus, Mary M., the Church and it's little splinter clubs as FACTS, then I would understand all the hubbub. But to act so defensive about a work of fiction, at least to me, makes churches look silly and makes me wonder why they're being so defensive...unless their really is something they don't
want people looking into.

I noticed this weekend that the DaVinci Code is the religous version of National Treasure.

They both take little bits of history and stretch them out to ridiculous levels. Religion is just a more sensitive topic.

[Okla-homey]

I noticed this weekend that the DaVinci Code is the religous version of National Treasure.

They both take little bits of history and stretch them out to ridiculous levels. Religion is just a more sensitive topic.

And my fraternity gets bashed in both.:(

[sanantoniosooner]

Fallacy: The book is based on fact. "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." (DVC Page 1)

[Jerk]

And my fraternity gets bashed in both.:(

Homey, did your sig come from the clinton whitehouse?

[Okla-homey]

Homey, did your sig come from the clinton whitehouse?

No, its just good general advice for anyone facing indictment. ;) You're right though, those Clintonistas are masters of the game.

[yermom]

No, its just good general advice for anyone facing indictment. ;) You're right though, the current Administration are masters of the game.

;)

[Okla-homey]

;) I disagree, the Bushies generally leave off the last part.:D

[etouffee]

Well, I don't know about the movie, but the book has some introductory material where Brown asserts a bunch of "facts" that are nothing of the kind.Really? Can you provide us with examples of this "bunch of facts" and cite the concrete, irrefutable counterarguments to show that they're "nothing of the kind"?


He asserts that the Church's little "splinter clubs" as you call them are real. Um, because they ARE real? He certainly takes some artistic liberties with the things these clubs do and believe--and readily admits as much-- but they are undeniably real.


The theory about Jesus and Mary Magdalene is as old as the hills and there's never been one shred of proof. Brown is just re-hashing old conspiracy theories into a modern package with a good story wrapped around it.Right...we call that "writing fiction".


He's gone out of his way to promote the book as some kind of story based on true organizations and real people, and it's not.
On the contrary, it is a) some kind of story, and b) based on true organisations and real people. Note that when writing ficiton, you can BASE authors frequently loosely BASE their stories on real people and things but take creative liberties to make their stories more interesting. Brown hasn't broken any new ground by doing that.


Brown's either a liar or an idiot.
Or a novelist.

What's interesting is that people keep stomping their feet and insisting that there's "absolutely no proof" of some of the things Brown wrote in the Da Vinci Code. True enough. The same can be said about a lot of what's in the Bible, yet that gets asserted as fact all the time, by the same people using that argument against Dan Brown.

It's fiction, folks. It's not a documentary, it's not anti-church propaganda, and it's not an assault on the church. Except to those determined to make it into one, anyway.

[etouffee]

Fallacy: The book is based on fact. "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." (DVC Page 1)Right. I see nothing in there that says "all descriptions of Jesus and his relationship with Mary M. are accurate."

[picasso]

I don't get the fuss over this movie. The DaVinci Code is a work of FICTION. It's not being marketed as factual. Yet churches are acting as though their doctrines and beliefs are seriously under attack. They aren't. If the movie was being presented as a DOCUMENTARY and asserting all the theories about Jesus, Mary M., the Church and it's little splinter clubs as FACTS, then I would understand all the hubbub. But to act so defensive about a work of fiction, at least to me, makes churches look silly and makes me wonder why they're being so defensive...unless their really is something they don't want people looking into.
I could have sworn the writer has been on tv recently claiming many documented FACTS that he has uncovered. like the 80 missing books of the bible? which is false.
people underestimate the complexity of the study of theology.

[etouffee]

I could have sworn the writer has been on tv recently claiming many documented FACTS that he has uncovered.
And can you prove that the man has NOT uncovered any facts in all his research? You seem to be suggesting that because the man claims to have uncovered many facts, he asserts that everything in his fictional writing & screenplay is factual. That's faulty logic; there's no such implication. It's quite likely that someone who does thousands of hours of research on religious history and past & present religious organisations, (or any other topic for that matter) for a fictional work would uncover some facts. And he used SOME factual information to build a fictional story. Never has anyone suggested that everything in The DaVinci Code is factually accurate.


like the 80 missing books of the bible?
I do not believe you have seen Dan Brown assert that he personally uncovered 80 missing books of the bible, but if you have a cite to such a quote, I'm open to changing my mind.
which is false.What, exactly, are you asserting is false? That there are 80 missing books of the bible, or that Dan Brown personally uncovered them? I don't know if there are 80, but it is irrefutable historical fact that some existing scriptures were chosen for inclusion in the bible and some where chosen for exclusion, (by constantine & co.). thus, it is undeniably true that there are-- or at least were-- some "missing books" of what we today call "the bible". how many, no one can say. It is also true that the include/exclude decisions were based at least as much on politics and power as they were on anything spiritual.

[picasso]

And can you prove that the man has NOT uncovered any facts in all his research? You seem to be suggesting that because the man claims to have uncovered many facts, he asserts that everything in his fictional writing & screenplay is factual. That's faulty logic; there's no such implication. It's quite likely that someone who does thousands of hours of research on religious history and past & present religious organisations, (or any other topic for that matter) for a fictional work would uncover some facts.


I do not believe you have seen Dan Brown assert that he personally uncovered 80 missing books of the bible, but if you have a cite to such a quote, I'm open to changing my mind. What, exactly, are you asserting is false? That there are 80 missing books of the bible, or that Dan Brown personally uncovered them? I don't know if there are 80, but it is irrefutable historical fact that some existing scriptures were chosen for inclusion in the bible and some where chosen for exclusion, (by constantine & co.). thus, it is undeniably true that there are-- or at least were-- some "missing books" of what we today call "the bible". how many, no one can say. It is also true that the include/exclude decisions were based at least as much on politics and power as they were on anything spiritual.
I'm going on the word of someone close to me who has a masters degree in theology and who is I'm quite certain better read in this field than said author.
I know, I'll just laugh off a book that is mainstream popular and just so happens to **** on my religious beliefs.
Why oh why would Mamma Shiver recently say on television that this book refutes all that we've been told to be truth?:confused:

I'll pass.

[etouffee]

I'm going on the word of someone close to me who has a masters degree in theology and who is I'm quite certain better read in this field than said author. You may be mistaken in that assumption. I have a masters, as does my wife, and many of my friends, and I doubt seriously that any of use did thousands, or even hundreds, of hours of research in our fields of study. I think perhaps you underestimate the amount of research an author does in writing a history-based novel.


I know, I'll just laugh off a book that is mainstream popular and just so happens to **** on my religious beliefs.That really would be the wise thing to do. All the kicking and screaming is really counterproductive. If people are truly secure in what they believe, a fictional novel and movie that takes some liberties with religious history shouldn't upset them in the least.



Why oh why would Mamma Shiver recently say on television that this book refutes all that we've been told to be truth?:confused: I can't answer that, as I don't know who Mamma Shiver is, nor do I know what she's been told to be truth. Regardless, what an independent third party says about a book or movie has no bearing on its factual accuracy or the intent of its author. That's as dumb as someone saying Jaws refutes all that we know about sharks, and people attacking Peter Benchley as some sort of blasphemer. After all, he did write a book that included lots of scientific facts about sharks-- therefore we should assume he intends us to believe EVERYTHING he wrote about shark behaviour is true, right? :rolleyes:

[picasso]

ok, I'll sack up when I'm wrong. I just looked up the person I was thinking of and also who claims Christ did nlt die on the cross. that person is Michael Baigent.
I'll still go back to your original question about why are Christians worked up over this? it's not totally being hyped as fiction.

[Okla-homey]

Etoufee,
Here's the thing thats different this time. For whatever reason, the Vatican normally ignores this kind of stuff, you know, just rises above it, and for good reason as you've stated. Such controversy just gives the author/filmaker extra press. I just find it odd that they've come out against this thing and I'm wondering...why now?

I heard something on NPR this morning that makes some sense. There is an underground movement in the Church which seeks expanded roles for women. The commentator posited that this book and film are emboldening women within the Church to strive more forcefully for ordination of women and perhaps even allowing members of holy orders to marry...based of course, on the allegations that Christ and Mary M. were married

[picasso]

You may be mistaken in that assumption.

That really would be the wise thing to do. All the kicking and screaming is really counterproductive. If people are truly secure in what they believe, a fictional novel and movie that takes some liberties with religious history shouldn't upset them in the least.


I can't answer that, as I don't know who Mamma Shiver is, nor do I know what she's been told to be truth. Regardless, what an independent third party says about a book or movie has no bearing on its factual accuracy or the intent of its author. That's as dumb as someone saying Jaws refutes all that we know about sharks, and people attacking Peter Benchley as some sort of blasphemer. After all, he did write a book that included lots of scientific facts about sharks-- therefore we should assume he intends us to believe EVERYTHING he wrote about shark behaviour is true, right? :rolleyes:
dude, I'm seriously not worked up over this subject and I"m certainly a thick skinned non religious type.
Mamma Shriver is of the Maria Shriver/Kennedy fame who was quoted saying this. you know, the power of perception and stuff. doesn't always matter if you and I know it's bull butter.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Dang. I should get around to reading this book someday.

[Penguin]

This is fiction. I'm not sure how this book got all of the attention. The Da Vinci Code is a sequel to Angels & Demons.


According to my wife, Angels & Demons would make a much more interesting movie. As for me, I haven't read a book cover to cover since high school. :D

[etouffee]

I'll still go back to your original question about why are Christians worked up over this? it's not totally being hyped as fiction.
It's being hyped as fiction with a lot of facts thrown in. You cannot deny that this is exactly the case. Or do you mean for us to believe that EVERYTHING in The DaVinci Code is non-factual?

[crawfish]

It's being hyped as fiction with a lot of facts thrown in. You cannot deny that this is exactly the case. Or do you mean for us to believe that EVERYTHING in The DaVinci Code is non-factual?

There are plenty of resources if you want to see the mistakes Brown made in his books. Personally, I have no problem with it as long as we understand it has little basis in solid fact.

It's passable fiction. Flat, cliche' characters and improbable coincidences make it standard pulp fiction fare. It's definitely not "Raiders of the Lost ArK".

[etouffee]

Etoufee,
Here's the thing thats different this time. For whatever reason, the Vatican normally ignores this kind of stuff, you know, just rises above it, and for good reason as you've stated. Such controversy just gives the author/filmaker extra press. I just find it odd that they've come out against this thing and I'm wondering...why now?Clearly they're concerned that it might cause people to think rather than simply accept, to question the status quo, to seek information on their own from sources outside the church. The Vatican has never wanted people to do any of the above.


I heard something on NPR this morning that makes some sense. There is an underground movement in the Church which seeks expanded roles for women. The commentator posited that this book and film are emboldening women within the Church to strive more forcefully for ordination of women and perhaps even allowing members of holy orders to marry...based of course, on the allegations that Christ and Mary M. were marriedThe Jesus/Mary theory has, as someone pointed out earlier, been around for centuries. The fact that it can't be conclusively proven doesn't make it false (if it did, then Christianity, and the existence of God, would also be rendered false, no?) Of course, the fact that it can't be disproven doesn't make it true, either. With religion, the best you can do is consider all the available information and decide what you believe and what you don't. Unfortunately, most people don't consider all the available information; they accept the limited information some organization wants them to, and assume that's all there is.

[etouffee]

There are plenty of resources if you want to see the mistakes Brown made in his books. Mistakes, or creative liberties undertaken in the process of writing fiction? There are also plenty of resources that explore and expand upon the factual elements in Brown's works. Unfortunately, religious organizations are discouraging people from these, as they really don't like it when people think, do research, and consider other possibilities. (there was a time when they'd kill you for it in really nasty ways). Seems to me that if a church was secure in its doctrines, it would encourage people to look into other ideas, and feel confident that in the end they would reach the conclusion that the church was most correct. Strangely, churches have never chosen this approach.

[picasso]

It's being hyped as fiction with a lot of facts thrown in. You cannot deny that this is exactly the case. Or do you mean for us to believe that EVERYTHING in The DaVinci Code is non-factual?
I don't MEAN for you to believe anything dude. I'm telling you how I've seen it played out. and I haven't been going around looking for it mmk?

it's all good. I've never been a fiction type myself. it's an artistic stigma I have.

[sanantoniosooner]

The Top 10 Errors Found in 'The Da Vinci Code'
compiled by Alex McFarland

1. Fallacy: The world was once dominated by goddess-based worship. Religion was originally matriarchal and later (under Judeo-Christian dominance) changed to patriarchal monotheism (male dominated). (The Da Vinci Code, p. 124)

Fact: There is no evidence that any significant religious movement had dominant female deities: They were always linked to their male counterparts, and usually in a subservient role. (See, for example, Tikva Frymer-Kensky's In the Wake of the Goddesses (New York: Ballantine Books, 1993) and Craig Hawkins' Goddess Worship, Witchcraft, and Neo-Paganism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).

2. Fallacy: The Bible has been extensively rewritten and revised. Therefore, its original meaning has been lost. The Christian Scriptures "evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions." (DVC, p. 231)

Fact: "Countless translations" is excessive hyperbole and vague generalization. Without a specific charge of what was translated, added or revised, it is impossible to respond to this point specifically. However, consider the following points:

* Translation issues for the Bible are not different from translation issues for any other document, and cause no more difficulty. The quote implies that there is some great confusion over translation that is cause for concern.

* It is true that there are issues to discuss in terms of translating the Bible from ancient Hebrew and Greek to any modern language. This is a natural function of all translation processes and in no way detracts from offering a "definitive," reasonable account of what was originally written.

* In fact, the means of transmission of the ancient texts, the voluminous quantity of manuscript copies, the science of textual criticism and the art of translation ensure that any reputable modern translation of the Bible is an accurate rendering of the original text. This subject has been covered so comprehensively and so well by so many scholars that Brown's misrepresentation of the facts is inexcusable.

3. Fallacy: "Fortunately for historians . . . some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert." (DVC, p. 234)

Fact: According to Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, Constantine was never involved in any attempt to eradicate any gospels. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 and contained no gospels, nor any reference to Jesus. They contained portions of every Old Testament book except Esther, commentaries on the Old Testament, some extrabiblical works, secular documents and business records. The Qumran community, which wrote or preserved these documents, had nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity.

4. Fallacy: "The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great." (DVC, p. 232)

Fact: Although the verdict is out as to whether Constantine was a true follower of Christ, he was not a pagan. He converted to Christianity (regardless of his motives for doing so). And he did not collate the Bible. The Old Testament was compiled even before the time of Jesus. The New Testament began to be recognized by the end of the 1st century. By the 2nd century, church leaders were inserting quotes from the four Gospels into their writings. Athanasius recorded the earliest list of New Testament books in 367 A.D.

5. Fallacy: The Bible was "hodge-podged" together over time and is not trustworthy. "The Bible is the product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book." (DVC, p. 231)

Fact: If men wanted to create a new religion, they would never choose one with a God-man as its central figure and a resurrection from the dead as its foundation. (1 Corinthians 15:14, Ephesians 2:20). Further, if men had produced Christianity, it would be man-centered, as are all other religions. In other words, man would earn his way into eternal bliss through his good deeds. Thus, man would get the glory. In stark contrast, the Bible uniformly declares that man cannot work his way to God. There must be a substitute that is acceptable to God according to His holy standard — perfect righteousness. Jesus Christ is that perfect substitute — the one and only way to God. Therefore, God gets all the glory. (Isaiah 64:6, Philippians 3:9, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 3:18)

6. Fallacy: Many "gospels" existed recounting the life of Christ, some of which were suppressed: "More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion — Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among them . . . " (DVC, p. 231)

Fact: The "gospels" to which Brown refers are the Gnostic gospels. They were written from about 250-350 A.D., several hundred years after Christ lived. They were written to reinterpret the life of Christ and His teachings, based upon Gnostic philosophy. There were never as many as 80, and they were never considered for inclusion in the New Testament.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were accepted in the 1st century based upon their authorship and their use in the early Christian centers of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. The Gnostic gospels appeared after most of the New Testament was already in use and accepted by the Church. Eusebius, the first church historian, affirms that the early church rejected these gospels as soon as they appeared.

7. Fallacy: Christianity as we know it was "invented" by people, rather than revealed by God. "At [the Council of Nicea] . . . many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon — the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments and, of course, the divinity of Jesus . . . [U]ntil that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal." (DVC, p. 233)

Fact: The Council of Nicea debated only one issue: Was Jesus coeternal with the Father? (See A History of Christianity by Kenneth Scott Latourette, pp. 152-157.) Although Jesus' disciples were fearful skeptics who initially did not clearly understand who Christ was and what He came to do, after the resurrection they willingly sacrificed their lives for proclaiming that He was indeed God in the flesh. (John 20:19-28, 31; 2 Peter 1:16-18; Philippians 2:5-11)

8. Fallacy: Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. ". . . [O]ne particularly troubling earthly theme kept recurring in the [Gnostic] gospels. Mary Magdalene. . . . More specifically, her marriage to Jesus Christ." (DVC, p. 244)

Fact: None of the Gnostic gospels contain any references to a marriage between Mary and Jesus. There is no support for this claim in the Scriptures or in early church traditions. In 1 Corinthians 9:5, Paul defended his right to have a wife (even though he was unmarried). He cites as support the other apostles, the Lord's brothers and Peter. If Christ had been married, Paul would most certainly have cited Him as conclusive support for being accompanied by a wife.

9. Fallacy: Christianity borrowed its practices and symbols from the pagan mystery religions. "And virtually all the elements of the Catholic ritual . . . were taken directly from earlier pagan mystery religions." (DVC, p. 232)

Fact: A distinction needs to be made between New Testament Christianity and what developed over time as Greek and Roman converts brought certain non-biblical elements into their worship. In particular, the Church at Rome abandoned the biblical feast days observed by the early church in favor of the feast days of the pagan they were seeking to convert. And to some degree, they adopted the vestments and rituals of the pagan Roman priests.

Most mystery religions, however, flourished long after the closing of the canon of Scripture. Therefore, it would be more proper to say that Christianity influenced mystery religions, rather than the other way around. A careful observation of the mystery religion stories reveals there is a vast difference between the events recorded in the New Testament and the mythologies of the mystery religions. The mysteries were rooted in emotionalism and fantasy. In contrast, Christianity is rooted in history and evidence. The mysteries were a combination of many religious systems, worshipping numerous deities. Christianity is rooted in the consistent revelation of one God who ordained the pure and spotless sacrifice of His Son in payment for man's sin.

10. Fallacy: The book is based on fact. "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." (DVC Page 1)

Fact: Contrary to the book's claim that early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex, the Old Testament carefully defined and steadfastly condemned sexual immorality — especially the pagan practice of bringing sex into public worship (Leviticus 10:10-21; Deuteronomy 23:17-18; 1 Kings 14:24).

The novel contends that Da Vinci painted the Apostle John as representing Mary Magdalene. However, John's appearance reflects the way Florentine artists traditionally depicted John. (See The Truth Behind the Da Vince Code, Richard Abanes, pp. 71-72). The claims of ". . . hidden documents that detail the truth about Mary Magdalene, Jesus, and their lineage . . . " (DVC, p. 160) are based on forgeries. (See The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code, pp. 51-54.)

[etouffee]

A lot of the so-called "facts" in the above are at least as shakey and unsupportable as Brown's fictionalizations. Further, you can tell by the tone of the writing that it is not an objective analysis but rather the rant of a highly defensive Christian seeking to debunk what he feels is a challenge and insult to his beliefs. Fair enough, free speech and all that. Still, it's worth noting that McFarland puts forth as "fact" a lot of opinion and theory authored by Christian apologists with very clear agendas. It's comical, when you think about it: people writing treatises and entire books debunking fiction. He's calling things "fallacies" when in fact they are mere fictionalisations. He's saying Dan Brown "asserts" and "contends" when all Mr. Brown is doing is spinning a yarn loosely based on facts, events and ideas which he has liberally tweaked to fit his tale. Is Mr. McFarland also going to debunk Star Wars for us? It would be no less ridiculous an exercise.

[Scott D]

It's funny....'The Last Temptation of Christ' and 'The Passion of Christ' don't seem to have destroyed Christianity...I hardly think 'The DaVinci Code' is going to do it either.

But hell, we need to have a retro protest of that terrible Nicholas Cage movie 'National Treasure' because it insinuates that the founding fathers were a bunch of thieves.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

the DVC is a really good book.

some points...

the bible was "officially" compiled in 393 AD at the synod of hippo after constantine was dead. this was the official decision though the books had been in use for over 175 years before nicea.

the actual vote of the council of nicea was 300 to 2.

the gnostic gospels deny christ's humanity. christ being married is about as far from their central theme as LAS and tuba's politics.

the gospel of philip is used to state that magdalene was christ's spouse. this gospel is written in coptic, not aramaic as DVC says. also the word is actually a borrowed greek word, koinonos, which means associate.

priory of sion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion)

[picasso]

It's funny....'The Last Temptation of Christ' and 'The Passion of Christ' don't seem to have destroyed Christianity...I hardly think 'The DaVinci Code' is going to do it either.

But hell, we need to have a retro protest of that terrible Nicholas Cage movie 'National Treasure' because it insinuates that the founding fathers were a bunch of thieves.
I think truth be told most Christians aren't up in arms over this and throwing things at the tellie, but at the same time one has a right to take offense.

[etouffee]

you do have the right to take offense. it's just that taking offense at things you shouldn't be offended by, whether you have the right to or not, is quite often counterproductive to your cause. the church doing all this public bitching about The DaVinci Code is the equivalent of NASA throwing a hissyfit over all the inaccuracies in Star Trek.

[slickdawg]

...got me to thinking. Lots of Christian folks are mighty upset by the novel and soon to be released film. The Holy See has even asked the faithful to boycott the film. That's cool.

The thing we aren't seeing however is rioting and killing. Should we get with the program and torch some theaters, overturn and burn cars, terrorize urban centers? I'm not even aware of any death threats against Dan Brown or Tom Hanks.

What gives? Do those mullahs just have more juice than the Big Guy in the cool vestments? Are us Christians just a bunch of religious slackers?


It's a simple matter of being civilized.

[slickdawg]

you do have the right to take offense. it's just that taking offense at things you shouldn't be offended by, whether you have the right to or not, is quite often counterproductive to your cause. the church doing all this public bitching about The DaVinci Code is the equivalent of NASA throwing a hissyfit over all the inaccuracies in Star Trek.


Like NASA couid do half of the **** Captain Kirk did. He banged chicks in
far away galaxies, and NASA got some frickin robot on mars.

[soonerscuba]

The Beatles, Hip-hop, the Simpsons, Elvis, Harry Potter, etc.

More often than not, the hard-liners of religion wouldn't know solid entertainment if it kicked them in the ***. I will see the movie, because I thought the book was entertaining enough, and I like Tom Hanks. I'm pretty sure I have the will power to go to this movie and not come out demanding the Vatican give me some answers.

To the original point about the church not rioting, I think it is because the west is just generally smarter and more secure in our way of life than the Mid-East.

[Scott D]

The Top 10 Errors Found in 'The Da Vinci Code'
compiled by Alex McFarland

1. Fallacy: The world was once dominated by goddess-based worship. Religion was originally matriarchal and later (under Judeo-Christian dominance) changed to patriarchal monotheism (male dominated). (The Da Vinci Code, p. 124)

Fact: There is no evidence that any significant religious movement had dominant female deities: They were always linked to their male counterparts, and usually in a subservient role. (See, for example, Tikva Frymer-Kensky's In the Wake of the Goddesses (New York: Ballantine Books, 1993) and Craig Hawkins' Goddess Worship, Witchcraft, and Neo-Paganism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).

I'm amused by this premise. There were a lot of various pre-Christanity religions in which goddesses played major roles and not just as caregivers to their male counterparts.

[TUSooner]

I vaguely recall seeing an interview of Dan Brown shortly after his book came out. He seemed to want it both ways: When challenged on historical accuracy, he asserted, "It's just a novel; it's FICTION." But at the same time, he said the he believed the "theology" of the novel. So, he seemed happy that readers would regard it as more than "just a good story," and I'm sure that many folks (gullible and otherwise) are doing just that. I'm glad that some theologians are refuting Brown's "fictional history" as a way of ensuring that the fiction does not become accepted as fact. My initial impression of Brown as huckster made me lose interest in reading the book,though I may change my mind. As for Homey's original excellent point - writing like Brown's would have resulted in a fatwa of death had he written it about Mohammad (it DID, in Rushdi's case), and it might even offend Muslim sensibilities about Jesus, but us wussy Christians just don't have that old heretic-burning fire like we used to. ;)

DISCLAIMER: Read my sig.

[MamaMia]

I've always wondered why some of the protestants have a bible called The King James Version. Did he translate it or what?

[TUSooner]

Oh yeah, National Treasure was one of the silliest and most disappointing movies I have ever seen.

[TUSooner]

I've always wondered why some of the protestants have a bible called The King James Version. Did he translate it or what?
We stole it from his night stand.

[Beano's Fourth Chin]

A lot of the so-called "facts" in the above are at least as shakey and unsupportable as Brown's fictionalizations. Further, you can tell by the tone of the writing that it is not an objective analysis but rather the rant of a highly defensive Christian seeking to debunk what he feels is a challenge and insult to his beliefs. Fair enough, free speech and all that. Still, it's worth noting that McFarland puts forth as "fact" a lot of opinion and theory authored by Christian apologists with very clear agendas. It's comical, when you think about it: people writing treatises and entire books debunking fiction. He's calling things "fallacies" when in fact they are mere fictionalisations. He's saying Dan Brown "asserts" and "contends" when all Mr. Brown is doing is spinning a yarn loosely based on facts, events and ideas which he has liberally tweaked to fit his tale. Is Mr. McFarland also going to debunk Star Wars for us? It would be no less ridiculous an exercise.

I guess we could all learn something from you regarding objective tone.

Your main thesis here is that Brown is writing only fiction and, thus, panties shouldn't be wadded.


Absolutely all of it. Obviously, Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies--all of that is historical fact.

The fact that Brown is being given a forum on pretty much any morning show, news report or Larry King Live to say the above, is reason enough for Christians to put forth a defense as he's calling into question the only real basis for their faith. The Bible.

[TUSooner]

I guess we could all learn something from you regarding objective tone.

Your main thesis here is that Brown is writing only fiction and, thus, panties shouldn't be wadded.



The fact that Brown is being given a forum on pretty much any morning show, news report or Larry King Live to say the above, is reason enough for Christians to put forth a defense as he's calling into question the only real basis for their faith. The Bible.

Hear him!

[walkoffsooner]

I'm a devout christian although I drink and cuss and a slight womenizer.The movie is for entertainment only.

[JohnnyMack]

I think TDC raises some really interesting questions, otherwise we wouldn't see this uproar.

[etouffee]

Dan Brown is being invited onto tv shows because he wrote a bestselling book and now it's a major motion picture. They do that for anyone meeting that description, not just people whose fictional stories are at odds with your faith. The dude is promoting his fictional book and movie in order to make money, not attacking your faith.

[handcrafted]

I've always wondered why some of the protestants have a bible called The King James Version. Did he translate it or what?

He commissioned it, and paid for it (with tax money, to be sure). The translators were a group of scholars who worked independently and then compared their translations with each other, coming to a consensus on difficult passages. It's the same method used with most modern translations.

[slickdawg]

He commissioned it, and paid for it (with tax money, to be sure). The translators were a group of scholars who worked independently and then compared their translations with each other, coming to a consensus on difficult passages. It's the same method used with most modern translations.


Including his minor revisions.....

[TUSooner]

Dan Brown is being invited onto tv shows because he wrote a bestselling book and now it's a major motion picture. They do that for anyone meeting that description, not just people whose fictional stories are at odds with your faith. The dude is promoting his fictional book and movie in order to make money, not attacking your faith.
Partly true, even mostly - insofar as anybody with an idea, especially a controversial one, gets lots of attention. But aren't you oversimplifying things by ignoring his promotion of his views of the biblical history underlying his book?

[StoopTroup]

If DaVinci had had a computer he could have done a better job of documentation IMO.

http://mars.walagata.com/w/wunder/code.png

[etouffee]

But aren't you oversimplifying things by ignoring his promotion of his views of the biblical history underlying his book?No. I don't really see him promoting his views, and there's no real evidence that the book (or the movie) reflects his views. It's a work of fiction, not an autobiographical profession of personal beliefs. Indeed, his own words suggest exactly that. Says Mr Brown:


The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist . These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations.

[handcrafted]

Dan Brown is being invited onto tv shows because he wrote a bestselling book and now it's a major motion picture. They do that for anyone meeting that description, not just people whose fictional stories are at odds with your faith. The dude is promoting his fictional book and movie in order to make money, not attacking your faith.

Do you know that, or are you just asserting it? Do you have any proof?

First off, what SAS said! I'd spek him if he hadn't already got too much. :) He did miss one, though. In the intro to the book, Brown asserts that the Priory of Sion (the main secret socieity in his story) is a real organization, started in Jerusalem in the 11th century and having a whole bunch of famous people among its membership. He bases this on his discovery of "secret dossiers" in the French National Library.

There's only one problem: the Priory of Sion, and the "secret dossiers", are a hoax. How do we know this? Because the dude who made up the Priory and faked the documents admitted to it publicly. The French government confirmed it. If Brown had done an ounce of the digging he claims he did, he would have easily discovered the hoax. Ergo, he's either an idiot, or is intentionally misleading people. Either way, his "truth claims" need to be shown false so people are not misled. Whether or not it's intended to be a direct attack on Christianity, it can operate as such. Even if it's a "mere marketing ploy" it needs to be revealed for what it is.

Proof type linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_sion)

Secondly, etouffe, you need to do some more research before you start spouting off about the Bible or things connected with Christianity. You're making assertions based on stuff you've read by quacks or people with an anti-Christian agenda. The stuff SAS is quoting has been agreed with by scholars all over the spectrum, even liberal and non-Christian academic types. It's been studied for over 2000 years by people much smarter and better educated than we are. Whether you believe the Bible is true and that Jesus is who he said he was, or not, one thing is certain: The text of the Bible has not been corrupted or even changed in any meanigful way since it was written. You can take it any way you want to, but you must deal with it somehow, not explain it away with silly conspiracy theories.

[handcrafted]

Including his minor revisions.....

They may not have been using the best original language texts, but that doesn't equate to "revisions".

[handcrafted]

the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist

The above statement is absolutely false. Why would he say such a thing?

[etouffee]

Secondly, etouffe, you need to do some more research before you start spouting off about the Bible or things connected with Christianity.I'm sorry, remind me again how it is that you know just how much research I've done into the Bible and things connected with Christianity. I don't recall sharing that information with you, but busy as I am these days, I may have forgotten that exchange.


You're making assertions based on stuff you've read by quacks or people with an anti-Christian agenda Again, just how the hell do you know what my assertions are based on? Let me guess: anyone who doesn't believe just like you is a quack with an anti-Christian agenda?


The stuff SAS is quoting has been agreed with by scholars all over the spectrum, even liberal and non-Christian academic types. Some of it has. Much of it has also be DISAGREED with by scholars all over the spectrum

It's been studied for over 2000 years by people much smarter and better educated than we are. Yes, and they've yet to reach consensus on many, many issues. Please don't act as though these issues have been long ago settled, because they haven't. You can cite scholars who see it your way, and I can cite just as many (probably more) who don't.


Whether you believe the Bible is true and that Jesus is who he said he was, or not, one thing is certain: The text of the Bible has not been corrupted or even changed in any meanigful way since it was written. That's actually far from certain.

not explain it away with silly conspiracy theories.Uhhh, yeah, the thing is, I'm not trying to explain anything away with silly conspiracy theories. The silly conspiracy theories in the DaVinci Code are fictional. I'm not suggesting they're true, nor is the author. I'll repost his quote because apparently some folks missed it the first time:


The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations.

[etouffee]

The above statement is absolutely false. Why would he say such a thing?proof?

[etouffee]

In the intro to the book, Brown asserts that the Priory of Sion (the main secret socieity in his story) is a real organization, started in Jerusalem in the 11th century and having a whole bunch of famous people among its membership. He bases this on his discovery of "secret dossiers" in the French National Library.

There's only one problem: the Priory of Sion, and the "secret dossiers", are a hoax. How do we know this? Because the dude who made up the Priory and faked the documents admitted to it publicly. The French government confirmed it.It should be noted, however, that there are still quite a lot of people who don't believe it was a hoax. They may be kooks and conspiracy theorists, but they believe it nonetheless. It's quite possible that Dan Brown is one of those people, and he's well within his rights to believe that, even if he's wrong. Let's assume, just for argument's sake, that he does believe it. What does that leave us with? A conspiracy theorist has published a book asserting his unlikely beliefs as fact. Wow! Bet THAT'S never happened before. Except for, you know, every day of the week. Or, conversely, assume he doesn't believe it, and he deliberately wrote something false in the intro to his book. (although i'm at a loss to come up with a good reason for doing that) So what? A guy who writes historical fiction told a fib about the existence of some super secret religious sect. Christianity is damaged by that how, exactly?

In any case, you people who are up in arms about TDC are still in the um, "interesting" position of wasting a lot of time and emotional energy trying to debunk fiction.

[Beano's Fourth Chin]

I'm beginning to wonder who's more emotionally invested in this discussion. ;)

Etouffee, you're all over the fence on this one, you're on both sides and you're digging a tunnel underneath it.

[slickdawg]

uh, nothin' here to see folks, just move on.......

[etouffee]

Etouffee, you're all over the fence on this one, you're on both sides and you're digging a tunnel underneath it.
in other words, i'm being objective about the whole thing. thanks! :D

[sanantoniosooner]

waffles

[slickdawg]

etouffe, I left something for you in the BSMF challenge.

[Beano's Fourth Chin]

uh, nothin' here to see folks, just move on.......

I'm just pointing out the fact that only he can see through people's motives.

He can tell by an author's tone that they're on a rant and can dismiss them out of hand as a result.

Anyone questioning his motives is met with sarcasm, posturing and chest rearing.

He criticizes Christians for not ignoring Brown's claims altogether as a work of fiction and he criticizes the church for not encouraging it's members to investigate Brown's claims further.

I agree with him that truth shouldn't be hidden from, and I believe that Christians above all should have an obligation to seek it out. But I also think that he shouldn't hide behind a veil of objectivity when it's apparent that he does have a bone to pick. I don't think that he actually values Brown's scholarship, but he's siding with it over anything that anyone has presented from a Christian viewpoint.

[Beano's Fourth Chin]

in other words, i'm being objective about the whole thing. thanks! :D

Ok, now that is fictional.

[slickdawg]

If your fourth chin hates alabama more than you, what about the first, second and third?

[Beano's Fourth Chin]

If your fourth chin hates alabama more than you, what about the first, second and third?

Yeah, that reputation comment worked out much better in theory than in practice.

[slickdawg]

Yeah, that reputation comment worked out much better in theory than in practice.

:D

Well, most of us feel that Alabama is the work of the debbil anyway.

[Beano's Fourth Chin]

:D

Well, most of us feel that Alabama is the work of the debbil anyway.
Well, I know etouffee and I can agree on that.:cool:

[slickdawg]

Well, I know etouffee and I can agree on that.:cool:

Everyone in SEC country (including moi) thinks Alabama represents all that is wrong and evil in the world, and then some.

[picasso]

the most interesting part of this little SF tiff is the fact that Etouffee can't figure out why we're bitching about a fictional work all the while he's trying to defend it.
again, it's not coming across that way in the popular media.

[SleestakSooner]

Hmmm seems like Mr. Brown and perhaps the Christian right are both using this to promote their own agendas.

Bottom line is it is considered fiction and not a book about historical facts.

Personally I don't see why most christians would have trouble putting all their faith into a popular work of fiction... <shrug>

[picasso]

Hmmm seems like Mr. Brown and perhaps the Christian right are both using this to promote their own agendas.

Bottom line is it is considered fiction and not a book about historical facts.

Personally I don't see why most christians would have trouble putting all their faith into a popular work of fiction... <shrug>
would you consider the Vatican the "Christian Right?" and do you consider all Christians right fringe types?

[Beano's Fourth Chin]

Hmmm seems like Mr. Brown and perhaps the Christian right are both using this to promote their own agendas.

Bottom line is it is considered fiction and not a book about historical facts.

Personally I don't see why most christians would have trouble putting all their faith into a popular work of fiction... <shrug>

OMG! He call the bibel not real. HOW 2 funnay.

Can we stop now because I think he wone theh internet!

[yermom]

would you consider the Vatican the "Christian Right?" and do you consider all Christians right fringe types?

if the shoe fits ;)

[starclassic tama]

a work of FICTION.


kinda like the bible!

[picasso]

if the shoe fits ;)
:D

I'm not average.

and I really don't consider the Vatican to be right wing nutbags. they can be pretty liberal on some things.

[Ike]

the fact that there are enough people in this world that get their "facts" from works of fiction to get the vatican and other christian groups up in arms as it were over this book and movie ought to be the real cause of anger and frustration here. Not the fictionalization the Dan Brown has undertaken. Jeezus effing christopher. Of course he is gonna claim its based on fact because that helps sell ****. He claimed that all the science in Angels and Demons was based on fact, but the basis was about as loose as you can get without reversing gravity. whoopie doo.

For people that are angry about this, I'd claim that their anger is misplaced.

[Scott D]

:D

I'm not average.

and I really don't consider the Vatican to be right wing nutbags. they can be pretty liberal on some things.

heh....amusing that the only Catholic Priest I know doesn't seem to think that.

[Beano's Fourth Chin]

the fact that there are enough people in this world that get their "facts" from works of fiction to get the vatican and other christian groups up in arms as it were over this book and movie ought to be the real cause of anger and frustration here. Not the fictionalization the Dan Brown has undertaken. Jeezus effing christopher. Of course he is gonna claim its based on fact because that helps sell ****. He claimed that all the science in Angels and Demons was based on fact, but the basis was about as loose as you can get without reversing gravity. whoopie doo.

For people that are angry about this, I'd claim that their anger is misplaced.
Honestly, the Christian Church probably feels that it can't win in this situation. On the one hand, it can't appear apathetic to Brown's claims due to it's immense popularity and the fact that Hollywood/The Media is so influential at this point.

Time Magazine's list of 100 people who shape our world recently included these folks on the list:

J.J. Abrams
George Clooney
Dixie Chicks
Ellen DeGeneres
Wayne Gould
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Arianna Huffington
Ang Lee
Renzo Piano
Rain
Rachael Ray
Jeff Skoll
Kiki Smith
Will Smith
Zadie Smith
Howard Stern
Meryl Streep
Reese Witherspoon
Rob Pardo
Daddy Yankee
Tyra Banks
Dane Cook
Matt Drudge
Stephen ColbertRidiculous, I know, and half these folks will be,"who are they" by this time next year, but the fact remains that if you look on Facebook, or Myspace, most folks list DaVinci Code and Harry Potter as their most favoritest books I ever read. So, it couldn't go without some sort of response.

Then, on the other hand, you got folks that will ridicule them for engaging Brown in a debate that he couldn't care less if he wins or not on account of, "hey, the more you yell, the richer I'll get."

However, the church really can't ignore a book that's sold 40 bajillion copies and is a summer tentpeg blockbuster with Hanks and Howard at the helm. And, if there's one area of science that Christianity is really good at it's Archaeology and, like that ancient text stuff. Let 'em steamroll Brown's research and maybe they'll stop putting so much effort into that Intelligent Design stuff for a while.

For the record, I'm a Christian of the Reformed tradition that can't quite stomach Behe's writing.

[BigRedJed]

What the heck are you doing up at this hour?

[Ike]

Honestly, the Christian Church probably feels that it can't win in this situation. On the one hand, it can't appear apathetic to Brown's claims due to it's immense popularity and the fact that Hollywood/The Media is so influential at this point.

Time Magazine's list of 100 people who shape our world recently included these folks on the list:Ridiculous, I know, and half these folks will be,"who are they" by this time next year, but the fact remains that if you look on Facebook, or Myspace, most folks list DaVinci Code and Harry Potter as their most favoritest books I ever read. So, it couldn't go without some sort of response.

Then, on the other hand, you got folks that will ridicule them for engaging Brown in a debate that he couldn't care less if he wins or not on account of, "hey, the more you yell, the richer I'll get."

However, the church really can't ignore a book that's sold 40 bajillion copies and is a summer tentpeg blockbuster with Hanks and Howard at the helm. And, if there's one area of science that Christianity is really good at it's Archaeology and, like that ancient text stuff. Let 'em steamroll Brown's research and maybe they'll stop putting so much effort into that Intelligent Design stuff for a while.

For the record, I'm a Christian of the Reformed tradition that can't quite stomach Behe's writing.

On the one hand, I have to say that I have read both the DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons. Both, in my humble opinions, are fantastic stories. Even though I know from firsthand experience that the science behind A&D is crap with jargon on top of it, it still didn't take away from it being a very gripping story. Same thing with the DaVinci Code. It was such a good story that I didn't really care if the facts were wrong. It had every element that a good action/mystery novel should have, and in spades.

On the other hand, I do see your point that maybe the church has to say something given the popularity of these novels. But I don't think that encouraging a boycott is the right thing to do. In my opinion, the church can do so much more by saying "go see the movie, read the books, (they are, after all, rather gripping) and when you have done that, we'll be happy to tell you what was wrong, why it was wrong, and show you the proof and documents that we have." Encouraging a boycott almost has the flavor of the church confirming Dan Brown's argument that there are some things that the church doesn't want people asking questions about. I feel pretty strongly that they'd do far better in this regard to actually encourage people to see it, because they should want people asking questions. Because people that ask the questions are people that are interested in the first place.

[handcrafted]

Because people that ask the questions are people that are interested in the first place.

You make a really good point. I'm not a big fan of mass boycotts (no pun intended) in the first place, I don't really think they work that well, and they have the potential to get silly. However, I think in this matter, it's more the idea that the Catholic church (and many other Christians) don't want Dan Brown, Tom Hanks, the studio, etc. making a big roll of cash off of something that's a veiled attack on the Church.

I personally won't be giving those folks any of my money.

[crawfish]

Without the controversy, the DC is a mildly entertaining, formulaic thriller that would probably scrape the bottom of the best-seller lists.

[Boffingham]

I thought Angels and Demons was better anyway

[OU4LIFE]

Seems like everyone is calling this whole deal "Anti-Christian"...and in my personal view, I see it as exactly the opposite. I thought the book was decidedly PRO-Christian.

It also caused people to expand their horizons a bit, made them do some artwork research, and litierature research....and that's a good thing IMO.

It's a work of fiction based loosly on facts. Same can be said about The Bible, it's all a matter of having the faith to believe in the words of The Bible.

Fascinationg discussion BTW....I've enjoyed everyone's POV....except for Beano. ;)

[TheHumanAlphabet]

aren't[/U] seeing however is rioting and killing. Should we get with the program and torch some theaters, overturn and burn cars, terrorize urban centers? I'm not even aware of any death threats against Dan Brown or Tom Hanks.


The Spanish Inquisition will get them. The Pope has already put out the hit notices because this will defy their supreme power over the interpretation of the Bible. ;)


This along with the Gospel of Judas will make the catholic religion be seen for the power center it is. They have corrupted Christianity by ensuring they enforce the power...

Riots in the streets soon!

[handcrafted]

Seems like everyone is calling this whole deal "Anti-Christian"...and in my personal view, I see it as exactly the opposite. I thought the book was decidedly PRO-Christian.

That's only because you have no idea what Christianity teaches, or the historical basis of our religion.


It's a work of fiction based loosly on facts.

No, it's not based on any facts. It claims to be based on facts, but it is not. That is why it is deceptive.


Same can be said about The Bible, it's all a matter of having the faith to believe in the words of The Bible.

Good grief. If I ever hear a person say "the Bible is fiction" and have one shred of proof other than their opinion that "it's religious, therefore it must be false", that would be a miracle.

[LSUdeek]

the vatican has lots to hide over its history. they don't have secret archives for nothing.

[Norm In Norman]

Here's my opinion:

I like the story of TDC, but I was tired of guessing correctly on every single plot twist (besides one). I don't really care for the guy's writing style that much. The story was pretty cool though.

To me, Brown summed it all up when he said they don't call it faith for nothing. The bibles are books. People write books. People get facts wrong. People interject opinion when writing stuff. People have agendas. There is no way someone today can seperate the crap from not crap from a book written almost 2k years ago. Therefore, you have to choose to believe it or not. Whether anything in those books are solid fact or not doesn't really matter, does it? You can't really know which part you are reading is fact or not. Jesus' name might have really been Harvy for all we know. Just because billions of people believed it was Jesus doesn't mean billions aren't wrong.

The same thing happens in textbooks too though. Did you know there isn't a such thing as a brontosaurus? The body of a brontosaurus is really that of an apatasaurus. Some dude found an apatasaurus fossil without a head and put the head from some other dinosaur from another dig on top of it and called it a brontosarus. Everybody has heard of a brontosaurus, but not too many have heard of an apatasaurus. But that's just because that's what we've been told all of our lives. History books have all kinds of inaccuracies in them too that get proven wrong all the time (if the proof can be believed), but I believe most of what I've heard from them. I guess it's easier to believe in a textbook from the 6th grade than build a time machine to get the facts correctly.

I guess I can understand where the religious types are ****ed off; they don't want less people on their side. When you believe something, having more people on your side makes it easier to believe you are right. Most people don't want to be the one holdout that believes the earth is flat, ya know? When you fall off the edge of the earth though, I guess those years believing it was round don't mean as much?

The point I'm trying to get at is it doesn't really matter that much what side you are on, just don't get all ****ed off when you are basing your opinions on faith and someone else doesn't agree with you. I think you can believe something and still realize that you might me wrong.

That being said, I'm pretty sure most of you guys are wrong.

[OU4LIFE]

That's only because you have no idea what Christianity teaches, or the historical basis of our religion.


Nice. Who is "our" and can I participate?



No, it's not based on any facts. It claims to be based on facts, but it is not. That is why it is deceptive.


So you are really going to sit there and claim there are no facts there? None? ok.



Good grief. If I ever hear a person say "the Bible is fiction" and have one shred of proof other than their opinion that "it's religious, therefore it must be false", that would be a miracle.

Dude, I didn't say the Bible was fiction, I said people can say it was fiction. I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the Bible was written by man. I forget that man is perfect and never apt to put his own spin on things.

My bad.

[etouffee]

That's only because you have no idea what Christianity teaches, or the historical basis of our religion.You sure seem to know a heck of a lot about what other people know and don't know about Christianity. First you threw that line at me, and now you're doing it to other people. Just how is it that you're so enlightened about what's in everyone else's head? God talking to you or something?




No, it's not based on any facts.That is an outright lie and you know it. Just because everything in the book isn't factual (hence that whole "fiction" thing we keep talking about) doesn't mean nothing in the book is factual. It's loosely based on dozens of facts, as well as dozens of non-facts. If you're going to be so blatantly intellectually dishonest, you should simply recuse yourself from the discussion.

[Scott D]

You make a really good point. I'm not a big fan of mass boycotts (no pun intended) in the first place, I don't really think they work that well, and they have the potential to get silly. However, I think in this matter, it's more the idea that the Catholic church (and many other Christians) don't want Dan Brown, Tom Hanks, the studio, etc. making a big roll of cash off of something that's a veiled attack on the Church.

I personally won't be giving those folks any of my money.

So by that accord, the Catholic Church is as stupid as the former Sherrif of Broward County in the early 90s.

And seriously, your self proclaimed hotline to God evangalism wears thin.

[Beano's Fourth Chin]

Here's my opinion:

I like the story of TDC, but I was tired of guessing correctly on every single plot twist (besides one). I don't really care for the guy's writing style that much. The story was pretty cool though.

I bet I'd hate watching tv or a movie with you. Not because you do that, but you're probably better at it than I am and I like to be the best plot guesser in the room.


To me, Brown summed it all up when he said they don't call it faith for nothing. The bibles are books. People write books. People get facts wrong. People interject opinion when writing stuff. People have agendas. There is no way someone today can seperate the crap from not crap from a book written almost 2k years ago. Therefore, you have to choose to believe it or not. Whether anything in those books are solid fact or not doesn't really matter, does it? You can't really know which part you are reading is fact or not. Jesus' name might have really been Harvy for all we know. Just because billions of people believed it was Jesus doesn't mean billions aren't wrong.I'm boycotting you.




The same thing happens in textbooks too though. Did you know there isn't a such thing as a brontosaurus? The body of a brontosaurus is really that of an apatasaurus. Some dude found an apatasaurus fossil without a head and put the head from some other dinosaur from another dig on top of it and called it a brontosarus. Everybody has heard of a brontosaurus, but not too many have heard of an apatasaurus. But that's just because that's what we've been told all of our lives. History books have all kinds of inaccuracies in them too that get proven wrong all the time (if the proof can be believed), but I believe most of what I've heard from them. I guess it's easier to believe in a textbook from the 6th grade than build a time machine to get the facts correctly.
I knew that from reading Jurassic Park. It sure makes things fun when fiction and real life crash.



I guess I can understand where the religious types are ****ed off; they don't want less people on their side. When you believe something, having more people on your side makes it easier to believe you are right. Most people don't want to be the one holdout that believes the earth is flat, ya know? When you fall off the edge of the earth though, I guess those years believing it was round don't mean as much?All these years of wearing a parachute everywhere I go will pay off some day.



The point I'm trying to get at is it doesn't really matter that much what side you are on, just don't get all ****ed off when you are basing your opinions on faith and someone else doesn't agree with you.

OK OK OK!


Seems like everyone is calling this whole deal "Anti-Christian"...and in my personal view, I see it as exactly the opposite. I thought the book was decidedly PRO-Christian.

It also caused people to expand their horizons a bit, made them do some artwork research, and litierature research....and that's a good thing IMO.
I'm all for that. As long as it's not women doing the thinking. The Christian church really can't stand for that.

Fascinationg discussion BTW....I've enjoyed everyone's POV....except for Beano. ;)I certainly wouldn't want you to get any more enjoyment out of reading it than I got out of writing it.

[handcrafted]

Nice. Who is "our" and can I participate?

Christians. Yes, you can participate. We'd like you to. Come to my church anytime. You're welcome. Ask all the questions you want. But be prepared that you might not like some of the answers.


So you are really going to sit there and claim there are no facts there? None? ok.

There are a few facts. DaVinci did paint the last supper. The Knights Templars existed (but Brown's description of them is wildly inaccurate). Opus Dei exists (but Brown's description of them is wildly inaccurate). And before you go off on me for proof, I have a) studied the Templars, and b) had a Catholic friend tell me exactly what Opus Dei is (it's a fraternity of Jesuits).


Dude, I didn't say the Bible was fiction, I said people can say it was fiction.

True, they can. They would, of course, be wrong. Like I said before, you can refuse to believe the Bible is God's Word if you want to, but you can't just dismiss it as fiction with no proof. You have to at least acknowledge that the men writing it believed that what they were writing was God's truth at the time they wrote it.


I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the Bible was written by man. I forget that man is perfect and never apt to put his own spin on things.

My bad.

No problem, I understand your ignorance. Most non-Christians (and, sadly, some Christians) have no idea where the Bible came from, how it was compiled, and what the doctrines of inerrancy and inspiration mean. The Bible was written down by men, in their own style, with their own personality, but with inspiration and direction by the Holy Spirit. They wrote exactly what God intended them to write, whether they were actually conscious of it or not. Some may have been aware of it more than others.

I can provide you with the titles of some books you can read if you're interested in educating yourself in Biblical scholarship.

[Norm In Norman]

I bet I'd hate watching tv or a movie with you. Not because you do that, but you're probably better at it than I am and I like to be the best plot guesser in the room. I'm boycotting you. I knew that from reading Jurassic Park. It sure makes things fun when fiction and real life crash. All these years of wearing a parachute everywhere I go will pay off some day. OK OK OK! I'm all for that. As long as it's not women doing the thinking. The Christian church really can't stand for that. I certainly wouldn't want you to get any more enjoyment out of reading it than I got out of writing it.
I'm generally not too good at guessing what's about to happen. I dunno - it just seemed like every hunch I had was right in this one for whatever reason. The only one I messed up was I thought Fauche was the teacher. I went a fairly long while thinking it was Teabing, but he ended up making me change my mind and think it was Fauche. At the first, he even specifically mentioned Fauche was religious and I thought that was some sort of blatent hint or something. It was nice knowing that Fauche wasn't a scumbag in the end though.

And I wonder if the paleontologists had big meetings where they talked about boycotting Jurrassic Park because it was only loosely based on fact. "They got the T-Rex right, but velociraptor's aren't as smart as they say. LET US BOYCOTT!"

[handcrafted]

You sure seem to know a heck of a lot about what other people know and don't know about Christianity. First you threw that line at me, and now you're doing it to other people. Just how is it that you're so enlightened about what's in everyone else's head? God talking to you or something?

Well, let's see. I've been a Christian for oh, around 26 years or so. I'm a lay person, but I've taught these things, done extensive research, have studied at a Bible institute, and I am well versed in the what the Scriptures say and what my faith teaches. So I can pretty much tell when somebody's got it wrong. Why is it wrong for me to correct an unbeliever when they try to tell me things that are not true about my own religion?


That is an outright lie and you know it. Just because everything in the book isn't factual (hence that whole "fiction" thing we keep talking about) doesn't mean nothing in the book is factual. It's loosely based on dozens of facts, as well as dozens of non-facts. If you're going to be so blatantly a Christian, you should simply recuse yourself from the discussion.

I edited your post to more accurately reflect your argument.

[Norm In Norman]

The Bible was written down by men, in their own style, with their own personality, but with inspiration and direction by the Holy Spirit. They wrote exactly what God intended them to write, whether they were actually conscious of it or not. Some may have been aware of it more than others.
Now this interests me. Did God make them write it as historical fact, or did he have them make some stories up to make it more interesting so people would believe it?

[etouffee]

You have to at least acknowledge that the men writing it believed that what they were writing was God's truth at the time they wrote it.Sorry, but why do I "have to" acknowledge that? Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows what those people believed when they wrote what they wrote. You can certianly believe whatever you want about Biblical authors' states of mind, but don't tell us we "have to" believe it as well.


I understand your ignorance... ...The Bible was written down by men, in their own style, with their own personality, but with inspiration and direction by the Holy Spirit.In your opinion.
They wrote exactly what God intended them to write, whether they were actually conscious of it or not. In your opinion.

You're asserting your opinions on completely unprovable theories as facts, and you call people "ignorant" for not sharing those opinions. Nice.

[handcrafted]

I'm generally not too good at guessing what's about to happen. I dunno - it just seemed like every hunch I had was right in this one for whatever reason. The only one I messed up was I thought Fauche was the teacher. I went a fairly long while thinking it was Teabing, but he ended up making me change my mind and think it was Fauche. At the first, he even specifically mentioned Fauche was religious and I thought that was some sort of blatent hint or something. It was nice knowing that Fauche wasn't a scumbag in the end though.

And I wonder if the paleontologists had big meetings where they talked about boycotting Jurrassic Park because it was only loosely based on fact. "They got the T-Rex right, but velociraptor's aren't as smart as they say. LET US BOYCOTT!"

Well, I don't know about boycotts, but there sure were a lot of talking head scientists on tv "debunking" the DNA pseudo-science that Crichton used in the book.

[handcrafted]

Now this interests me. Did God make them write it as historical fact, or did he have them make some stories up to make it more interesting so people would believe it?

God is a God of truth, so it's the former.

[Ike]

The Bible was written down by men, in their own style, with their own personality, but with inspiration and direction by the Holy Spirit. They wrote exactly what God intended them to write, whether they were actually conscious of it or not. Some may have been aware of it more than others.


But hundreds of years later, a bunch of raggedy old farts got together and decided which ones were really inspired by god, and got to be included in the bible, and which ones had just hit the hashish a little too hard, right? ;)

[starclassic tama]

True, they can. They would, of course, be wrong. Like I said before, you can refuse to believe the Bible is God's Word if you want to, but you can't just dismiss it as fiction with no proof.

what are some of those facts? the bible is based on the same amount of facts as the book of scientology or whatever they call their book. 0. christians can't stomache the fact that they dedicate their entire life to a work of fiction, which is understandable. the bible is just like the greek myths, an attempt to simplify and explain things we don't understand in hopes that their is an afterlife because the thought of life being "over" is too overwhelming.

[Norm In Norman]

God is a God of truth, so it's the former.
If the bible told you God is a God of truth, then couldn't it be conceivable that God told them to write that God is a God of truth in the bible so you would believe the stories even though they were sensationalized?

[etouffee]

I edited your post to more accurately reflect your argument.

Ok then, I don't suppose you'll mind if I do the same to some of yours. Where to begin?



Well, let's see. I've been a kook for oh, around 26 years or so. I'm a lay person, but I've taught these things, done extensive research, have studied at a Bible institute, and I am well versed in the what the Scriptures say and what my faith teaches. Based on that I have the right to be arrogant, condescending and unpleasant to people who don't share my views, and to make assumptions and judgements about what they may or may not know about a given topic . Why is it wrong for me to talk down to other people like they're stupid when they try to offer up other possibilities regarding completely unprovable and unsettled theories and ideas? After all, even though much of what I believe can't be proven, I'm always right about everything so people should just accept my opinions as fact.


Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

[handcrafted]

Sorry, but why do I "have to" acknowledge that? Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows what those people believed when they wrote what they wrote. You can certianly believe whatever you want about Biblical authors' states of mind, but don't tell us we "have to" believe it as well.

What part about "2000 years of scholarship and study" do you not get? You think we know nothing about the ancient world? Have humans been just stupid until you were born? There are these guys called historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists. A lot of them are pretty smart.


In your opinion. In your opinion.

You're asserting your opinions on completely unprovable theories as facts, and you call people "ignorant" for not sharing those opinions. Nice.

Do you think I'm just making this stuff up or something? Christians have believed this for 2000 years. It's not coming from me, man.

If you're telling me that we can't tell what somebody was thinking based on what they wrote down about their experience, then how can we trust any writing that's ever been made? That is simply an absurd claim and an impossible standard of truth. Do you hold all books to the same standard as you do the Bible? Do you believe that Aristotle was a real person? If so, what's the proof?

[handcrafted]

what are some of those facts? the bible is based on the same amount of facts as the book of scientology or whatever they call their book. 0. christians can't stomache the fact that they dedicate their entire life to a work of fiction, which is understandable. the bible is just like the greek myths, an attempt to simplify and explain things we don't understand in hopes that their is an afterlife because the thought of life being "over" is too overwhelming.

And you know this for a fact? Where's your proof? I demand proof.

[handcrafted]

If the bible told you God is a God of truth, then couldn't it be conceivable that God told them to write that God is a God of truth in the bible so you would believe the stories even though they were sensationalized?

No.

[handcrafted]

But hundreds of years later, a bunch of raggedy old farts got together and decided which ones were really inspired by god, and got to be included in the bible, and which ones had just hit the hashish a little too hard, right? ;)

Not accurate at all, but I don't have the time or the space to go into the formation of the canon of Scripture right now. It's been studied extensively for a long time.

[etouffee]

And you know this for a fact? Where's your proof? I demand proof.Ok, then we get to hold you to the same standard. Where's the proof of all the things you're asserting here? Let's have it, I demand it. And if you don't mind, start with that thing you said about the authors of the Bible writing exactly what God wanted them to write.

[handcrafted]

Ok then, I don't suppose you'll mind if I do the same to some of yours. Where to begin?



Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

I don't accept your paradigm. Truth is absolute. I will therefore expose falsehood.

As for being condescending, go back and read some of your posts before you start criticizing my tone. You're not a very tolerant person.

BTW I'm under no illusions that I'm going to convince you of anything. You operate within an incoherent worldview, so any "evidence" I can produce, you will find a way to explain away, no matter how irrational you have to get to do it.

[handcrafted]

Ok, then we get to hold you to the same standard. Where's the proof of all the things you're asserting here? Let's have it, I demand it. And if you don't mind, start with that thing you said about the authors of the Bible writing exactly what God wanted them to write.

Hang on a second. Tama was the one who made the assertion without any proof. I'm asking him/her to back it up.

Let's treat the Bible like any book that purports to be factual and historical. Do you automatically assume it's not, just for no reason, or do you look into it? Like, for instance, Plato's Republic. There's a book that's the basis for a lot of modern theory of politics and government. Do you automatically assume it's a fake? If not, how do you go about discovering whether it's real or not?

That's all I'm asking. What standard of truth or veracity of a book are we using?

[Norm In Norman]

No.
I knew that was coming.

So what you are saying is, Chrisitanity has nothing to with faith and everything to do in cold hard facts?

Hey, I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd say facts based on faith is still faith. You don't even need to answer, but you might want to ask yourself some questions.

[etouffee]

You're not a very tolerant person.Yes, but you and your ilk are so very tolerant of people who think differently than you.


You operate within an incoherent worldview
Excuse me? What exactly is "incoherent" about my worldview, other than the fact that it isn't exactly like yours?


so any "evidence" I can produce, you will find a way to explain away, no matter how irrational you have to get to do it.Very much like you do when presented with evidence that challenges your completely unprovable, IRRATIONAL, faith-based beliefs. Dude, you're the pot, the kettle, AND the freakin skillet.

[Fugue]

Ok, then we get to hold you to the same standard. Where's the proof of all the things you're asserting here? Let's have it, I demand it. And if you don't mind, start with that thing you said about the authors of the Bible writing exactly what God wanted them to write.

I see your points but with the new testament in particular, there is great evidence for it's accuracy in the early years. Besides the Gospels, secular writers confirm many of the people places and events. Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny all wrote before AD 120. It's also interesting to note that there is better manuscript chain evidence with the gospels than there is of Plato's writing yet that is never questioned.
Now, whether or not a person still wants to believe is still a personal choice.

[etouffee]

Hang on a second. Tama was the one who made the assertion without any proof. You have also made a number of those yourself in this thread; I'm simply requesting that we're all held to the same standard and play by the same rules. If YOU get to whip out the "prove it" card whenever you like, then so does everyone else.


Let's treat the Bible like any book that purports to be factual and historical. Do you automatically assume it's not, just for no reason, or do you look into it?I can't speak for anyone else. Personally, I've looked into it, and found much of what is presented as factual to be completely unsupportable, illogical, impossible and unbelievable without some degree of faith. I don't begrudge anyone having faith that what they read in the Bible is true; but I do get a little irritated when they talk down to me for not automatically accepting as fact the very things they accept on faith.

[caphorns]

But hundreds of years later, a bunch of raggedy old farts got together and decided which ones were really inspired by god, and got to be included in the bible, and which ones had just hit the hashish a little too hard, right? ;)


. . . Maybe you could see things this way, if you prefer to believe Dan Brown - who cites absolutely no sources for his statements regarding the counsel - that this is how it went down rather than look into the historical facts (backed by actual sources).

Seriously, it's obvious that 90% of you have spent so little time actually looking into possibly your own faith or lack thereof that it really is sad. You choose to live your life blindly because it's easier to read one novel - with no sources. Maybe you end the whole inquiry based on philisophical reasons - limiting what you believe in to only things you can rationalize in your brain. Well, do you believe that other people actually exist? I do. But how do you know that? Is it because it's logical? No. You can only see what you can see. Everything you are a part of is your own personal perception (and tainted and colored by that). So I choose to believe that other people exist and that the ground I walk on is not about to fall out from under me. I think most of you believe this, so you may have some faith you are not even aware you have.

In the meantime, serious scholars around the world have totally demolished Dan Brown's accounts AS REPLETE with historical innacurracies and stupid assumptions. He has made clear time and time again that he stands by the truth and accuracy of his depictions of the Christian church. There is no doubt that he (and now Hollywood) are taking the lead in attacking Christians and their beliefs and even trying to convert believers into non-believers. But his mistatements are amazing. There is NO evidence that Jesus was ever married. The idea that Da Vinci was actually painting Mary Magdalene is just plain f'n stupid. 12 disciples are to be depicted and artwork from the time reveals that the image of John (the youngest follower) exhibits the same femine quality as other paintings of men in art during that period. I dare you to look at this picture and see what Dan Brown claims - that John is really Mary Magdalene and the image clearly shows the reaction of a "wife" to the news that her husband was going to be executed. But, this is just a small portion of the level of deception invoked by Brown (who never cites a single source) to deliver a very pagan message. Lost in all his assertions is the fact that many of the pagan gospels were written by that cult some 100 years after the inspired works were written. The pagan gospels are goofy as hell if you bother to read them - and even a skeptic could find these pagan gospels silly and highly, highly suspect.

This is essentially why Christians feel the need to speak out - to those who are TOO F'N LAZY to actually look into the issue. So excuse the church (and I mean every single one of them - not just the Catholics or the Evangelists) for trying to inspire your lazy *** off the couch and maybe save your spirit. I guess that's not what the church should be doing ;)

And if you are really serious about becoming expertised in the subject WHY NOT READ THE NUMEROUS BOOKS WHICH CLEARLY BLOW Dan's views to shreds. It's kind of like watching the first 5 minutes of the 2003 RRS and assuming it was a close game.

Rant over.

[crawfish]

what are some of those facts? the bible is based on the same amount of facts as the book of scientology or whatever they call their book. 0. christians can't stomache the fact that they dedicate their entire life to a work of fiction, which is understandable. the bible is just like the greek myths, an attempt to simplify and explain things we don't understand in hopes that their is an afterlife because the thought of life being "over" is too overwhelming.

May I ask how you came by this opinion?

[handcrafted]

I knew that was coming.

So what you are saying is, Chrisitanity has nothing to with faith and everything to do in cold hard facts?

Hey, I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd say facts based on faith is still faith. You don't even need to answer, but you might want to ask yourself some questions.

I've asked myself the questions, over and over, and I'm still doing it. Beano does too, even if he won't admit it. :D

Not facts based on faith, it's the other way around. Christianity is faith, but faith based on historical facts, along with rationality and a coherent worldview. Faith is the understanding of the reality that exists behind the revelation we have, the knowledge of the unseen based on the seen.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. --Hebrews 11:1-3.

Faith is also a gift of God:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. --Ephesians 2:8-9

God does not want blind robots. He created free moral agents who have the capacity to understand his revelation, albeit imperfectly. The existence of logic, mathematics, etc. are reflections of God's attributes and character (like everything else). He did not create an irrational orderless universe, quite the opposite. So we should expect faith to be based on a rational view of reality.

[handcrafted]

I see your points but with the new testament in particular, there is great evidence for it's accuracy in the early years. Besides the Gospels, nonsecular writers confirm many of the people places and events. Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny all wrote before AD 120. It's also interesting to note that there is better manuscript chain evidence with the gospels than there is of Plato's writing yet that is never questioned.
Now, whether or not a person still wants to believe is still a personal choice.

There you go. Thanks, fugue, I was getting concerned that nobody else besides Beano was getting it. And we all know what that would mean. :D

[Ike]

...words...
apparently you missed the winky...

[yermom]

you must have done something right to get a wh0rn to cite the 2003 RRS :eek:

[Ike]

you must have done something right to get a wh0rn to cite the 2003 RRS :eek:


what can I say....I'm a button pusher.

[OU4LIFE]

Like I said before, you can refuse to believe the Bible is God's Word if you want to, but you can't just dismiss it as fiction with no proof.

and by the same token, you can't simply claim it as fact without the same proof. It's still a faith based system, regardless of what religion you choose.


No problem, I understand your ignorance. Most non-Christians (and, sadly, some Christians) have no idea where the Bible came from, how it was compiled, and what the doctrines of inerrancy and inspiration mean. The Bible was written down by men, in their own style, with their own personality, but with inspiration and direction by the Holy Spirit. They wrote exactly what God intended them to write, whether they were actually conscious of it or not. Some may have been aware of it more than others.

How is that not faith based? I mean, how is what they did different from Carl, down the street, writing a book and claiming that he did it with the direction of God. Dude, you and I both know he be ridiculed to no end, and his writings would be dismissed as those of a madman.


I can provide you with the titles of some books you can read if you're interested in educating yourself in Biblical scholarship.

Love to read them, as long as they aren't fiction....I have a hard time telling fiction from the truth....at least that's what the church is telling me.

[Fugue]

There you go. Thanks, fugue, I was getting concerned that nobody else besides Beano was getting it. And we all know what that would mean. :D

This is why I don't mind the book and movie coming out because if people do their own independent and thorough study of the DC claims, they will be hard pressed to debunk the New Testament.

[handcrafted]

I can't speak for anyone else. Personally, I've looked into it, and found much of what is presented as factual to be completely unsupportable, illogical, impossible and unbelievable without some degree of faith. I don't begrudge anyone having faith that what they read in the Bible is true; but I do get a little irritated when they talk down to me for not automatically accepting as fact the very things they accept on faith.

Now this statement of yours rings true! I think you do understand your position to some degree, and if I made it seem like I didn't think so, I apologize.

I think what you should do, in my opinion (how's that?), is examine why you find certain things to be unsupportable, illogical, impossible, and unbelievable. And when you examine the reasons for your feelings, really look at whether your reasons hold up to logical scrutiny, or are they just irrational ideas that you use to justify yourself.

I suspect that what you will find is that (and maybe you already did this), if you assume as a primary premise the existence of the Christian God, then the the unsupportable, illogical, impossible, and unbelievable things suddenly become supportable, logical, possible, and believable. And that's what I'm getting at.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

Now this interests me. Did God make them write it as historical fact, or did he have them make some stories up to make it more interesting so people would believe it?

And were they burning on heroin while they were writing this stuff down?

'Cause it was a normal thing to do back then...:eddie:

[SoonerInKCMO]

And were they burning on heroin while they were writing this stuff down?

'Cause it was a normal thing to do back then...:eddie:

Dude... I always heard they were doin' 'shrooms.

[Norm In Norman]

I've asked myself the questions, over and over, and I'm still doing it. Beano does too, even if he won't admit it. :D

Not facts based on faith, it's the other way around. Christianity is faith, but faith based on historical facts, along with rationality and a coherent worldview. Faith is the understanding of the reality that exists behind the revelation we have, the knowledge of the unseen based on the seen.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. --Hebrews 11:1-3.

Faith is also a gift of God:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. --Ephesians 2:8-9

God does not want blind robots. He created free moral agents who have the capacity to understand his revelation, albeit imperfectly. The existence of logic, mathematics, etc. are reflections of God's attributes and character (like everything else). He did not create an irrational orderless universe, quite the opposite. So we should expect faith to be based on a rational view of reality.
I think somehow you misunderstand me. You are using quotes from the bible to tell me how the bible is fact. I'm saying that you have no way of knowing the bible is fact - you have to use faith to believe the bible is fact. You can use things you see around you to support your faith, but unless it can be proven it is not fact. That is the definition of a fact.

People were brought into existance because of God OR people were brought into existance because of a random set of coincidences. You can use facts to support either theory, but there is no way to prove either one as fact. You just have believe one or the other or neither or both. That's faith.

Besides etouffee getting a little to worked up, I like discussions like this sometimes.

[etouffee]

Besides etouffee getting a little to worked up, I like discussions like this sometimes.Ok, ok, I'll go take my meds. Jeez.

[Norm In Norman]

And were they burning on heroin while they were writing this stuff down?

'Cause it was a normal thing to do back then...:eddie:
Are you saying possibly God wants us to do heroin? I like the way you think.

[Norm In Norman]

Ok, ok, I'll go take my meds. Jeez.
It's OK, you weren't doing any namecalling or anything. i just think you got a little too worked up about it. Go ahead and stay worked up as long as you keep staying civil about it. I don't care.

[critical_phil]

this thread makes me miss Veristass.......:(


Here's a big fat spoiler for everybody, lifted from my blog:

Brown’s books, including his abysmal best-seller The Da Vinci Code, all follow the same strict formula with little to no deviation:
1) A male protagonist, usually a professor or academic of some type with an arcane concentration that inevitably ends up being germane to the plotline of the book.
2) A female protaganist whose educational and career pedigree somehow parallels the male’s. But the female is always stunningly attractive despite being in a professsion not typically populated by attractive females. Brown always goes out of his way to work in the phrases “full breasts” and “supple body” into his physical description of the female protagonist.
3) A conspiracy theory so poorly researched that anybody with a modicum of knowledge on the subject can see the gaping holes in the theory.
4) A shadowy antagonist who is in every case the person for whom the protagonists are working.

[handcrafted]

How is that not faith based? I mean, how is what they did different from Carl, down the street, writing a book and claiming that he did it with the direction of God. Dude, you and I both know he be ridiculed to no end, and his writings would be dismissed as those of a madman.


Yeah, and a lot of the prophets were dismissed as madmen, too. So was Jesus, by a lot of people. Humans were just as discerning in the ancient world as they are now. As for Carl down the street, he'd need to show some sign from God or he's just a charlatan.

The prophets distinguished themselves as such by performing signs, wonders, and miracles by the Holy Spirit. God gave them this power to confirm that they spoke by his authority. That's why people believed them, and that's why people believed Jesus. It's true that Jesus did not appear to everyone on Earth after his Resurrection, but he did appear to a lot of people. And there's the empty tomb, for everyone to see. The empty tomb is historical fact. What do you do with that?

[Fugue]

hahahahaha wow... this is the dumbest argument for christianity, and i hear it all the time. if i told you that there is a ghost of an elephant that walks up and down lindsay street every day from 3 to 5 p.m., would you believe me? of course i have no proof, no facts, or no evidence other than i wrote a book about this elephant. but do you have any proof that it doesn't exist? no, so it must exist right? LOL wow, and people wonder why they run planes through our buildings when half of america is like you.

would you be willing to die for writing your book about that elephant?


the plane comment was uncalled for.

[Ike]

I suspect that what you will find is that (and maybe you already did this), if you assume as a primary premise the existence of the Christian God, then the the unsupportable, illogical, impossible, and unbelievable things suddenly become supportable, logical, possible, and believable. And that's what I'm getting at.


Thats a huge assumption to make without supporting evidence external to the bible. To put in other terms, its similar to saying that because string theory is consistent with itself, given its assumptions, that maybe its worth taking on faith that it is true. Regardless of the fact that there is no experimental evidence that can make any determination of its accuracy one way or the other.

[OU4LIFE]

not to point out the obvious, but TDC is just a book. If your faith is so weak that a book such as that makes you question your faith, then perhaps you need to do a little more personal searching.

IMO.

[etouffee]

And there's the empty tomb, for everyone to see. The empty tomb is historical fact. What do you do with that?What exactly does an empty tomb prove, other than the fact that there's an empty tomb? I can come up with scores of possible reasons why there might not be a body in a tomb, all of which would be more logical and plausible than a dead guy waking up and walking out of it. To believe THAT, you have to rely on faith. As I said before, I don't begrudge anyone having faith and believing that, but I don't think you can say that the mere existence of an empty tomb is a reason for me to believe some of the more far-fetched things about Jesus.

[toast]

LOL wow, and people wonder why they run planes through our buildings when half of america is like you.

This is just wrong on several levels.

[picasso]

it's a well documented fact that Jesus walked the earth. He's even mentioned in other religions writings. now whether or not you think he was the son of God in human form or just a prophet is your business but please don't try to say his entire existence was just made up in some book.

what do you believe in or have faith in starclassic? does it make you feel better inside or intellectually superior to belittle someone elses beliefs?
I'm sure if you did have faith in something you would certainly do your best to try and defend it or maybe, just maybe even spread the word.

[handcrafted]

I think somehow you misunderstand me. You are using quotes from the bible to tell me how the bible is fact. I'm saying that you have no way of knowing the bible is fact - you have to use faith to believe the bible is fact. You can use things you see around you to support your faith, but unless it can be proven it is not fact. That is the definition of a fact.

By that logic, we have no way of knowing that anyone really existed that died beyond the lifespan of anyone living. You're defining fact as that which can be empirically proven through sensory perception? That's called Logical Positivism, and it's been shown to be an incoherent and irrational philosophy for quite some time now.


People were brought into existance because of God OR people were brought into existance because of a random set of coincidences. You can use facts to support either theory, but there is no way to prove either one as fact. You just have believe one or the other or neither or both. That's faith.

Well, neither or both aren't logical options, but I'll go with one or the other. Now, which is more rational and more likely?

[handcrafted]

This is just wrong on several levels.

It looks like tama's post got deleted. I don't normally do this but to whatever admin is listening, I think a baning is in order.

[etouffee]

it's a well documented fact that Jesus walked the earth
Time out. I'm NOT saying I agree with them (<-- please read several times before launching nasty retort) , but there ARE a lot of scholars who question whether the Jesus of the Bible actually existed. Whether you think it's bunk or not, it's interesting reading.

[handcrafted]

Thats a huge assumption to make without supporting evidence external to the bible. To put in other terms, its similar to saying that because string theory is consistent with itself, given its assumptions, that maybe its worth taking on faith that it is true. Regardless of the fact that there is no experimental evidence that can make any determination of its accuracy one way or the other.

But don't some scientists do exactly that?

And to say that our view of reality must be based on what we can see is irrational and blinkered. How can you dismiss the possibility of supernatural events? You can't, logically, because it is by denfinition impossible for us to sense what is beyond our senses.

Therefore, there is no logical basis on which to dismiss the claims of the Biblical writers that they experienced supernatural events.

[yermom]

it's a well documented fact that Jesus walked the earth. He's even mentioned in other religions writings. now whether or not you think he was the son of God in human form or just a prophet is your business but please don't try to say his entire existence was just made up in some book.

what do you believe in or have faith in starclassic? does it make you feel better inside or intellectually superior to belittle someone elses beliefs?
I'm sure if you did have faith in something you would certainly do your best to try and defend it or maybe, just maybe even spread the word.

i don't think it's the beliefs that are the issue... it's the belief that someone's beliefs or even interpretations are right and even any variation is wrong and not up to debate

[picasso]

Time out. I'm NOT saying I agree with them (<-- please read several times before launching nasty retort) , but there ARE a lot of scholars who question whether the Jesus of the Bible actually existed. Whether you think it's bunk or not, it's interesting reading.
nasty retort? I've been on my best behavior in this thread.

[etouffee]

nasty retort? I've been on my best behavior in this thread.
that was general statement, not directed at anyone in particular

[picasso]

i don't think it's the beliefs that are the issue... it's the belief that someone's beliefs or even interpretations are right and even any variation is wrong and not up to debate
that's where you're missing out and I read this so many friggin times by those who try discredit Christianity.
The study of theology is very complex and it asks many questions and opens many many debates. and that's just amongst believers! to say that Christianity is close minded is a narrow statement in itself.

[picasso]

that was general statement, not directed at anyone in particular
awight.

[yermom]

that's where you're missing out and I read this so many friggin times by those who try discredit Christianity.
The study of theology is very complex and it asks many questions and opens many many debates. and that's just amongst believers! to say that Christianity is close minded is a narrow statement in itself.

i was more referring to certain posters in this thread... not all Christians are that way

[toast]

not to point out the obvious, but TDC is just a book. If your faith is so weak that a book such as that makes you question your faith, then perhaps you need to do a little more personal searching.

IMO.


I'll go so far as to say that questioning one's faith is not a bad thing. I've had times when I had to ask tough questions and do some serious soul searching. It was through those times that my faith actually became stronger.

[picasso]

i was more referring to certain posters in this thread... not all Christians are that way
agreed.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

This thread reminds me of my Grandmother's funeral.

We were all in the family car and my Dad, his two brothers and one sister were all arguing about something and my aunt goes:

'...GODDAMMIT, LISTEN TO ME - I'M A CHRISTIAN...'

I'll never forget it.

[handcrafted]

What exactly does an empty tomb prove, other than the fact that there's an empty tomb? I can come up with scores of possible reasons why there might not be a body in a tomb, all of which would be more logical and plausible than a dead guy waking up and walking out of it. To believe THAT, you have to rely on faith. As I said before, I don't begrudge anyone having faith and believing that, but I don't think you can say that the mere existence of an empty tomb is a reason for me to believe some of the more far-fetched things about Jesus.

I disagree with the bolded portion of your statement. Unless you're going to, irrationally, simply state that the circumstances surrounding Jesus burial were made up, then you can't make that statement. You must confine yourself to the recorded circumstances and go from there.

Friday: Body buried. Big huge many-ton rock rolled over the entrance. Guards posted. Sunday: Rock's rolled away to reveal body gone.

Any explanation you can come up with is refuted by the circumstances. Not only that, but people died for preaching the Resurrection. The only explanation for the Church's existence is the supernatural events on which it's based. It's that simple.

[Mjcpr]

That's touching, Booty.

[Ike]

But don't some scientists do exactly that?

And to say that our view of reality must be based on what we can see is irrational and blinkered. How can you dismiss the possibility of supernatural events? You can't, logically, because it is by denfinition impossible for us to sense what is beyond our senses.

Therefore, there is no logical basis on which to dismiss the claims of the Biblical writers that they experienced supernatural events.

I don't dismiss them (supernatural events) as impossible out of hand, but I don't just go about believing that they happen without good reason. As of yet, I don't have any good reason to believe they happen, but I keep my mind open.

And as of yet, there are no scientists (at least in my field of particle physics) that do assume string theory is true. Every single one, even String theorys most ardent supporters acknowledge the non-existence of experimental data, and even further, the non-ability of string theory to be able to predict anything we actually have the capability of measuring to be a serious problem. But people continue to work on it because it does solve some nasty theoritical issues with the particle nature of gravity in a sorta-simple way, with the hope that either a) they might be able to soon predict something we can measure, and b) that experimental techniques may improve vastly opening all kinds of doors that are currently closed. but I can't think of a single string theorist that will actually tell you it is absolute truth. Its just a pretty theory.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

That's touching Booty.

Buy me a drink first, Pat...:eddie:

[handcrafted]

i don't think it's the beliefs that are the issue... it's the belief that someone's beliefs or even interpretations are right and even any variation is wrong and not up to debate

Why exactly do you demand that I be relativistic? Truth is truth, whether you believe it or not.

And the things we've been discussing in this thread are not things that are open to debate among Christians. Many things are, but the historicity and inspiration of the Bible is not one of them.

[Mjcpr]

Buy me a drink first, Pat...:eddie:

I can't, I'm a ****ing Christian.

:D

[Norm In Norman]

By that logic, we have no way of knowing that anyone really existed that died beyond the lifespan of anyone living. You're defining fact as that which can be empirically proven through sensory perception? That's called Logical Positivism, and it's been shown to be an incoherent and irrational philosophy for quite some time now.



Well, neither or both aren't logical options, but I'll go with one or the other. Now, which is more rational and more likely?
No, I'm defining fact as the definition of fact, which is "Knowledge or information based on real occurrences." I never said I had to see it. I know my grandpa existed because my dad is alive. I never saw him though. My dad said he was a good guy. I use the faith in my dad to believe that my grandpa was a good guy, but that doesn't mean that he really was good guy (my definition of good anyways, but lets not expand on that in this example).

Neither and both are very logical conclusions. Neither, as in I admit I can't know everything so something I haven't thought of caused it to happen. Both, as in God created the universe and through a random set of events we appeared.

Personally, I think that you just can't admit that it is possible that you are wrong.

[Fugue]

What exactly does an empty tomb prove, other than the fact that there's an empty tomb? I can come up with scores of possible reasons why there might not be a body in a tomb, all of which would be more logical and plausible than a dead guy waking up and walking out of it. To believe THAT, you have to rely on faith. As I said before, I don't begrudge anyone having faith and believing that, but I don't think you can say that the mere existence of an empty tomb is a reason for me to believe some of the more far-fetched things about Jesus.

Of course it takes faith, I agree with you there but you can also look at what happened at the time. Some event at that time caused thousands of people to believe in Jesus all at once in the face of persecution and death for those beliefs. I don't think it was just the empty tomb, I believe it was the seeing Him alive afterwords.

[mdklatt]

Therefore, there is no logical basis on which to dismiss the claims of the Biblical writers that they experienced supernatural events.

I don't think Ike was trying to assert that the Bible is false, just pointing out that referring to the Bible itself to "prove" it's veracity is circular reasoning.

There is lots of truth in the Bible by objective historical and scientific standards, but that doesn't prove that the whole thing is true. Biblical literalists tread on a slippery slope, because if you maintain that the Bible is inerrant all it takes is one error to unravel the whole thing. No wonder the fundamentalists are afraid of science.

[handcrafted]

I don't dismiss them (supernatural events) as impossible out of hand, but I don't just go about believing that they happen without good reason. As of yet, I don't have any good reason to believe they happen, but I keep my mind open.

And as of yet, there are no scientists (at least in my field of particle physics) that do assume string theory is true. Every single one, even String theorys most ardent supporters acknowledge the non-existence of experimental data, and even further, the non-ability of string theory to be able to predict anything we actually have the capability of measuring to be a serious problem. But people continue to work on it because it does solve some nasty theoritical issues with the particle nature of gravity in a sorta-simple way, with the hope that either a) they might be able to soon predict something we can measure, and b) that experimental techniques may improve vastly opening all kinds of doors that are currently closed. but I can't think of a single string theorist that will actually tell you it is absolute truth. Its just a pretty theory.

Ah, okay, I stand corrected. I saw a thingy on PBS on string theory last year and remembered it a bit differently.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

I can't, I'm a ****ing Christian.

:D

Well, then - looks like you fit right in...:eddie:

[handcrafted]

No, I'm defining fact as the definition of fact, which is "Knowledge or information based on real occurrences." I never said I had to see it. I know my grandpa existed because my dad is alive. I never saw him though. My dad said he was a good guy. I use the faith in my dad to believe that my grandpa was a good guy, but that doesn't mean that he really was good guy (my definition of good anyways, but lets expand on that in this example).

Neither and both are very logical conclusions. Neither, as in I admit I can't know everything so something I haven't thought of caused it to happen. Both, as in God created the universe and through a random set of events we appeared.

Personally, I think that you just can't admit that it is possible that you are wrong.

No, it's possible that I'm wrong about a lot of things. What I won't admit, because it's not true, is that my faith is not rational.

[Fugue]

Well, then - looks like you fit right in...:eddie:

Don't you two have a Slickdawg "pickon" to go to? :texan:

[Ike]

Ah, okay, I stand corrected. I saw a thingy on PBS on string theory last year and remembered it a bit differently.

I saw the thingy on PBS as well, Brian Greene right? He did a good job of explaning what string theory says, which does need doing because it says some pretty wacky stuff. But I never got the impression that he was claiming it was true. In fact, I seem to remember at the end of the last show in the series (it was either 2 or 3 parts if I remember right) he went through the problems facing string theory, like the fact that we don't have any experimental evidence supporting it, and that the equations are so tough to solve that they can't even give us a hard number for what ST says the electron mass should be.

[etouffee]

Unless you're going to, irrationally, simply state that the circumstances surrounding Jesus burial were made up, then you can't make that statement.Sure I can, and I just did. Further, it would not be irrational to say the story was made up; on the contrary, it would be entirely rational. Since the story has an illogical and improbable/impossible outcome (supernatural disappearance of a dead body), it is more rational to assume the story is false than to accept it as true simply because someone wrote it.


You must confine yourself to the recorded circumstances and go from there.I must do nothing of the sort. Are you really suggesting that if something is written (thousands of years ago, no less, and decades after the actual event took place), people must accept it on its face and not speculate about other possible explanations for what happened (or didn't happen). Sorry, but that's absurd.


Any explanation you can come up with is refuted by the circumstances. Actually, any explanation I can come up with is simply different than the story someone wrote in the Bible. But it would also more rational and plausible once faith is removed from the equation.


Not only that, but people died for preaching the Resurrection.People throughout history have died for saying lots of controversial things, that doesn't make them true.


The only explanation for the Church's existence is the supernatural events on which it's based. It's that simple.False. It might be more accurate to say that the only explanation for the Church's existence is faith based belief in a story about supernatural events, but even that wouldn't be true. There are many reasons for the existence of the church. Some involve a persistent willingness to believe the unbelievable by large numbers of people (albeit sometimes under threat of execution) . Some don't involve supernatural events at all. Politics, for example, played a huge role.

[handcrafted]

I don't think Ike was trying to assert that the Bible is false, just pointing out that referring to the Bible itself to "prove" it's veracity is circular reasoning.

All reasoning is "circular", in a sense, because to reason logically you have to have some kind of starting point that's assumed to be true.


There is lots of truth in the Bible by objective historical and scientific standards, but that doesn't prove that the whole thing is true. Biblical literalists tread on a slippery slope, because if you maintain that the Bible is inerrant all it takes is one error to unravel the whole thing. No wonder the fundamentalists are afraid of science.

Yes, they often are, and that's sad. "Inerrancy" if properly understood does not mean "free from error", it means "free from meaningful error". There have been mistakes in copying and translation of the Bible over the centuries, and through scholarship they are discovered and fixed. But there's never been one that changes the intent or affects the reading of the text in any meaningful way.

[handcrafted]

Sure I can, and I just did. Further, it would not be irrational to say the story was made up; on the contrary, it would be entirely rational. Since the story has an illogical and improbable/impossible outcome (supernatural disappearance of a dead body), it is more rational to assume the story is false than to accept it as true simply because someone wrote it.

I must do nothing of the sort. Are you really suggesting that if something is written (thousands of years ago, no less, and decades after the actual event took place), people must accept it on its face and not speculate about other possible explanations for what happened (or didn't happen). Sorry, but that's absurd.

Actually, any explanation I can come up with is simply different than the story someone wrote in the Bible. But it would also more plausible.

People throughout history have died for saying lots of controversial things, that doesn't make them true.

False. It might be more accurate to say that the only explanation for the Church's existence is faith based belief in a story about supernatural events, but even that wouldn't be true. There are many reasons for the existence of the church. Some involve a persistent willingness to believe the unbelievable by large numbers of people (albeit sometimes under threat of execution) that don't involve supernatural events at all. Politics, for example, played a huge role.

Alright, I'm out. I've nothing more to say than I've already said, and I don't have any more time to pick apart such an amazing array of illogical assumptions.

[OU4LIFE]

I still say this is darn good reading.

Nice job of keeping it civil everyone.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

I still say this is darn good reading.

Nice job of keeping it civil everyone.

:les: SCREW YOU, BUDDY!

[OU4LIFE]

:les: SCREW YOU, BUDDY!


I now have documented proof of an offer.

thanks.

If I would have known losing weight would have gotten me this i'd have done it a long time ago.

RAAAAAWR.:mack:

[Norm In Norman]

No, it's possible that I'm wrong about a lot of things. What I won't admit, because it's not true, is that my faith is not rational.
Wait a second - you just called it faith. So you are admitting it's faith, therefore it could possibly be wrong?

I don't think believing in the bible is irrational at all. Not recognizing that there is a possiblility that you could be wrong about it all is a little irrational though. That doesn't mean you ARE wrong, it just means you COULD BE wrong.

I don't believe in ghosts, but I do accept the fact that I might be wrong about that. Same thing.

[Fugue]

I agree, good stuff everybody. :twinkies:

[Norm In Norman]

Have you ever noticed that whenever someone says they are out, they are never really out? He'll read this thread again, that's guaranteed. He might not reply to it though. But probably will.

[sanantoniosooner]

I didn't say that I was out, but it was implied by no longer posting.

until now.

[leavingthezoo]

Tunafish said: if i told you that there is a ghost of an elephant that walks up and down lindsay street every day from 3 to 5 p.m., would you believe me?


it depends. are there ghost elephant footprints in the butter?

[Scott D]

alright now that you know who is 'out' we can have a civil discourse that isn't so presumtively condescending. :)

[LSUdeek]

i would like to say that not all of us tiger fans hate Jesus.

... that is all ...

by the way we yelled "Tigah Bait" at Press Gillham at our church soon after the sugar bowl. :D he came wearing an OU hat and left wearing the NC. :D

[Okla-homey]

Man, all I wanted to do was contrast the Christian response to a perceived blasphemy with the Islamic response and 181 posts later....

Oh well, IMHO we just need to respect each other and try to keep the discourse civil whenever possible.

[TUSooner]

I still haven't read the book (I think my daughter has a copy.) But from what I've read on a few secular "debunking" sites, it seems like such a no-brainer that the entire "historical" underpinning of the plot is a well-known, pitifuly ridiculous hoax.
See, for example: http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2004/12/29/da_vinci_code/index.html

As I'm all in favor of exposing BS, let 'er rip!

And I forgot to add an AMEN to Homey's post. :)

[slickdawg]

I haven't read it, and I'm not going to. I doubt I'll watch the movie, at least
until it's on STARZ.


just sayin'

[SleestakSooner]

This thread reminds me of my Grandmother's funeral.

We were all in the family car and my Dad, his two brothers and one sister were all arguing about something and my aunt goes:

'...GODDAMMIT, LISTEN TO ME - I'M A CHRISTIAN...'

I'll never forget it.

Back a few years ago I was attending an OU home game vs. TCU and found some tickets in the visitors section. The game was not very close and I just happened to be sitting behind probably the loudest, most obnoxious TCU fan in the crowd. OU went up by another touchdown and I started yelling and jumping up and down. The guy shot me a nasty look over his shoulder. I decided it was time to test his gumption:D

I casually turned to my friend and (this was just after the formation of the big 12) asked him loud enough for those around to hear... "what conference is TCU in?" Knowing full well that they had lobbied hard to become part of the big 12 and had lost out to Baylor.

This fellow turns around and starts yelling at me "God Dammit, you know damn well we are in the (insert mid-major conference here)!":eddie:

I said back to him just as loudly... "well that's a mighty christian attitude you have there sir!"

The TCU cheerleader's mom sitting to my right leaned over and said don't worry not all TCU fans are like that.

Despite all their protestations, I find that I am just as capable of being ripped off, berated and mistreated by folks calling themselves good christians as I am by anyone else.

I plan on watching the movie, it sounds fun.

[starclassic tama]

most might think the plane comment was out of line, but i don't. americans are perceived by the rest of the world as intolerant and holiar than thou in attitude, much like handcrafted. thus the animosity towards us, and the terrorist attacks. and whoever asked about my faith, i don't really know how to classify it. i keep my faith in love and the world around me, things i can easily understand and identify with, and believe in. i know there is a power above humans, just not sure what it is. my main complaint with the bible is how it makes god out to be just like a super powerful human, which i think is ridiculous. they say it took him 7 days to create the earth? how does that work? what is time to god? how long did it take him to make saturn then? then it says he rested afterwards, how does god get tired? i decided not to read anymore after that.

[Norm In Norman]

Well, my laziness is the only reason you aren't banned, ie it's easier to delete a post than a user. I won't be so lazy next time, and my opinion about what's out of line is the one that counts.

[handcrafted]

Despite all their protestations, I find that I am just as capable of being ripped off, berated and mistreated by folks calling themselves good christians as I am by anyone else.


Me too!

What a coincidence!

[etouffee]

americans are perceived by the rest of the world as intolerant and holiar than thou in attitude.. thus the animosity towards us, and the terrorist attacks. Yeah, those Islamic extremists get really irritated by people who are intolerant of other beliefs and have holier than thou attitudes. and justifiably so. :rolleyes:

[sanantoniosooner]

they say it took him 7 days to create the earth? how does that work? what is time to god? how long did it take him to make saturn then? then it says he rested afterwards, how does god get tired? i decided not to read anymore after that.
I quit watching the Superman movies when he hitchhiked to the fortress of solitude. Who the heck would be driving that direction?

[Scott D]

I quit watching the Superman movies when he hitchhiked to the fortress of solitude. Who the heck would be driving that direction?

or was that an indictment of why you don't do stupid things like give up super powers because you love a woman who will eventually go psycho ;)

[yermom]

she was never that hot anyway... i think Superman could do better than Margot Kidder

now Teri Hatcher... that was a step in the right direction

[Scott D]

I'm convinced hotness wasn't a prerequisite....Annette O'Toole back in the day however..... ;)

[Boarder]

Man, all I wanted to do was contrast the Christian response to a perceived blasphemy with the Islamic response and 181 posts later....

Oh well, IMHO we just need to respect each other and try to keep the discourse civil whenever possible.
I actually thought the original question in this thread was a great one. If this was a Mohammed movie, Opie'd be on the mega-jihad-hit list.

[usmc-sooner]

Back a few years ago I was attending an OU home game vs. TCU and found some tickets in the visitors section. The game was not very close and I just happened to be sitting behind probably the loudest, most obnoxious TCU fan in the crowd. OU went up by another touchdown and I started yelling and jumping up and down. The guy shot me a nasty look over his shoulder. I decided it was time to test his gumption:D

.

I call Bull**** what game did we play with TCU after the formation of the B12 that wasn't close

[proud gonzo]

isn't it "brouhaha"? :confused:

[GottaHavePride]

Sure I can, and I just did. Further, it would not be irrational to say the story was made up; on the contrary, it would be entirely rational. Since the story has an illogical and improbable/impossible outcome (supernatural disappearance of a dead body), it is more rational to assume the story is false than to accept it as true simply because someone wrote it.

I must do nothing of the sort. Are you really suggesting that if something is written (thousands of years ago, no less, and decades after the actual event took place), people must accept it on its face and not speculate about other possible explanations for what happened (or didn't happen). Sorry, but that's absurd.

Actually, any explanation I can come up with is simply different than the story someone wrote in the Bible. But it would also more rational and plausible once faith is removed from the equation.

People throughout history have died for saying lots of controversial things, that doesn't make them true.

False. It might be more accurate to say that the only explanation for the Church's existence is faith based belief in a story about supernatural events, but even that wouldn't be true. There are many reasons for the existence of the church. Some involve a persistent willingness to believe the unbelievable by large numbers of people (albeit sometimes under threat of execution) . Some don't involve supernatural events at all. Politics, for example, played a huge role.

I am unable to spek you at this time. However I would add that many of the things you point out are why I've been reading a lot of Taoist writings recently.

[proud gonzo]

etouffee gets my vote for best recent addition to the SO. ymssr... :D

[GottaHavePride]

Plus, :bsmf:

:D

[handcrafted]

I am unable to spek you at this time. However I would add that many of the things you point out are why I've been reading a lot of Taoist writings recently.

Oh, gee. Those are the bastion of reliability.

:rolleyes:

[handcrafted]

Back in, because my son is ill and I'm up at 5am.


Sure I can, and I just did. Further, it would not be irrational to say the story was made up; on the contrary, it would be entirely rational. Since the story has an illogical and improbable/impossible outcome (supernatural disappearance of a dead body), it is more rational to assume the story is false than to accept it as true simply because someone wrote it.

Fallacy: supernatural events are illogical and impossible because I don't understand how they could happen.


I must do nothing of the sort. Are you really suggesting that if something is written (thousands of years ago, no less, and decades after the actual event took place), people must accept it on its face and not speculate about other possible explanations for what happened (or didn't happen). Sorry, but that's absurd.

Fallacy: The document is old, therefore it is most likely inaccurate. (Once again, people have studied and explored these "other possible explanations" for 2000 years). Nobody treats Aristotle, Plato, and Archimedes this way. They treat the Bible this way because they are biased against religious texts for no reason. Fallacy: it's a religious text, therefore it's unreliable. Fallacy: ancient people were stupid dolts who accepted everything that anyone told them no matter how silly it sounded.


Actually, any explanation I can come up with is simply different than the story someone wrote in the Bible. But it would also more rational and plausible once faith is removed from the equation.

Fallacy: faith is irrational. Fallacy: Only non-faith based worldviews are logical. Fallacy: it's possible to have no faith at all in anything. Fallacy: it's possible to have a rational worldview without borrowing Christian paradigms.


People throughout history have died for saying lots of controversial things, that doesn't make them true.

This is true. The fact that people martyred themselves because they believed that Jesus rose from the dead is not sufficient proof in and of itself. It is, however, one piece of the evidentiary puzzle. People rarely will die for something they know is a lie. It is far more likely that the Apostles and early Christians really believed that the Resurrection actually happened.

Fact: I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

[etouffee]

You are deliberately attributing positions to me that I have not articulated, in a veiled attempt to deceive other readers of this dialogue. This is offensive to me and it reflects very poorly on your skill as a debater. Further, it seriously calls your integrity into question. I would ask that you refrain from doing this going forward, and simply address my statements in an honest and straightforward manner, rather than mendaciously extrapolating weak fallacies from them for effect. Thanks in advance.

[sanantoniosooner]

in a veiled attempt to deceive other readers of this dialogue.
there are no readers of this dialogue.......only victims.........;)

[handcrafted]

You are deliberately attributing positions to me that I have not articulated, in a veiled attempt to deceive other readers of this dialogue. This is offensive to me and it reflects very poorly on your skill as a debater. Further, it seriously calls your integrity into question. I would ask that you refrain from doing this going forward, and simply address my statements in an honest and straightforward manner, rather than mendaciously extrapolating weak fallacies from them for effect. Thanks in advance.

I have accurately depicted every single argument you have made, sir. In fact, I have heard them all before. You have said nothing new. You simply do not want to admit that I have you over a barrel, logically.

It is you who are misrepresenting my position out of ignorance, or in a veiled attempt to deceive others about what Christianity teaches. This is offensive to me and I will not stand for falsehood paraded as truth, if in fact you do have a concept of truth. Your illogic reflects poorly upon your ability to debate and to think properly. I will not call your integrity into question because I assume that your behavior is the result of your rebellion against God and your suppression of the truth in unrighteousness, rather than a conscious effort to be deceitful. I would ask you, however, as far as it is possible for you, to refrain from attacking my character, and instead either deal with the questions I have asked which you have evaded, or cease the dialogue. You are not engaging in arguments, you are engaging in ad hominem.

You are expressing your views forcefully, with conviction, and so am I (BTW that shows that you do have faith in something). You are stating your arguments as fact, and so am I. We both can't be right, so the question is, who has the true argument and who has the false? I have pointed out that your position is based on a set of premises, or assumptions, that you cannot possibly show to be true in all cases. You are being inconsistent. And that, by the way, is what I meant when I said your worldview was incoherent.

This is meant to be an honest discussion, and I have intended it that way. It is my prayer that you come to a knowledge of the truth, but this is not something that one person can argue another into. It will satisfy me enough if I can get you to admit that my position is rational.

[SleestakSooner]

It's no wonder I could never get a decent grade in Logic classes!

Somebody save me from this thread! Jesus, jesus... anyone?

Oh hell... where is that ignore button again?

[etouffee]

Admit you're rational? Seriously? After that last post, I'd be hard pressed to admit that you're sane, much less rational. And I certainly won't debate anyone so blatantly deceptive and dishonest. (And in the name of his own God no less...for shame) Yes, I'm sure you'll use that as an excuse to pound your chest and declare victory here, but you haven't won a thing: no one who disagreed at the start has been swayed to your side. And I haven't fled the fight, but withdrawn out of disgust and contempt for your dishonesty. (If there's someone else who would like to take up the Church's position and continue the debate in an honest fashion, by all means let's continue, but I'm done with this fellow) Yes, you can say I occasionally argue with sarcasm and ad hominem, and I'll concede that and even say it's an area I need to work on. But what I do NOT do, sir, is lie to try and win arguments. You do. I do hope your God will forgive you for doing so on his behalf, but I can't imagine he'll be too happy about it.

[handcrafted]

Admit you're rational? Seriously? After that last post, I'd be hard pressed to admit that you're sane, much less rational. And I certainly won't debate anyone so blatantly deceptive and dishonest. (And in the name of his own God no less...for shame) Yes, I'm sure you'll use that as an excuse to pound your chest and declare victory here, but you haven't won a thing: no one who disagreed at the start has been swayed to your side. And I haven't fled the fight, but withdrawn out of disgust and contempt for your dishonesty. (If there's someone else who would like to take up the Church's position and continue the debate in an honest fashion, by all means let's continue, but I'm done with this fellow) Yes, you can say I occasionally argue with sarcasm and ad hominem, and I'll concede that and even say it's an area I need to work on. But what I do NOT do, sir, is lie to try and win arguments. You do. I do hope your God will forgive you for doing so on his behalf, but I can't imagine he'll be too happy about it.

Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. -- Jesus (Matthew 5:11-12)

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.
5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
-- Psalm 2:1-5 (KJV)

And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. -- Simon Peter, the Apostle (Acts 3:17-21)

[crawfish]

Are we still talking about the DaVinci code? :confused:

[handcrafted]

Are we still talking about the DaVinci code? :confused:

Yes, now pay attention. :D

Wait, you're alive!!! I thought you'd been stuffed into some chicken?

[SleestakSooner]

Definitely time for Wapner. Yeah, Wapner, definitely Wapner.

[SleestakSooner]

http://aurores.polaires.free.fr/croix_etoile.jpg

[SleestakSooner]

http://aurores.polaires.free.fr/13.jpg

[TUSooner]

Update: I still have not read the book.
That is all.

[BeetDigger]

Update: I still have not read the book.
That is all.

Yes, but have you seen the Mona Lisa?

[OU4LIFE]

Update: I still have not read the book.
That is all.

Dude, it's actually an entertaining read, as long as you realize that it's just a "story", not a factual account of anything. It seems that some people have trouble discerning the two.

[etouffee]

clearly.

[crawfish]

Dude, it's actually an entertaining read, as long as you realize that it's just a "story", not a factual account of anything. It seems that some people have trouble discerning the two.

Such as the author. ;)

[TUSooner]

Dude, it's actually an entertaining read, as long as you realize that it's just a "story", not a factual account of anything. It seems that some people have trouble discerning the two.



Such as the author. ;)
Exactly! ;)

4LIFE - My comment about "still" not having read it was intended to be inane -- a counterpoint to the ranting of etouffee and handcrafted, if you will. I think I might know the difference between fact, fiction, and fraud even better than Dan Brown does. (So how come he's got so much more money than I do?) I would have started reading TDC last night, but my daughter does not have a copy after all. Heck, if I could suspend by disbelief to suffer thorugh the dismally disappointing "National Treasure," I think can manage Brown. I'm interested to see if the story is all that good, or if, without the scent of a true conspiracy, it's just hack suspense like some (secular) reviewers have said.

[starclassic tama]

Yeah, those Islamic extremists get really irritated by people who are intolerant of other beliefs and have holier than thou attitudes. and justifiably so. :rolleyes:

i never said it was justifiable what they did. it was disgusting. i also never said that they were more tolerant of others beliefs than christians. i just said that is why they did what they did, and that's true. go ahead and ban me for stating a fact, next time i'll say the exact same thing in a more politically correct way and nobody will even notice what i said.

[crawfish]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah and nobody will even notice what i said.

I didn't notice what you said the first time.

[etouffee]

i just said that is why they did what they did, and that's true.You really, seriously, believe and want others to believe that the 9-11 hijackers did what they did because the US is intolerant and has a holier-than-thou attitude? Seriously? And you weren't like, on something when you wrote that?

:rolleyes:

[yermom]

at the root of it, i think that is probably a correct statement

[Scott D]

(insert random scriptures quote)

I think we would appreciate if you would refrain from quoting scriptures. Everyone including you is going to hell. You've already told us as such..afterall we're being penalized for an act by a single tart thousands of years ago. No point in arguing anything to prove your point when your point is cancelled out by your devoutness in insisting that everyone is doomed to hell before conception.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

Can I play the part of the tart when this thing goes Hollywood?

[Scott D]

Can I play the part of the tart when this thing goes Hollywood?

I had you written in for the waterlogged bint...but I'll see what I can do ;)

[etouffee]

at the root of it, i think that is probably a correct statementExplain.

[yermom]

Explain.

they hate us because we are trying to convert their part of the world to be like ours. our way of life is obviously better than theirs. our god too.

the only way they can get to us is they way they have/are, they can't do anything in a standard military way

[Scott D]

You really, seriously, believe and want others to believe that the 9-11 hijackers did what they did because the US is intolerant and has a holier-than-thou attitude? Seriously? And you weren't like, on something when you wrote that?

:rolleyes:

How about if it's phrased more along the lines with "a certain world view of americans as a whole having a preconcieved notion of being well, better than everyone else. Then combine with that a building resentment amongst persons whose idea of dealing with matters is to exact some form of retribution in a shock type of destructive manner."

One should never say that was the sole or primary reason why they did what they did, however it can legitimately be argued that our national arrogance, real or percieved did play a role in the matter.

[etouffee]

One should never say that was the sole or primary reason why they did what they did, however it can legitimately be argued that our national arrogance, real or percieved did play a role in the matter.I'll go along with that. Not that I'm fully convinced that it played a role-- only that you can make a legitimate argument along those lines. The original poster framed it in such as way as to imply it was the sole reason for the act.

[Scott D]

I'll go along with that. Not that I'm fully convinced that it played a role-- only that you can make a legitimate argument along those lines. The original poster framed it in such as way as to imply it was the sole reason for the act.

Oh I agree and that's why I wouldn't have defended how he worded it.

[mdklatt]

they hate us because we are trying to convert their part of the world to be like ours.

They hate us simply because we're different. It doesn't matter what we do or don't do in the Middle East. As long as there are non-Muslims to convert or kill there will be Islamist crazies. If they ever run out of indidels they'll start killing each other--wait, they already do that. If Christianity is a guide, after a few more centuries of killing they'll settle down and take a more salesmanship-oriented approach to the business of conversion.

[Boarder]

Can I play the part of the tart when this thing goes Hollywood?


Poet

Didn't know it

[Mjcpr]

Feet show it.

[sooneron]

It's so much fun to read this thread about such an average book. It starts out good, but becomes all Clancy-like in the second half.

[Mjcpr]

It's so much fun to read this thread about such an average book. It starts out good, but becomes all Clancy-like in the second half.

Chuck Long used to do the same thing; you see what happened to him.

[mdklatt]

It's so much fun to read this thread about such an average book.

With all the free publicity he's getting from his detractors Dan Brown will be laughing all the way to the bank.

[Boarder]

With all the free publicity he's getting from his detractors Dan Brown will be laughing all the way to the bank.
ARE laughing to the bank.

[etouffee]

You mean IS?

[Boarder]

You mean IS?
You are deliberately attributing grammar to me that I have not articulated, in a veiled attempt to deceive other readers of this dialogue. This is offensive to me and it reflects very poorly on your skill as a debater. Further, it seriously calls your integrity into question. I would ask that you refrain from doing this going forward, and simply address my statements in an honest and straightforward manner, rather than mendaciously extrapolating weak fallacies from them for effect. Thanks in advance.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

Copy + Paste = AWESOME!

[etouffee]

Let me guess... you want to convince me that it's perfectly rational for you to say "Dan Brown ARE laughing all the way to the bank." even though it is completely illogical and can be demonstrated to be incorrect, right?

[Boarder]

Let me guess... you want to convince me that it's perfectly rational for you to say "Dan Brown ARE laughing all the way to the bank." even though it is completely illogical and can be demonstrated to be incorrect, right?
Just to be clear. After a year of mostly positive experience, in which I had decided to become an Elite Sponsor, I started the Hollis Board, I had a 46,000 spek rating based on real spek not betting over two season and 1500 posts, in the last four weeks I can see this board is a place I don't want to be or patronize. There are two other boards which I believe have at least equivalent football knowledge without the abusive environment. I am taking my business elsewhere.

John W. Helander
President & CEO
GrayBox Services Ltd. &
eState Auction House Ltd.

[crawfish]

You mean IS?

I highly doubt he has to go to the bank himself anymore.

[TUSooner]

they hate us because we are trying to convert their part of the world to be like ours. our way of life is obviously better than theirs. our god too.

the only way they can get to us is they way they have/are, they can't do anything in a standard military way
Plus, we've given them Adam Sandler movies and Paris Hilton and stuff.



:twinkies:
(No, I don't know why I put those there.)

[etouffee]

Plus, we've given them Adam Sandler movies and Paris Hilton and stuff. Ok, now being ****ed about THAT, I can understand.

[Sooner_Bob]

Sooooooo . . . when's the debate about The Chronicles of Narnia going to start?

[BeetDigger]

Sooooooo . . . when's the debate about The Chronicles of Narnia going to start?


Yeah, it's hard to believe that some group isn't protesting them.

I like it how people can say shows that depict good things about Christianity = bad. But shows that put down Christianity = good.

[crawfish]

Sooooooo . . . when's the debate about The Chronicles of Narnia going to start?

You obviously missed the Tilde Swinton thread. :D

[starclassic tama]

They hate us simply because we're different. It doesn't matter what we do or don't do in the Middle East. As long as there are non-Muslims to convert or kill there will be Islamist crazies. If they ever run out of indidels they'll start killing each other--wait, they already do that. If Christianity is a guide, after a few more centuries of killing they'll settle down and take a more salesmanship-oriented approach to the business of conversion.

i agree with this to a point. they point us out and hate us because we are the strongest and most powerful country in the world, and we don't see things the same way they do.

[OU4LIFE]

Let me guess... you want to convince me that it's perfectly rational for you to say "Dan Brown ARE laughing all the way to the bank." even though it is completely illogical and can be demonstrated to be incorrect, right?


Well considering all the cash that Dan Brown has already made, he nearly a corporation unto himself, so are can be considered correct in this instance. You can guaran-damn-tee that the book publishers are enjoying this windfall as well.

BTW, any of you that don't believe in exactly what I believe in are completely wrong and misguided, and I hate you.