|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 21, 2006 19:38:34 GMT -5
A couple of points Dis. First. Are you really attempting to say that Brown did not go around initially stating that the book was considerably based upon facts, including his facts page, and that it wasn't until he was outed by honest folks that he began to change his tune quite dramatically? No, I wasn't trying to imply that at all. I never knew Brown had originally tried to pass his novel off as fact. This is the first I've heard of that actually. What I was saying is that I've seen him publicly say that his novel was fiction. Consensus according to who? Organized religion? Most who have read his book (though that would be kind of hard)? Please post some fact to substantiate this generalization. Well, I like to read, like to go to movies and like to discuss things. Oh, well ... if that makes me gullible then so be it. A photo of what? Not sure I follow you here... "based upon a photo after the crucifixion." There seems to be no malcontent towards the image and if it were heresy I think they might have replaced it. However, it remains there today. Perhaps a more plausible arugment would have been, there's nothing in the (four) scriptures she was the wife of Jesus. But, you chose a much more emotional route. I remember a similar tactic being used in a similar topic not too long ago. Forgive me, but you're losing me with your emotion and sarcasm. No, he was journalist telling a story. A story that he admits he can't trace. No objectivity here. Just the same emotion I cited before. No secret there. Please see the Vatican Library . They've even labelled one of their fields on the left of the screen, "Secret Archives." I found it funny actually. I'll concede on this fact for the time being. I was always led to believe that there was a section of the library not open to the public. If I find it, I'll post it. I find this statement consistent with your emotion and sarcasm. It does nothing for your argument. Montreal, I respect your passion and you're right to viable arguments. I've spent 23 years in uniform defending that principal. However, I do not respect the sarcasm in which you formulated your arguments. And forgive me, but I'm rather surprised to see a devout Catholic such as yourself bastardizing the Lord's name in order to make a sarcastic point. Confusing. Franko tried to start a discussion on topic that has many, many people talking about it around the globe. But, it has quickly digressed to the point where now we have community members opting not to participate for the reasons they've cited in this thread. None of us need to be reminded of this, but I feel I have no option at this point. I recall another heated debate not so long ago in which a community member used "the Good Ship Sarcasm" to convey his points to you specifically. I also remember you feeling quite wronged and appealing to the moderators for just action. And now this? Quite honestly, I've read a lot of your material since you've been a member and I've enjoyed it thoroughly. However, I find sarcasm isn't something you need given how well read you are. I'm now going to discuss this book with anyone who wishes to do so. I hope you continue to participate. Cheers. Dis..I should get better at theis posting and quoting thing. I am beginning to accept, that you really have absolutely no idea how offensive this book is to the Catholic church and Christianity and to me. If and as you say it I shall accept it, if you really are unaware that Brown went to very considerable trouble to present his stuff as factual and is widely reported as such, then I will just accept that. Your own animus towrds organized religion emerges in this context because the books pointing out his falsehoods, ignorance of really basic stuff, and false claims aren't the work of "organized" religion, but a whole industry. If you were genuinely unaware that he encouraged his dishonest work to be perceived as significantly historical, then, what can I say, but that you have missed an entire industry that is still based upon his public and false claims. That you suspect another plot of organized religion, is an odd coincidence. There is a book entitled "The Da Vinci Hoax" and inumerable other items and I have seen the BBC Hoax piece twice in the last couple of years. Frankly Dis, the whole world minus a few people know the book was presented as historically based, including THE NEW YORK TIMES which I have posted twice now. I am and hve given you sources. If you really have missed the above, then I can grasp how you might find the visceral repugnace I have for the fraud, who indeed, now that he's cashed in is acknowledging that it was based upon the ramblings and forgeries of a convicted con man. You maybe really don't get how bizarre it is to be in this little twilight zone of literary fraud. If you had read the admittedly long post from the link on the unit, then you might understand why I find the labelling of Christ as a possibly adulterous fraud, and his church a group of people bent on even murdering the little Jeeslings, a profound outrage. Quite frankly, if you when you check and determine that he did indeed claim hostoricity, you as a citizen of western civilization and all of your ancestry are similarly maligned and dismisssed as imbeciles for 2000 years. You do not seem to be currently cognisant of the fact that that guy Peter in the bible isn't just a name we know from the bible and that the gospel figures were real people, just like you and me, walking around like you and me, breathing, talking, doing. Jesus started an organized religion. Sorry about that. It is not intelligently arguable. The people who were there, were right there and surrendered their very lifes attesting to what they saw. So what, they somehow managed to miss the crucifixion of Jesus? Quite an oversight, that. Too stupid for words. What you dismiss in my response as emotional and to be ignored, is nothing but the full colour illustration of just how incredibly stupid the ridiculous premise of the Da Vinci code is. Do you mean to say that Jesus did not commission Peter to feed his sheep, that he did not appear to Paul who knew exactly where to go to present himlself. Are you saying that Peter acknowledged his denial of denying Jesus three tiimes for personal agrandizement. So... all these guys who were the apostles and disciples of Chist....the actual peop;e who spent more than three years with him, they didn't get the events of his life and death right? What can I say. The patristic documents are very clear. The history is very clear. The actual person to person experience and written record is very clear. I am not using a tactic for God's sake, it appears as absloutely absurd and ridiculous only because it is absurd and ridiculous. It's frankly, almost too stupid for words. Surely you must be able to see this. I'll say it again: if Brown had not tried VERY SUCCESSFULLY (see NY TIMES review ) to present his bullship as historical, then it would to me be nothing but a dull and stupid novel of extremely insensitive content. That's it. This board is but another testimony to that not being the case. I am very happy to debate all manner of things, but and I hope this will be the last time I have to say it, ......if one, you or anyone else takes it upon themselves to gratuitously slander and unjustly accuse and malign others, including Christ, and the entire history of western civilizaton and its most fundamental institutions, then, unless this excellent board is degraded to bigotry and injustice, somebody should speak up. As to me as a Catholic maligning Christ, I can only suggset that you reread what I have written, tedious as that might be. Finally Dis, I too very much enjoy reading your posts and it is not my intention to insult. When I speak of the extremely gullible, I speak of people who have taken the book, and there are millions, as being somewhat historical. Pathetic but true. Incidentally the word "secret" in European Romance usage does not mean the same thing as the English use of the word "secret" meaning something not meant to be known. Skilly's use of the words secret earlier had that same iimplication of sinister concealment about it as was clear from the context. The Vatican has released documents and granted access to boa fide scholars in a very great many areas. That they have not turned all of the archives into some variation of a public library, is hardly surprising to me, and of very doubtful practicality. I have only a little idea of the care and expense of even maintaining and preserving the heritage there. Quite frankly, I find more than a little suspicioius, the implicit idea that they are rightly to be mistrusted and must be hiding something. No offence, but what a crock. What on earth do any of you conspiraciy theorists expect to find behind a door with "secret" written one it. I'm sure Dan Brown, who makes a living off the living church and its founder, is working on it, bit for any conspiracy theorists out there along with Skilly, what after the opening of documents of the Spanish Inquisition does one imagine they are trying to hide? I mean really, try to think about it a little. Scholars have had access to the documents as recent as WWII relating to the very pernicious slanders and accuastions against Pope Pius XII who ironically was unequalled in helping Jews escape death. Dis; I will continue to vigorously defend the both the claims and teachong of the church and respond vigorously to mere bigotry and slander. That doesn't at all mean I'm going to defend the pontificate of Alexander VI or Judas for that matter and neither do I consider myself to be unbalanced in my evaluation of her, which is immensely positive and appreciative. It is of course my simple duty to do so as it is that of you guys to defend your dogmas. Ironically what's his face (Howard) who produced or directed the Da Vinco code is just pontificating on his funny idea of what dogma is. Sadly I suspect it's a common misperception, equating it with some stupid form of anti-intellectualism a polar opposite of what it is. Such incomprehension is common. Anyhow, I hope I have made explicable why I find this author and his work dishonest and malicious. I suspect that in the interests of fairness, if you come to see that indeed he has until recently, and under worldwide pressure, now changed his tune as to it being historical or not, that you will agree that a vigorous opposition to his many slanders was entirely appropriate with a sense of honour and justice. Much of our disageement stems from your not being aware of his presenting his work as somehow remotely tied to reality and not the twilight zone. I am happy to further discuss incidentals, perhaps with enhanced understanding all around, and paradoxically particularly enjoy talking about things that actually matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 21, 2006 19:53:25 GMT -5
Ah, well . . . I tried. It was my hope that we could have some intelligent discussion about a controversial book/movie. We have Torothab, our resident Catholic apologetic. I was willing to continue my role of resident Protestant apologetic. I figured that Skilly, our resident agnostic, would chime in, as would HA, the hell-bent one, and others in this cast of thousands. All I asked for was sources cited in discussion. For example, one could have said that When Dan Brown wrote that there were 666 panes of glassin the Louvre Pyramid he was wrong (wikipedia), but the book is, of course, fiction.Or one could have said that The Gnostic Gospels were written with a particular viewpoint in mind that was dismissed by what became Christian orthodoxy (wikipedia) . And that's without even quoting a real book! This could be a great discussion . . . but, as ever, looks to be turning just into dis. Ah, well . . . I tried. Don't worry Franko, it won't turn into a "dis"......as long as I have these evil moderating powers. Did I ever tell you how I got them? I will tell you on x6-x6-x6.... The last week or two, I have seen several programs surrounding the Mary Magdalene, DA Vinci and the book. Actually, I think it has been about a dozen programs so far. In the process, I have learned more on a subject that does not really create any passion in me. When I saw the movie today, what startled me was that there were A LOT of older people that you don't normally see in the theater. As an avid movie goer, this is the FIRST thing that struck me. As for the movie itself, I did not find that it disrespected Christ. In fact, it paid respect to him as what I always believe for him to be. Not that of a deity, but that of a man with a message. Of course, this may not sit well with people that want to believe that he was a deity but then again, EVERYBODY is entitled to their opinion. Crusades and Inquisitions notwithstanding. Does the book help or hinder Christianity? It will probably help Christianity as anything that arouses interest and pushes discussion can not be all bad. Like any religion, there are many branches on the tree and in this case, the branch that believes that Christ was a man with a vision and a message will greatly be enhanced. In fact, while it may arise discussion and anger amongst those who believe Christ is the son of God, it will help sell him to three quarters of the world who don't believe in him at all...or his message. Can that be all bad from possessed Hollywood devils? Take someone who is as "devout unbeliever" as myself, now I know way more about the history of Christianity then any self respecting atheist should ever have to (joke!). While it may not have swayed me to "believer", it did bring out a intellectual curiosity. Is that all bad? How much "harm" can so much world wide exposure cause? Does it matter if Christ was human? Or the son of God? Is it the message or the messenger that should be "sold"? Is it the message or the messenger that is more important? What is of greater importance to Christianity? What is the message of Christianity? Remember one thing, you can kill the messanger and bring down walls but NOTHING can ever destroy an IDEA....or IDEALS. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 21, 2006 20:01:25 GMT -5
Thanks for the well-worded response, Montreal.
I knew where you were coming from, but I didn't appreciate the vehicles you used to get there. Also, I didn't think you understood that I acknowledged the novel to be just that, a novel. I hadn't realized that Brown originally flogged his work as a truth. But, I do know he acknowledged his work as a fiction.
That aside, I respect the passion with which you defend your faith. I was baptized a Catholic but specific events over the years have led me to talk to God in my own way. As an aside, I grew up with a good friend who was also raised a Catholic. However, he's now Anglican and was almost ordained in that faith several years ago. These aren't slights towards you or your faith but rather only separate instances where two practicing Catholics had had enough.
As for the book, well, I still found it entertaining. In fact, it was one of the few books in recent years that kept me wanting to finish it. I enjoyed it immensely. But, what I took offense to was being labelled as gullible for liking it.
I was glad seeing HA's post on the board because I will be seeing the film myself. I enjoy mystery/action films.
Thanks again.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 21, 2006 20:03:31 GMT -5
I googled some phrases because I was curious. Here's what I found. So Jesus, apart from being Scottish, turned out to be a Freemason as well! Who knew?! How does the Priory of Sion presented in The Da Vinci Code compare with the Priory of Sion co-founded by Plantard? Olson and Miesel note that, in order to suit his own agenda of promoting worship of "the Sacred Feminine," Brown adapted the Priory of Sion as presented in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and similar works: Spurious documents, interviews, and admiring books [concerning the actual Priory] multiplied. Lists of famous grand masters were produced. Goddess-worship, however, was not part of the agenda, unlike Brown's version of the Priory. In 1975, Plantard began calling himself "Plantard de St. Clair" to pretend a connection with a noble Scottish family involved with Freemasonry who'd built the strange Chapel of Rosslyn near Edinburgh. (This is why The Da Vinci Code claims the blood of Christ survived most directly in the Plantard and St. Clair families [260, 442].)16 I googled "(This is why The Da Vinci Code claims the blood of Christ survived most directly in the Plantard and St. Clair families [260, 442].)16"I found your entire reference word-for-word starting with "How" and ending in "... [260, 442].]16" to be a direct cut and past from "Catholic Answers Inc." I then googled the final statement in this sentence, "The commercial need to feed the public's staste for conspiracy clearly is trumping the truth.17"I found this quote posted on "dragonslist.com" by someone with the handle of "FightingFat" (Super moderator). Forgive me but are these on what your arguments are based? Cheers. Hi Dis I tried earlier to post the entire article from Catholic Answers which did a rather thorough treatment of this stuff, but I have also twice as I believe I posted earlier seen a full program on the nonsense that as I recall was a very entertaining BBC production. It completely pans the books' claims I have indeed read most of the material and posted the link as a fairly easy and accurate link if anybody really wants to know what Opus Dei really is or any number of other quite ordinary stuff. The arguments, and for the most part they aren't arguments, but simple statements of history and fact, are just basic common, or perhaps increasingly uncommon good sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 21, 2006 20:07:05 GMT -5
I saw the movie and I was entertained. One needs to take anything and everything with a grain of salt so I will not comment on the religious aspects of the movie, because frankly, I don't care. As for entertainment value, two thumbs up. Keeps you riveted while telling a story. Have you read the Book HA (or CfC...)? If you have how well done is the... translating of the story from book to the big screen? I'm not much of a movie watcher but I may go see it as I enjoyed the book for the story which was incredibly entertaining... I just couldn't put it down. I read the first chaper and the last one. The subject is, or I should say was, not THAT interesting to me. However..... Mrs. Cranky read it recently and she says it followed the book....in condensed form. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 21, 2006 20:08:14 GMT -5
Ah, well . . . I tried. It was my hope that we could have some intelligent discussion about a controversial book/movie. We have Torothab, our resident Catholic apologetic. I was willing to continue my role of resident Protestant apologetic. I figured that Skilly, our resident agnostic, would chime in, as would HA, the hell-bent one, and others in this cast of thousands. All I asked for was sources cited in discussion. For example, one could have said that When Dan Brown wrote that there were 666 panes of glassin the Louvre Pyramid he was wrong (wikipedia), but the book is, of course, fiction.Or one could have said that The Gnostic Gospels were written with a particular viewpoint in mind that was dismissed by what became Christian orthodoxy (wikipedia) . And that's without even quoting a real book! This could be a great discussion . . . but, as ever, looks to be turning just into dis. Ah, well . . . I tried. Don't worry Franko, it won't turn into a "dis"......as long as I have these evil moderating powers. Did I ever tell you how I got them? I will tell you on x6-x6-x6.... The last week or two, I have seen several programs surrounding the Mary Magdalene, DA Vinci and the book. Actually, I think it has been about a dozen programs so far. In the process, I have learned more on a subject that does not really create any passion in me. When I saw the movie today, what startled me was that there were A LOT of older people that you don't normally see in the theater. As an avid movie goer, this is the FIRST thing that struck me. As for the movie itself, I did not find that it disrespected Christ. In fact, it paid respect to him as what I always believe for him to be. Not that of a deity, but that of a man with a message. Of course, this may not sit well with people that want to believe that he was a deity but then again, EVERYBODY is entitled to their opinion. Crusades and Inquisitions notwithstanding. Does the book help or hinder Christianity? It will probably help Christianity as anything that arouses interest and pushes discussion can not be all bad. Like any religion, there are many branches on the tree and in this case, the branch that believes that Christ was a man with a vision and a message will greatly be enhanced. In fact, while it may arise discussion and anger amongst those who believe Christ is the son of God, it will help sell him to three quarters of the world who don't believe in him at all...or his message. Can that be all bad from possessed Hollywood devils? Take someone who is as "devout unbeliever" as myself, now I know way more about the history of Christianity then any self respecting atheist should ever have to (joke!). While it may not have swayed me to "believer", it did bring out a intellectual curiosity. Is that all bad? How much "harm" can so much world wide exposure cause? Does it matter if Christ was human? Or the son of God? Is it the message or the messenger that should be "sold"? Is it the message or the messenger that is more important? What is of greater importance to Christianity? What is the message of Christianity? Remember one thing, you can kill the messanger and bring down walls but NOTHING can every destroy an IDEA....or IDEALS. Wow. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 21, 2006 20:31:40 GMT -5
Thanks for the well-worded response, Montreal. I knew where you were coming from, but I didn't appreciate the vehicles you used to get there. Also, I didn't think you understood that I acknowledged the novel to be just that, a novel. I hadn't realized that Brown originally flogged his work as a truth. But, I do know he acknowledged his work as a fiction. That aside, I respect the passion with which you defend your faith. I was baptized a Catholic but specific events over the years have led me to talk to God in my own way. As an aside, I grew up with a good friend who was also raised a Catholic. However, he's now Anglican and was almost ordained in that faith several years ago. These aren't slights towards you or your faith but rather only separate instances where two practicing Catholics had had enough. As for the book, well, I still found it entertaining. In fact, it was one of the few books in recent years that kept me wanting to finish it. I enjoyed it immensely. But, what I took offense to was being labelled as gullible for liking it. I was glad seeing HA's post on the board because I will be seeing the film myself. I enjoy mystery/action films. Thanks again. Cheers. Dis: If I described anybody reading the book as gullible, then I was in error and I apologize. In what I wrote. I usually make sure to include "belief" in the book as somewhat astounding and gullible. The immense harm of the book is that a great many were deluded into thinking it was in fact true, again ,including the NY Times reviewer, of all people. Poof! There goes 2000 years of human history. My quite simple defense of Catholicism is very easy I confess that I find her to be the clearest and sanest voice on the planet, and I like to think that I'll stand up for just about any body when it is right to do so though I know I don't sometimes when I should, but I'm working on it. My most excellent bother in law visited today from Ottawa. He is a Leafs fan, poor soul. I was unusually merciful. It wasn't easy. but grace prevailed in this instance. Incidentally, for anyone interested in gnosticism or who thinks there was some kind of heavy-handed power grab of the orthodox over equally valid versions of the gospels, I'd be happy to dig out some of the treatments I've read on how derivative, non-gospel texts are determined to be so. It's really all quite sane and unremarkable. Some of the gnostic stuff is so dumb you'll cry. I also left the Catholic church for a lot of years. It was me, not her. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 21, 2006 21:44:59 GMT -5
I have never heard Dan Brown say his book was a factual account of history. In fact, in his recent court proceedings with Michael Baigent he went out of his way to tell people it was a novel. If you look at the NY Times top ten non-fiction book list now you will find "The Jesus Papers" by Michael Baigent was number 1 and I believe is currently #5. It is being touted as non-fiction, and tells the story of how Jesus and Ponctious Pilote worked in cahoots to fake the crucifiction. Let me remind you this is on the non-fiction list ..... I would think some should be more upset over that than the Da Vinci Code. Toronthab has on numerous occasions mentioned Brown's FACT page as his reason for being so upset with Brown's depiction of Jesus. Well let's examine Brown's FACT page. FACT The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci. The only contentious issue I see here with Brown's first fact is the date - 1099. This piece of parchment was found, and it did say all the things that Brown contends. Did Brown know it was thought to have been planted by Plantard? Pure conjecture, but if he did not know this then this statement has some holes but is still factual The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as "corporal mortification". Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City
I read an article in the paper today about Opus Dei (I am looking for a link). The priest in the article says that the Opus Dei practice is to deprive themselves of things to make self sacrifices to feel closer to Jesus. Is this the "corporal mortification" he speaks of? The article says the cilice is not painful, but only uncomfortable but he does state that they are required to wear is at least 2 hours a day. The article also mentions that a mother is currently in a battle against Opus dei for coercing her daughter into the sect and she believes brainwashing her. I must comment that the article also stated that Opus Dei is not comprised of priests, but rather ordinary people living ordinary llives like us ... only 47 members are priests out of the 800 members. I googled "243 Lexington Avenue" and the address is for Murray Hill Institute Inc - an Opus dei affliliated foundation and its national headquarters. www.odan.org/foundations.htm Again it appears that Brown has left himself an out. What he has on his fact page is fact .... but in the book he elaborates on it to the point of not being factual. For instance, on the fact page it does not describe "corporal mortification" or claim that Opus Dei are priests. But in the book he clearly states that it is primarily priests. The only thing I question in this statement is whether it is a vatican prelature?
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate. This is the most important fact to me. Read it carefully. Brown quite clearly admits his book is nothign more than a NOVEL. I purchased the illustrative version of the book and I found his descriptions of the artwork and architecture to be accurate. Note that he does not say factual ... he says accurate. Of course all documents and rituals would be accurate if they are taken from someone's own imagination. Brown quite ingeniously uses a simple technique to "imply" factual points. But if you read it, really read it, and then think like a lawyer it is quite evident he is only saying that that page is factual, not the book |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 21, 2006 22:04:49 GMT -5
I read the first chaper and the last one. The subject is, or I should say was, not THAT interesting to me. However..... Mrs. Cranky read it recently and she says it followed the book....in condensed form. Haven't seen the movie yet, but may tomorrow. Newspaper article this week (can't remember which one) pointed out that Ron Howard was directed to cut 1/2 hour out of the movie, which he did without harming the "integrity" of the story. Which goes to show that you can always cut out a chase scene or two! |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 21, 2006 22:13:23 GMT -5
I hesitate . . . oh I hesitate, for this is off topic and could just go back to a Protestant/Catholic discussion which will lead to the thread being closed and I don't want that to happen. However, when something is (imo) mis-stated . . . [ Jesus started an organized religion. Sorry about that. It is not intelligently arguable. Well, I will point out that Jesus didn't intend to start another organized religion. He attempted a renewal movement within the Jewish religion but this was not allowed to happen. According to the Bible itself, He went to synagogue every Sabbath and participated in it, even going so far as to teach. He spoke with scribes and Pharasees, the leaders of the day. It was not until much after the resurrection that Chrsitianity was "organized" as a separate religion rather than a sect within Judaism (see: the Book of Acts). I also point out that much of Christianity is based not on the teachings of Jesus but the teachigns of Paul. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 21, 2006 22:31:24 GMT -5
Ah, well . . . I tried. It was my hope that we could have some intelligent discussion about a controversial book/movie. We have Torothab, our resident Catholic apologetic. I was willing to continue my role of resident Protestant apologetic. I figured that Skilly, our resident agnostic, would chime in, as would HA, the hell-bent one, and others in this cast of thousands. All I asked for was sources cited in discussion. For example, one could have said that When Dan Brown wrote that there were 666 panes of glassin the Louvre Pyramid he was wrong (wikipedia), but the book is, of course, fiction.Or one could have said that The Gnostic Gospels were written with a particular viewpoint in mind that was dismissed by what became Christian orthodoxy (wikipedia) . And that's without even quoting a real book! This could be a great discussion . . . but, as ever, looks to be turning just into dis. Ah, well . . . I tried. Don't worry Franko, it won't turn into a "dis"......as long as I have these evil moderating powers. Did I ever tell you how I got them? I will tell you on x6-x6-x6.... The last week or two, I have seen several programs surrounding the Mary Magdalene, DA Vinci and the book. Actually, I think it has been about a dozen programs so far. In the process, I have learned more on a subject that does not really create any passion in me. When I saw the movie today, what startled me was that there were A LOT of older people that you don't normally see in the theater. As an avid movie goer, this is the FIRST thing that struck me. As for the movie itself, I did not find that it disrespected Christ. In fact, it paid respect to him as what I always believe for him to be. Not that of a deity, but that of a man with a message. Of course, this may not sit well with people that want to believe that he was a deity but then again, EVERYBODY is entitled to their opinion. Crusades and Inquisitions notwithstanding. Does the book help or hinder Christianity? It will probably help Christianity as anything that arouses interest and pushes discussion can not be all bad. Like any religion, there are many branches on the tree and in this case, the branch that believes that Christ was a man with a vision and a message will greatly be enhanced. In fact, while it may arise discussion and anger amongst those who believe Christ is the son of God, it will help sell him to three quarters of the world who don't believe in him at all...or his message. Can that be all bad from possessed Hollywood devils? Take someone who is as "devout unbeliever" as myself, now I know way more about the history of Christianity then any self respecting atheist should ever have to (joke!). While it may not have swayed me to "believer", it did bring out a intellectual curiosity. Is that all bad? How much "harm" can so much world wide exposure cause? Does it matter if Christ was human? Or the son of God? Is it the message or the messenger that should be "sold"? Is it the message or the messenger that is more important? What is of greater importance to Christianity? What is the message of Christianity? Remember one thing, you can kill the messanger and bring down walls but NOTHING can every destroy an IDEA....or IDEALS. I am not confused, but rather puzzled at your statement that the movie is respectful of the character of Christ. I beg to differ, unless your notion of respect excludes everything known about him. Oh my goodness. Where to begin. You say they respected Jesus. So. If you take out the claims to divinity,his witnessed resurrectioin from the dead, his recorded and consistent teaching. the founding of a church of people, a very recognizable and organized recognized group he taught personally for 3 years and which arffirmed his divinity and resurrection to the point of their own murders, ("And you Peter, who do you says that I am?" ) and who further testify to their own sometimes horrible and tortured deaths, that he rose and met with them and talked to him for some forty days, 3 days after being crucified and then they ....what? ... offered themselves up to death for .....mistaken identity..? mass hypnosis...? bad eyesight? I gather that they .didn't portray the movie figure as a complete jerk...just the real one. The guys and gals who ate with him, walked with him, heard him speak of giving up marriage and family and property for the kingdom of God, had their children cured of illness, and heard him speak of laying down his life for his sheep were exactly like you and me. Do you really think they got the crucifixion part wrong at the end of the road? Is it not likely that iat some point during the reported 40 days he spent with them after the resurrection that one of these guys or gals would have said something like "Ship! You're not really Jesus! You're Bob! How could we all have been so stupid?" Bob! Why are you fakin' the Jesus thing and putting the con on us?" Or maybe you think it plausible that there was nobody there for those 40 days, like Harvey, James Stuart's rabbit. Just who wants to believe what here? I've maintained for some time that the intellectual ellipses, figure eights, dead ends one has to indulge to escape the eyewitness accounts to the resurrected Jesus their intimate friend and Lord required much more suspension of credible belief than accepting the testimony written in the blood of the martyrs. It's respectable. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 21, 2006 22:39:08 GMT -5
I would love to know if the Gnostic Gospels are truthful, and what their implications are. But I was always of the opinion that the Bible was one big fable made up by man to show man a version of how to live. So the Gnostic Gospels would probably not sway me. I do have one question regarding Jesus that has always ate away at me ..... so much of his life is not documented, but he was regarded as "king of the jews" , and the jews do not even consider him the messiah. Doesn't this seem strange? Ah, what is truth? The Gospels were written to convey some form of truth, and each of the four that were canonized described Jesus from a different viewpoint. All of the gospels written had their own viewpoint/bias; the four accepted seemed to the church council that was asked to decide which were most likely the picture of Jesus "most likely". The discussion had gone on for over three hundred years, so much debate had already taken place, and theological conclussions ahd been made. Gnostic thought in which Jesus was mere spirit was put aside as heresy; thought in which Jesus was only man (a form of Arianism) was as well. You are right -- the Jews (as a whole) do not regard Jesus as Messiah -- He did not fit in with their beliefs as a nation-saver. Christians see Him as a servant-king, not a warrior-king. THe Jews still await the One who will free them from bondage and make their nation great. Although (as has been pointed out) much of what is seen in Jesus can also be seen in the mystery religions, the difference is that two thousand years later He is still seen as a resurrected One -- the other MRs have for the most part faded away. Christianity has survived, despite severe persecution. This may mean that people have been so deluded that they believe a lie. As evidenced by my posts on may religious threads, I don't. I'm not all that upset about the book/movie or the theology behind it -- I think it is good to make us think. Christians have been challenged to know what they believe and why, and if some small fictional novel destroys them they can't have had much of a faith to begin with. Oh . . . and I believe that the most important part of Christianity is the resurrection. Dismiss that and all you have left is a deluded man who gave His life for nothing. I like this translation: If there's no resurrection, there's no living Christ. And face it—if there's no resurrection for Christ, everything we've told you is smoke and mirrors, and everything you've staked your life on is smoke and mirrors. Not only that, but we would be guilty of telling a string of barefaced lies about God, all these affidavits we passed on to you verifying that God raised up Christ—sheer fabrications, if there's no resurrection . . . If all we get out of Christ is a little inspiration for a few short years, we're a pretty sorry lot. THE MESSAGE, 1 Corinthians 15 |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 21, 2006 22:45:17 GMT -5
I hesitate . . . oh I hesitate, for this is off topic and could just go back to a Protestant/Catholic discussion which will lead to the thread being closed and I don't want that to happen. However, when something is (imo) mis-stated . . . [ Jesus started an organized religion. Sorry about that. It is not intelligently arguable. Well, I will point out that Jesus didn't intend to start another organized religion. He attempted a renewal movement within the Jewish religion but this was not allowed to happen. According to the Bible itself, He went to synagogue every Sabbath and participated in it, even going so far as to teach. He spoke with scribes and Pharasees, the leaders of the day. It was not until much after the resurrection that Chrsitianity was "organized" as a separate religion rather than a sect within Judaism (see: the Book of Acts). I also point out that much of Christianity is based not on the teachings of Jesus but the teachigns of Paul. We seem to be in considerable danger of mincing words here. There are few statements I can make that are less ambiguously true than this one. Are you suggesting that the apostles were not to celebrate the eucharist at the last supper, and that Saint Paul and all of the people who were with him ...just got it wrong? And the sacrament of reconciliation and the authority to forgive sins in Christ;s name, and the command to teach his new commandments, e. g. concerning divorce did not in fact start a religion called Christianity? What a novel notion. Who knew? Wonder why they called them Christians instead of Jews? So Jesus didn't know he would be crucified? And even after the resurrection he still was aiming for one of the local rabbis to close the deal? So the church, living, breathing that Saint Paul and the rest of the world has been talking about for some 2000 years or so, didn't actually get started. So it wasn't really Jesus who got resurrected, or he then didn't know what he was doing. The sideline you're offering has nothing to do with my unambiguous statement which is completely incontrovertible as it stands. C'mon Franko. Oh by the way, if I get to say C'mon Franko. I should give my own name which is Paul,. so that you can say C'mon Paul at supposedly appropriate intervals. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 21, 2006 22:47:40 GMT -5
Does the book help or hinder Christianity? It will probably help Christianity as anything that arouses interest and pushes discussion can not be all bad. Like any religion, there are many branches on the tree and in this case, the branch that believes that Christ was a man with a vision and a message will greatly be enhanced. In fact, while it may arise discussion and anger amongst those who believe Christ is the son of God, it will help sell him to three quarters of the world who don't believe in him at all...or his message. Can that be all bad from possessed Hollywood devils? Take someone who is as "devout unbeliever" as myself, now I know way more about the history of Christianity then any self respecting atheist should ever have to (joke!). While it may not have swayed me to "believer", it did bring out a intellectual curiosity. Is that all bad? How much "harm" can so much world wide exposure cause? Agreed: that which stimulates discussion is good. Too often our leaders want us to stop thinking -- political, religious, scientific, whatever. Hey, we may disagree, but at least we are alive! rev. franko about to impart his wisdom. Gather around my flock, and . . . ah, never mind -- the offering wasn't large enough. ;D The important question you ask: What is the message of Christianity? As I see it, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, as written in 1 Timothy 1:15 |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 21, 2006 23:01:16 GMT -5
I would love to know if the Gnostic Gospels are truthful, and what their implications are. But I was always of the opinion that the Bible was one big fable made up by man to show man a version of how to live. So the Gnostic Gospels would probably not sway me. I do have one question regarding Jesus that has always ate away at me ..... so much of his life is not documented, but he was regarded as "king of the jews" , and the jews do not even consider him the messiah. Doesn't this seem strange? Ah, what is truth? The Gospels were written to convey some form of truth, and each of the four that were canonized described Jesus from a different viewpoint. All of the gospels written had their own viewpoint/bias; the four accepted seemed to the church council that was asked to decide which were most likely the picture of Jesus "most likely". The discussion had gone on for over three hundred years, so much debate had already taken place, and theological conclussions ahd been made. Gnostic thought in which Jesus was mere spirit was put aside as heresy; thought in which Jesus was only man (a form of Arianism) was as well. You are right -- the Jews (as a whole) do not regard Jesus as Messiah -- He did not fit in with their beliefs as a nation-saver. Christians see Him as a servant-king, not a warrior-king. THe Jews still await the One who will free them from bondage and make their nation great. Although (as has been pointed out) much of what is seen in Jesus can also be seen in the mystery religions, the difference is that two thousand years later He is still seen as a resurrected One -- the other MRs have for the most part faded away. Christianity has survived, despite severe persecution. This may mean that people have been so deluded that they believe a lie. As evidenced by my posts on may religious threads, I don't. I'm not all that upset about the book/movie or the theology behind it -- I think it is good to make us think. Christians have been challenged to know what they believe and why, and if some small fictional novel destroys them they can't have had much of a faith to begin with. Oh . . . and I believe that the most important part of Christianity is the resurrection. Dismiss that and all you have left is a deluded man who gave His life for nothing. I like this translation: If there's no resurrection, there's no living Christ. And face it—if there's no resurrection for Christ, everything we've told you is smoke and mirrors, and everything you've staked your life on is smoke and mirrors. Not only that, but we would be guilty of telling a string of barefaced lies about God, all these affidavits we passed on to you verifying that God raised up Christ—sheer fabrications, if there's no resurrection . . . If all we get out of Christ is a little inspiration for a few short years, we're a pretty sorry lot. THE MESSAGE, 1 Corinthians 15The gospels are not the church. The church was and of course still is the source of authority in Christianity. It was the bishops who determined from their own internal and inspired experience of church as guaranteed by the promised guidance of the third person of the trinity, the Holy Spirit , who confirmed that which was inspired and that which was not. How could it possibly have been otherwise. It is always worth recalling that as the original apostles were killed and as the number of original witnesses beame fewer, it then became clearer that the end times might not be immediate and that records must be weighed for value. It was the living church, those who had been in direct historical and in person contact with the apostles and received their authority to teach, baptise, marry, forgive sins, etc who gave us the sacred texts. That's why they are sacred. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 21, 2006 23:32:51 GMT -5
Does the book help or hinder Christianity? It will probably help Christianity as anything that arouses interest and pushes discussion can not be all bad. Like any religion, there are many branches on the tree and in this case, the branch that believes that Christ was a man with a vision and a message will greatly be enhanced. In fact, while it may arise discussion and anger amongst those who believe Christ is the son of God, it will help sell him to three quarters of the world who don't believe in him at all...or his message. Can that be all bad from possessed Hollywood devils? Take someone who is as "devout unbeliever" as myself, now I know way more about the history of Christianity then any self respecting atheist should ever have to (joke!). While it may not have swayed me to "believer", it did bring out a intellectual curiosity. Is that all bad? How much "harm" can so much world wide exposure cause? Agreed: that which stimulates discussion is good. Too often our leaders want us to stop thinking -- political, religious, scientific, whatever. Hey, we may disagree, but at least we are alive! rev. franko about to impart his wisdom. Gather around my flock, and . . . ah, never mind -- the offering wasn't large enough. ;D The important question you ask: What is the message of Christianity? As I see it, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, as written in 1 Timothy 1:15 Hmm...... I see relegion from a completely different perspetive to you. While I may not believe in any religion, I do see the need for it. From an outsiders point of view, I see religion giving stability, comfort, moral direction for those who chose to believe in it. How can that be bad? To me, the message of Christ was to live with and love you fellow man. Maybe that is a childish view but it certainly beats the hell out of the image of the Crusades and the Inquisitions. As for our leaders.... Leaders? Have you seen any lately that you care to listen too? Let's not even talk about "following". Perhaps it's not the leaders that are the problem, but the followers. Perhaps we have reached a point in our civilization that there is so much communication amongst us that it empowers us all to "think too much". After all, compassion, love, understanding, respect are all too simple a message in a society that hears those words on a hourly basis. How can any leader "sell" us their vision if we have 100 visions an hour on the media? Do you "love"the way your car handles? Do you have a "clear vision" of your financial future? Do you have "compassion" to give generously to the needy organization de jour? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 21, 2006 23:43:11 GMT -5
Oh . . . and I believe that the most important part of Christianity is the resurrection. Dismiss that and all you have left is a deluded man who gave His life for nothing. I like this translation: If there's no resurrection, there's no living Christ. And face it—if there's no resurrection for Christ, everything we've told you is smoke and mirrors, and everything you've staked your life on is smoke and mirrors. Not only that, but we would be guilty of telling a string of barefaced lies about God, all these affidavits we passed on to you verifying that God raised up Christ—sheer fabrications, if there's no resurrection . . . If all we get out of Christ is a little inspiration for a few short years, we're a pretty sorry lot. THE MESSAGE, 1 Corinthians 15Is the event greater then the message? From that passage, it seems that the event is the only string holding the followers. I disagree. A religion has to be about the message......and the messangers. Hamas is a very powerful organization in Palestine, not because they are the "true followers" of Islam, but rather they have brought needed resources to the needy. Unfortunatly, their message also carries promises of virgins in heaven, but then again, it's yet another case of humans corrupting the "ideals" of Islam. Christianity flourished "willingly" when it brought help to those in need. Of course, the threat of eternal damnation and a few swords also helped, but in reality, it would not stick to those who did not want to hear the greater message. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 21, 2006 23:54:02 GMT -5
I have never heard Dan Brown say his book was a factual account of history. In fact, in his recent court proceedings with Michael Baigent he went out of his way to tell people it was a novel. If you look at the NY Times top ten non-fiction book list now you will find "The Jesus Papers" by Michael Baigent was number 1 and I believe is currently #5. It is being touted as non-fiction, and tells the story of how Jesus and Ponctious Pilote worked in cahoots to fake the crucifiction. Let me remind you this is on the non-fiction list ..... I would think some should be more upset over that than the Da Vinci Code. Toronthab has on numerous occasions mentioned Brown's FACT page as his reason for being so upset with Brown's depiction of Jesus. Well let's examine Brown's FACT page. FACT The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci. The only contentious issue I see here with Brown's first fact is the date - 1099. This piece of parchment was found, and it did say all the things that Brown contends. Did Brown know it was thought to have been planted by Plantard? Pure conjecture, but if he did not know this then this statement has some holes but is still factual The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as "corporal mortification". Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City
I read an article in the paper today about Opus Dei (I am looking for a link). The priest in the article says that the Opus Dei practice is to deprive themselves of things to make self sacrifices to feel closer to Jesus. Is this the "corporal mortification" he speaks of? The article says the cilice is not painful, but only uncomfortable but he does state that they are required to wear is at least 2 hours a day. The article also mentions that a mother is currently in a battle against Opus dei for coercing her daughter into the sect and she believes brainwashing her. I must comment that the article also stated that Opus Dei is not comprised of priests, but rather ordinary people living ordinary llives like us ... only 47 members are priests out of the 800 members. I googled "243 Lexington Avenue" and the address is for Murray Hill Institute Inc - an Opus dei affliliated foundation and its national headquarters. www.odan.org/foundations.htm Again it appears that Brown has left himself an out. What he has on his fact page is fact .... but in the book he elaborates on it to the point of not being factual. For instance, on the fact page it does not describe "corporal mortification" or claim that Opus Dei are priests. But in the book he clearly states that it is primarily priests. The only thing I question in this statement is whether it is a vatican prelature?
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate. This is the most important fact to me. Read it carefully. Brown quite clearly admits his book is nothign more than a NOVEL. I purchased the illustrative version of the book and I found his descriptions of the artwork and architecture to be accurate. Note that he does not say factual ... he says accurate. Of course all documents and rituals would be accurate if they are taken from someone's own imagination. Brown quite ingeniously uses a simple technique to "imply" factual points. But if you read it, really read it, and then think like a lawyer it is quite evident he is only saying that that page is factual, not the bookBrown woud be proud of you. Such leger de main. I can see why you would defend his deceit. Mr. Brown has tried to have it both ways. Charles Gibson, host of ABC-TV's Good Morning America, pressed the author on the point in 2003. "If you were writing it as a nonfiction book," Mr. Gibson asked, "how would it have been different?" "I don't think it would have," replied Mr. Brown, who almost never grants interviews. "I began the research for The Da Vinci Code as a skeptic. ... fter numerous trips to Europe, about two years of research, I really became a believer ...
And from another source :
When asked in an interview with VJ Books, “How much of the novel is based on fact?” Brown answered, “All of it.” Thus, Abanes challenges Brown on that very statement with historical and factual evidence that contradicts him.
According to award–winning investigative journalist and frequent media guest, Richard Abanes, Brown crosses the line by crediting the liberties he takes with “authoritative source” references that give them an air of legitimacy. Brown also writes that “almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false” (The Da Vinci Code, p. 235), and launches repeated attacks against Christian beliefs, the Bible, and early church leaders. Thus, in his book The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code, Abanes takes apart claim by claim the dozens of factual inaccuracies in Brown’s book concerning the foundation of Christianity, the role of women within the church, and Catholicism. Most alarmingly is the statement written on the first page of Brown’s book which reads: “FACT: All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” When asked in an interview with VJ Books, “How much of the novel is based on fact?” Brown answered, “All of it.” Thus, Abanes challenges Brown on that very statement with historical and factual evidence that contradicts him.
In a revealing interview, Abanes will use substantiated historical evidence to dismantle the author’s claims about male–female deity, the Holy Grail, Gnostic gospels, Jesus’ royal bloodline and divinity, and more. Abanes will answer important questions including:
Did Jesus and Mary Magdalene marry and have a daughter?
Do Da Vinci’s paintings contain hidden symbols and codes?
Is the foundation of Christianity based on a lie?
Has the church suppressed the “Lost Gospels”?
Did secret knights protect evidence the Vatican tried to destroy?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 22, 2006 0:23:26 GMT -5
Don't worry Franko, it won't turn into a "dis"......as long as I have these evil moderating powers. Did I ever tell you how I got them? I will tell you on x6-x6-x6.... The last week or two, I have seen several programs surrounding the Mary Magdalene, DA Vinci and the book. Actually, I think it has been about a dozen programs so far. In the process, I have learned more on a subject that does not really create any passion in me. When I saw the movie today, what startled me was that there were A LOT of older people that you don't normally see in the theater. As an avid movie goer, this is the FIRST thing that struck me. As for the movie itself, I did not find that it disrespected Christ. In fact, it paid respect to him as what I always believe for him to be. Not that of a deity, but that of a man with a message. Of course, this may not sit well with people that want to believe that he was a deity but then again, EVERYBODY is entitled to their opinion. Crusades and Inquisitions notwithstanding. Does the book help or hinder Christianity? It will probably help Christianity as anything that arouses interest and pushes discussion can not be all bad. Like any religion, there are many branches on the tree and in this case, the branch that believes that Christ was a man with a vision and a message will greatly be enhanced. In fact, while it may arise discussion and anger amongst those who believe Christ is the son of God, it will help sell him to three quarters of the world who don't believe in him at all...or his message. Can that be all bad from possessed Hollywood devils? Take someone who is as "devout unbeliever" as myself, now I know way more about the history of Christianity then any self respecting atheist should ever have to (joke!). While it may not have swayed me to "believer", it did bring out a intellectual curiosity. Is that all bad? How much "harm" can so much world wide exposure cause? Does it matter if Christ was human? Or the son of God? Is it the message or the messenger that should be "sold"? Is it the message or the messenger that is more important? What is of greater importance to Christianity? What is the message of Christianity? Remember one thing, you can kill the messanger and bring down walls but NOTHING can every destroy an IDEA....or IDEALS. I am not confused, but rather puzzled at your statement that the movie is respectful of the character of Christ. I beg to differ, unless your notion of respect excludes everything known about him. Oh my goodness. Where to begin. You say they respected Jesus. So. If you take out the claims to divinity,his witnessed resurrectioin from the dead, his recorded and consistent teaching. the founding of a church of people, a very recognizable and organized recognized group he taught personally for 3 years and which arffirmed his divinity and resurrection to the point of their own murders, ("And you Peter, who do you says that I am?" ) and who further testify to their own sometimes horrible and tortured deaths, that he rose and met with them and talked to him for some forty days, 3 days after being crucified and then they ....what? ... offered themselves up to death for .....mistaken identity..? mass hypnosis...? bad eyesight? I gather that they .didn't portray the movie figure as a complete jerk...just the real one. The guys and gals who ate with him, walked with him, heard him speak of giving up marriage and family and property for the kingdom of God, had their children cured of illness, and heard him speak of laying down his life for his sheep were exactly like you and me. Do you really think they got the crucifixion part wrong at the end of the road? Is it not likely that iat some point during the reported 40 days he spent with them after the resurrection that one of these guys or gals would have said something like "Ship! You're not really Jesus! You're Bob! How could we all have been so stupid?" Bob! Why are you fakin' the Jesus thing and putting the con on us?" Or maybe you think it plausible that there was nobody there for those 40 days, like Harvey, James Stuart's rabbit. Just who wants to believe what here? I've maintained for some time that the intellectual ellipses, figure eights, dead ends one has to indulge to escape the eyewitness accounts to the resurrected Jesus their intimate friend and Lord required much more suspension of credible belief than accepting the testimony written in the blood of the martyrs. It's respectable. I was brought up as a Greek Orthodox and my parents are such devoted followers, that I know your perspective very well. I understand your passion...but you need to understand others too. Not everyone has the same fervor and not everyone has the same point of view as you do. Tolerance and respect is the foundation of this forum. As for the book and the movie.... This book will NOT damage the Catholic church or Christianity. If anything, it has sparked interest from people outside the Christian world. My Chinese friends, my Jewish friends, my Muslim friends are ALL talking about JESUS and CHRISTIANITY. Sometimes, you take casualties when you lose a battle but it means little if you are winning the war. Think about the larger picture. While there is much criticism of what message Islam is really delivering, Christianity is debating a fictitious BOOK and a MOVIE. While Catholics may take a shot on the nose, it's nothing serious. On the other hand, if there was a popular and dark movie about the inquisitions or the Crusades, it would deliver a kidney blow to Christianity as a whole. Especially in these times. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 22, 2006 0:41:35 GMT -5
I have never heard Dan Brown say his book was a factual account of history. In fact, in his recent court proceedings with Michael Baigent he went out of his way to tell people it was a novel. If you look at the NY Times top ten non-fiction book list now you will find "The Jesus Papers" by Michael Baigent was number 1 and I believe is currently #5. It is being touted as non-fiction, and tells the story of how Jesus and Ponctious Pilote worked in cahoots to fake the crucifiction. Let me remind you this is on the non-fiction list ..... I would think some should be more upset over that than the Da Vinci Code. Toronthab has on numerous occasions mentioned Brown's FACT page as his reason for being so upset with Brown's depiction of Jesus. Well let's examine Brown's FACT page. FACT The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci. The only contentious issue I see here with Brown's first fact is the date - 1099. This piece of parchment was found, and it did say all the things that Brown contends. Did Brown know it was thought to have been planted by Plantard? Pure conjecture, but if he did not know this then this statement has some holes but is still factual The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as "corporal mortification". Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City
I read an article in the paper today about Opus Dei (I am looking for a link). The priest in the article says that the Opus Dei practice is to deprive themselves of things to make self sacrifices to feel closer to Jesus. Is this the "corporal mortification" he speaks of? The article says the cilice is not painful, but only uncomfortable but he does state that they are required to wear is at least 2 hours a day. The article also mentions that a mother is currently in a battle against Opus dei for coercing her daughter into the sect and she believes brainwashing her. I must comment that the article also stated that Opus Dei is not comprised of priests, but rather ordinary people living ordinary llives like us ... only 47 members are priests out of the 800 members. I googled "243 Lexington Avenue" and the address is for Murray Hill Institute Inc - an Opus dei affliliated foundation and its national headquarters. www.odan.org/foundations.htm Again it appears that Brown has left himself an out. What he has on his fact page is fact .... but in the book he elaborates on it to the point of not being factual. For instance, on the fact page it does not describe "corporal mortification" or claim that Opus Dei are priests. But in the book he clearly states that it is primarily priests. The only thing I question in this statement is whether it is a vatican prelature?
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate. This is the most important fact to me. Read it carefully. Brown quite clearly admits his book is nothign more than a NOVEL. I purchased the illustrative version of the book and I found his descriptions of the artwork and architecture to be accurate. Note that he does not say factual ... he says accurate. Of course all documents and rituals would be accurate if they are taken from someone's own imagination. Brown quite ingeniously uses a simple technique to "imply" factual points. But if you read it, really read it, and then think like a lawyer it is quite evident he is only saying that that page is factual, not the bookSkilly, as someone even further removed from religion then you are, I find that many of the "facts" that the book uses is nothing more then a tenuous stringing of historical events. Here is a little story.... My father once had a bunch of articles strung across his family room. It was an old sheep skin flask for wine, a flint lock pistol, an icon and a sting of worry beads. One day, we were having a rather large family gathering and after supper one of my cousins asked what the objects were all about. Well, my father, ever so slightly inebriated, began to weave a story that would have you in tears. None of if was true, but it amazed me how easily people bought it.....lock, stock and wine flask. This book has the same smell on it. While I believe that the bible is not the "true historical account" of the time period, the Da Vinci book is certainly a quarter of a billion dollar trough......and the reason the author remains silent. Stay tune for the "Modern Mary Magdalene" sequel. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 22, 2006 10:33:43 GMT -5
Ah, what is truth? The Gospels were written to convey some form of truth, and each of the four that were canonized described Jesus from a different viewpoint. All of the gospels written had their own viewpoint/bias; the four accepted seemed to the church council that was asked to decide which were most likely the picture of Jesus "most likely". The discussion had gone on for over three hundred years, so much debate had already taken place, and theological conclussions ahd been made. Gnostic thought in which Jesus was mere spirit was put aside as heresy; thought in which Jesus was only man (a form of Arianism) was as well. I say I would like to know if the Gnostic Gospels are truthful because (correct me if I am wrong) I believe there is much debate as to the carbon dating (?) of the scrolls. I saw a program (it was about proving the Da Vinci conspiracy wrong) where it was stated these gospels where found in Egypt(?) but have been dated at something like 300AD, and therefore it is accepted that these could not have been written by the apostles or Mary. (I could have all this jumbled but that is what i remember of it). Like I said I think the Bible is a good story (but I do accept that much of it has roots in some fact), so these Gnostic "Tales" Gospels are really not going to sway me off my "agnostic"  fence. (Btw, I used to be a devout agnostic, but since my lovely wife came into my life I would consider myself Christian, just very anti-organized religion). But if Nebakanzer and Metuzelah could live to be 653, then why not the apostles ..... ahh that was an attempt at humour. I will go off-topic for a second, not in a way to refute anything but just for general information purposes. Christianity comprises 2.1 million followers as of 2005 or 33% of the world population. (I am not sure what you meant by mystery religions and that is why I am placing this information here). The other religions are broken down as follows:  In 1900 the population of christianity was 558 million, so Christianity has seemingly thrived in this century. However, in 1900 558 million accounted for 34.5 percent of the world's population. www.the-tidings.com/2005/0204/difference.htm Whether this is from mass number of people in Asia, or people leaving Christianity I am not sure Ijust offer the information up for general information. Now back to your post. This is what i meant in my first post. Intellectual discussion (and yes even discussing stuff that is totally not plausible is intellectual) should be encourgaed and not feared. I believe this is a valid point. When I used to do Bible study (*sigh* yes I was once a fairly religious kid) the resurection woud be discussed alot. It is the focal point. I never understood why the "Immaculate Conception" was not consider more important - from purity sprung forth purity. Or whether the immacualte conception is considered an exagerration (one would have to admit it would be easier to "fake" than a resurection). |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 22, 2006 10:50:34 GMT -5
I have never heard Dan Brown say his book was a factual account of history. In fact, in his recent court proceedings with Michael Baigent he went out of his way to tell people it was a novel. If you look at the NY Times top ten non-fiction book list now you will find "The Jesus Papers" by Michael Baigent was number 1 and I believe is currently #5. It is being touted as non-fiction, and tells the story of how Jesus and Ponctious Pilote worked in cahoots to fake the crucifiction. Let me remind you this is on the non-fiction list ..... I would think some should be more upset over that than the Da Vinci Code. Toronthab has on numerous occasions mentioned Brown's FACT page as his reason for being so upset with Brown's depiction of Jesus. Well let's examine Brown's FACT page. FACT The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci. The only contentious issue I see here with Brown's first fact is the date - 1099. This piece of parchment was found, and it did say all the things that Brown contends. Did Brown know it was thought to have been planted by Plantard? Pure conjecture, but if he did not know this then this statement has some holes but is still factual The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as "corporal mortification". Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City
I read an article in the paper today about Opus Dei (I am looking for a link). The priest in the article says that the Opus Dei practice is to deprive themselves of things to make self sacrifices to feel closer to Jesus. Is this the "corporal mortification" he speaks of? The article says the cilice is not painful, but only uncomfortable but he does state that they are required to wear is at least 2 hours a day. The article also mentions that a mother is currently in a battle against Opus dei for coercing her daughter into the sect and she believes brainwashing her. I must comment that the article also stated that Opus Dei is not comprised of priests, but rather ordinary people living ordinary llives like us ... only 47 members are priests out of the 800 members. I googled "243 Lexington Avenue" and the address is for Murray Hill Institute Inc - an Opus dei affliliated foundation and its national headquarters. www.odan.org/foundations.htm Again it appears that Brown has left himself an out. What he has on his fact page is fact .... but in the book he elaborates on it to the point of not being factual. For instance, on the fact page it does not describe "corporal mortification" or claim that Opus Dei are priests. But in the book he clearly states that it is primarily priests. The only thing I question in this statement is whether it is a vatican prelature?
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate. This is the most important fact to me. Read it carefully. Brown quite clearly admits his book is nothign more than a NOVEL. I purchased the illustrative version of the book and I found his descriptions of the artwork and architecture to be accurate. Note that he does not say factual ... he says accurate. Of course all documents and rituals would be accurate if they are taken from someone's own imagination. Brown quite ingeniously uses a simple technique to "imply" factual points. But if you read it, really read it, and then think like a lawyer it is quite evident he is only saying that that page is factual, not the bookSkilly, as someone even further removed from religion then you are, I find that many of the "facts" that the book uses is nothing more then a tenuous stringing of historical events. Here is a little story.... My father once had a bunch of articles strung across his family room. It was an old sheep skin flask for wine, a flint lock pistol, an icon and a sting of worry beads. One day, we were having a rather large family gathering and after supper one of my cousins asked what the objects were all about. Well, my father, ever so slightly inebriated, began to weave a story that would have you in tears. None of if was true, but it amazed me how easily people bought it.....lock, stock and wine flask. This book has the same smell on it. While I believe that the bible is not the "true historical account" of the time period, the Da Vinci book is certainly a quarter of a billion dollar trough......and the reason the author remains silent. Stay tune for the "Modern Mary Magdalene" sequel. I totally agree. I dont say I believe what is written in the Da Vinci Code. Much of what is written in Star Trek is based on fact as well - Gene Roddenberry did extensive research on technology and built alot of it into his books. That doesn't mean I think humans will be broken down into their atoms and molecules and reassembled. Even though the science may be correct up to a point, some of the author's imagination is also intertwined. This is how I see the Da Vinci Code ... loose facts ingeniously intertwined to make a rivetting story. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 22, 2006 11:32:14 GMT -5
I am not confused, but rather puzzled at your statement that the movie is respectful of the character of Christ. I beg to differ, unless your notion of respect excludes everything known about him. Oh my goodness. Where to begin. You say they respected Jesus. So. If you take out the claims to divinity,his witnessed resurrectioin from the dead, his recorded and consistent teaching. the founding of a church of people, a very recognizable and organized recognized group he taught personally for 3 years and which arffirmed his divinity and resurrection to the point of their own murders, ("And you Peter, who do you says that I am?" ) and who further testify to their own sometimes horrible and tortured deaths, that he rose and met with them and talked to him for some forty days, 3 days after being crucified and then they ....what? ... offered themselves up to death for .....mistaken identity..? mass hypnosis...? bad eyesight? I gather that they .didn't portray the movie figure as a complete jerk...just the real one. The guys and gals who ate with him, walked with him, heard him speak of giving up marriage and family and property for the kingdom of God, had their children cured of illness, and heard him speak of laying down his life for his sheep were exactly like you and me. Do you really think they got the crucifixion part wrong at the end of the road? Is it not likely that iat some point during the reported 40 days he spent with them after the resurrection that one of these guys or gals would have said something like "Ship! You're not really Jesus! You're Bob! How could we all have been so stupid?" Bob! Why are you fakin' the Jesus thing and putting the con on us?" Or maybe you think it plausible that there was nobody there for those 40 days, like Harvey, James Stuart's rabbit. Just who wants to believe what here? I've maintained for some time that the intellectual ellipses, figure eights, dead ends one has to indulge to escape the eyewitness accounts to the resurrected Jesus their intimate friend and Lord required much more suspension of credible belief than accepting the testimony written in the blood of the martyrs. It's respectable. I was brought up as a Greek Orthodox and my parents are such devoted followers, that I know your perspective very well. I understand your passion...but you need to understand others too. Not everyone has the same fervor and not everyone has the same point of view as you do. Tolerance and respect is the foundation of this forum. As for the book and the movie.... This book will NOT damage the Catholic church or Christianity. If anything, it has sparked interest from people outside the Christian world. My Chinese friends, my Jewish friends, my Muslim friends are ALL talking about JESUS and CHRISTIANITY. Sometimes, you take casualties when you lose a battle but it means little if you are winning the war. Think about the larger picture. While there is much criticism of what message Islam is really delivering, Christianity is debating a fictitious BOOK and a MOVIE. While Catholics may take a shot on the nose, it's nothing serious. On the other hand, if there was a popular and dark movie about the inquisitions or the Crusades, it would deliver a kidney blow to Christianity as a whole. Especially in these times. I get to spend another cold day on Lake Huron today. Brrr..Happy long weekend everyone..it's looking longer... I appreciate your efforts to mollify my complete opposition to this fraud, Brown. And I really do perceive your comments as friendly, conciliatory and attempting to be construvtive. May I suggest that you seem to think or believe, that I think that I have to be a Catholic, or that its' Catholicism in all things true or false, right or wrong etc. This is a well known charicature I see a lot on tv, or hear about in the media, but I don't think I've met 5 Catholics who fit that bill. ANd by the way, I try mostly to respond with my own thoughts, and source material as I think I need to. I err on the side of a big ego most of the time. For your parents and Christians everywhere, faith is first, a gift. A person can help or inhibit the work of grace, the effect of which is incidentally to perfect nature, not ignore or reject it. Secondly, faith is a virtue in that it involves our active participation in its continuance. God's grace assumed, as far as I know..my end, as it were, I spent many thousands of hours studying and consdering Christ and his church. In some considerable measure following all of this study and including a formal education in philosophy, I can say, that I am a Catholic because I find her to be, like Christ, exactly what she has claimed to be from the resurrection. In other words, I find her to be true and significant in a way nothing else in creation can be true and significant. My study of philosophy only confirmed my thoughts in this. Faith is a reasonned assent, supra, or above reason, not below it and it never is anti-rational or ignoring of reason. It is an act of reasoning creatures. As Aquinas said, "What is against reason is sinful." The church has even when I was a kid, always prestented the wrong that people, myself and yourself incidentally with misguided zeal, though the story of the church is anything but a history of misguided zeal. Most don't even know that the Christan world included Egypt and that the crusades were primarily undertaken to stop Muslims after they had attacked and conquered about HALF of Christendom. Western Europe would have been wiped out, and it is not the will of God that victim nations be overwhelmed by invaders. Not then, not now. The Spansih Inquisition was a function of the unification of Spain, the abuse of Church authority and offices for political ends. Spian was a model of peaceful co-existence. It's reputaion has been balckened very dishonestly over these events. This is true of the crusades generally. Outside of some profoundly bigotted trash jobs (recent Vision TV hatchet job on the inquisitons, one of the dirtiest pieces of yellow jounalism and hate literature similar Nazi propaganda against the Jews. I've seen in a very ling time...right up there with Brown) and I am happy to acknowledge real failures and shortcomings, after all..Christ gave mankind the sacrament of reconciliation and divine forgiveness in the sacraments of the church, not because Christians can't and don't sin....just the opposite....we know we fail constantly, and are often powerless to improve and will die imperfect. For all of the faults and failings of the church members, I frankly find "the world" that Christ spoke about , to be incomparably less than the church, in belief, in means employed, in injustice, in indifference to suffering, in fundamental dishonesty, in sexual self- indulgence regardless of who gets ruined, or even killed....not a real pretty picture. As was well said, it is not that Christianity was tried and found wanting, rather was it found difficult and abandonned. And too, there is this really naive philosophical 17th century materialsim which is prevasive and really naive. It constitutes the blinkers of most people's intellects. It's sillyness underlies moral relativism, subjectivism (e.g. that's true for you etc.) and other bits of true insanity, if sanity is having a fundamental grasp of existence. Naive scientism stems from the same nonsense. Much hatred of the church stems from sexual obsession, adultery, divorce, abortion, greed (the sin Christ mentions most and the driving force of a "consumer" society, homosexual practices, desire to dominate, a worldliness that cares too much what other people think about them, and in fact an endless list of ways that human beings fail to be fully human. Your parents and hundreds of millions around the planet have given a reasonned and very reasonable assent to an invitation from God made a long time ago, and made today. For me not to give assent would be to deny what I know, to be false, to be too much like Dan Brown, and not to defend reality is to deny and ultimately lose it. Anyhoo thanks for the attempt at conciliation. If we all ask for the grace to stick to what is ntrue, then all will be well, all manner of thngs shall be well. |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on May 22, 2006 11:36:07 GMT -5
Ah, well . . . I tried. It was my hope that we could have some intelligent discussion about a controversial book/movie. We have Torothab, our resident Catholic apologetic. I was willing to continue my role of resident Protestant apologetic. I figured that Skilly, our resident agnostic, would chime in, as would HA, the hell-bent one, and others in this cast of thousands. All I asked for was sources cited in discussion. For example, one could have said that When Dan Brown wrote that there were 666 panes of glassin the Louvre Pyramid he was wrong (wikipedia), but the book is, of course, fiction.Or one could have said that The Gnostic Gospels were written with a particular viewpoint in mind that was dismissed by what became Christian orthodoxy (wikipedia) . And that's without even quoting a real book! This could be a great discussion . . . but, as ever, looks to be turning just into dis. Ah, well . . . I tried. Don't worry Franko, it won't turn into a "dis"......as long as I have these evil moderating powers. Did I ever tell you how I got them? I will tell you on x6-x6-x6.... The last week or two, I have seen several programs surrounding the Mary Magdalene, DA Vinci and the book. Actually, I think it has been about a dozen programs so far. In the process, I have learned more on a subject that does not really create any passion in me. When I saw the movie today, what startled me was that there were A LOT of older people that you don't normally see in the theater. As an avid movie goer, this is the FIRST thing that struck me. As for the movie itself, I did not find that it disrespected Christ. In fact, it paid respect to him as what I always believe for him to be. Not that of a deity, but that of a man with a message. Of course, this may not sit well with people that want to believe that he was a deity but then again, EVERYBODY is entitled to their opinion. Crusades and Inquisitions notwithstanding. Does the book help or hinder Christianity? It will probably help Christianity as anything that arouses interest and pushes discussion can not be all bad. Like any religion, there are many branches on the tree and in this case, the branch that believes that Christ was a man with a vision and a message will greatly be enhanced. In fact, while it may arise discussion and anger amongst those who believe Christ is the son of God, it will help sell him to three quarters of the world who don't believe in him at all...or his message. Can that be all bad from possessed Hollywood devils? Take someone who is as "devout unbeliever" as myself, now I know way more about the history of Christianity then any self respecting atheist should ever have to (joke!). While it may not have swayed me to "believer", it did bring out a intellectual curiosity. Is that all bad? How much "harm" can so much world wide exposure cause? Does it matter if Christ was human? Or the son of God? Is it the message or the messenger that should be "sold"? Is it the message or the messenger that is more important? What is of greater importance to Christianity? What is the message of Christianity? Remember one thing, you can kill the messanger and bring down walls but NOTHING can ever destroy an IDEA....or IDEALS. Amen Is it a sin to doubt? To ask questions? Can this state of uncertainty be the basis of my personal spirituality? Or does it absolutely have to be faith, dogma? Another reason for Da Vinci Code success, may lie in that for some people looking for answers, it opens some interesting reflection paths. Jesus presented as a husband, a man equal to woman, the celebration of the latter for the miracle of life... no wonder it appeals to lots of occidentals... it seems much more closer to our modern culture especially when compared to a relatively conservative catholic church. Again the book is just a no-so-well written piece of entertainment and the subsequent ain't presented as a documentary. I think I'm more worried about the reaction of the church than of the "lies" perpetuated by the novel. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 22, 2006 12:47:29 GMT -5
Ah, what is truth? The Gospels were written to convey some form of truth, and each of the four that were canonized described Jesus from a different viewpoint. All of the gospels written had their own viewpoint/bias; the four accepted seemed to the church council that was asked to decide which were most likely the picture of Jesus "most likely". The discussion had gone on for over three hundred years, so much debate had already taken place, and theological conclussions ahd been made. Gnostic thought in which Jesus was mere spirit was put aside as heresy; thought in which Jesus was only man (a form of Arianism) was as well. I say I would like to know if the Gnostic Gospels are truthful because (correct me if I am wrong) I believe there is much debate as to the carbon dating (?) of the scrolls. I saw a program (it was about proving the Da Vinci conspiracy wrong) where it was stated these gospels where found in Egypt(?) but have been dated at something like 300AD, and therefore it is accepted that these could not have been written by the apostles or Mary. (I could have all this jumbled but that is what i remember of it). Like I said I think the Bible is a good story (but I do accept that much of it has roots in some fact), so these Gnostic "Tales" Gospels are really not going to sway me off my "agnostic" fence. (Btw, I used to be a devout agnostic, but since my lovely wife came into my life I would consider myself Christian, just very anti-organized religion). But if Nebakanzer and Metuzelah could live to be 653, then why not the apostles ..... ahh that was an attempt at humour. I will go off-topic for a second, not in a way to refute anything but just for general information purposes. Christianity comprises 2.1 million followers as of 2005 or 33% of the world population. (I am not sure what you meant by mystery religions and that is why I am placing this information here). The other religions are broken down as follows: In 1900 the population of christianity was 558 million, so Christianity has seemingly thrived in this century. However, in 1900 558 million accounted for 34.5 percent of the world's population. www.the-tidings.com/2005/0204/difference.htm Whether this is from mass number of people in Asia, or people leaving Christianity I am not sure Ijust offer the information up for general information. Now back to your post. This is what i meant in my first post. Intellectual discussion (and yes even discussing stuff that is totally not plausible is intellectual) should be encourgaed and not feared. I believe this is a valid point. When I used to do Bible study (*sigh* yes I was once a fairly religious kid) the resurection woud be discussed alot. It is the focal point. I never understood why the "Immaculate Conception" was not consider more important - from purity sprung forth purity. Or whether the immacualte conception is considered an exagerration (one would have to admit it would be easier to "fake" than a resurection). I suspect you meant 2.1 Billion, not million for the number of Christians Concerning gnosticism. The church is not and was not a bible lying on the side of the road, picked up by several different folks and leading to a hodgepodge of different ways to get to God, or religions, The bible is the book of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic church. The church is not some intellectual conception corresponding to a definition in the heads of you and me. Rather, the "church" is defined as that body of people with a very clear leadership (apostles) who instructed and PERSONALLY brought both the sacraments of Christ and the teachings of Christ into the world, exactly as Christ commanded them to do very explicitly. The reason the church is called the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic church is exactly because of false claimants making claims outside of the apostles of the church, who ALONE were given the particular church authority that Catholic and Orthodox bishops exercise today. It became the "Roman" Catholic (catholic means universal...for everybody, not just some) exactly to distinguish it from those groups who were not the chosen apostles and disciples of Christ. This phenomenon continues to this day, especially since the sixteenth century when protestantism broke with the same Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. Holy, incidentally does not refer to her members, but to Christ who is present in her sacraments e.g. the bread and wine at communion are the body and blood of Christ as in the Last Supper (No, Mary Magdalen was not there...HAHAHAHH) and in Baptism and the forgiveness of sin, or marriage etc. (Whatever you bind on earth etc..) Acts of God made present to us in the sacraments of the church. Apostolic because of the apostles. The apostles, who were immediately and personally (including Judas) called by Jesus and the first to exercise particular and specific authority and were the particular and especially trained and empowerd followers of Christ. (the same as bishops today who received this authority from the apostles and their successors in sacramental investitures) There wasn't some night shift or part-time gang that was also apostolic. There wasn't some other church, though there were others who prayed and believed in him. Jesus said to let them be as they were unlikely to be speaking ill of Him, but they were not the church proper (and I am not equivocating on one of the several legitimate uses of the word church. I am fully aware of the distinct meanings of the word "church". The church is Roman, exactly because when people heard about the wonders and miracles and fresh new teaching of Christ, like me incidentally, they wanted to know where to go to find his church. It was the Roman Church, for that is where Saint Peter was, he who was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and a special charism (later expressed as the doctrine of papal infallibility). The leadership of the church was in Rome, and to identify it over and against groups making false claims they were referred to as Roman. That is how the church founded by Christ became so-identified and remains so today. The apostles were often murdered and otherwise died off, but they invested their authority in their successors (bishops, and instructed them) . This was done in large part without a bible. There was no bible. Rather the living church in its' authoriized and commissioned life and sacraments grew in the earliest years and there is much documentation, in fact there is vastly more, perhaps a hundred times more supporting historical evidence, than there is for most historical events accepted by historians about decular events. Because Jesus did odd things, like healing lepers and raising Lazarus from the dead, quite a few apply, for some reason a different standard to the record of history, which nonetheless speaks for itself......as does the church around the corner from you and me. The Council of Nicea, a council of the church, not Consatantine and the Roman Empire, recognized a need to formally canonize the church's teaching, and did so. And continues to do so. As far as the gnostic nonsense propagated by more than a few goofballs, including Paglia, Brown's incredible hoseship. etc. etc..they weren't suppressed or beaten up or crushed by the rigid forces of orthodoxy or other such fanciful hoseship colorizations from commercial tv shows selling Toyotas, but rather, every bishop was in direct apostolic succession to both the teaching and sacramental life direct from Jesus Himself. The very human but divinely guided and divinely assured deliberations were not arbitrary clerical decisions, but rather documents were seen to be of the self-same church or not originating from within this self-same church founded and forever nurtured by Christ. So...gnostic nonsense was very readily seen as not the work of the church....by the actual members of the church who could trace direct succession to the original apostles to the very person of the risen Christ. It will disturb and upset a few or many with such trash as the fraud's code, but all of this stuff like some of my jokes is really, really old, and mostly really, really dumb. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 22, 2006 13:25:35 GMT -5
I often wonder if someone today started to claim he was Jesus sent back by God to show us all how to live in harmony once again how many "believers" would follow?
I think the difference between myself and TorontoHab is that to me the teachings of the church/Jesus can be summed up with "Do onto others as you'd have them do unto you" and I feel that if I live my life doing good and respecting my fellow man than the belief in organized religion or Christ should not matter. I am afterall living my life acording to the words of God.
The church should change its name. Catholic church is not universal, it is not for all .... they will not marry gays/lesbians, they will not ordain women, they do not treat all equally. My problems are not with the "word of God", but with a church that does not practice what is preaches and tries to cover up its skeletons.
|
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on May 22, 2006 13:31:02 GMT -5
I often wonder if someone today started to claim he was Jesus sent back by God to show us all how to live in harmony once again how many "believers" would follow? I think the difference between myself and TorontoHab is that to me the teachings of the church/Jesus can be summed up with "Do onto others as you'd have them do unto you" and I feel that if I live my life doing good and respecting my fellow man than the belief in organized religion or Christ should not matter. I am afterall living my life acording to the words of God. The church should change its name. Catholic church is not universal, it is not for all .... they will not marry gays/lesbians, they will not ordain women, they do not treat all equally. My problems are not with the "word of God", but with a church that does not practice what is preaches and tries to cover up its skeletons. Amen! I'm not adding much, but you have my intellectual, moral, spiritual support. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 22, 2006 20:15:00 GMT -5
I often wonder if someone today started to claim he was Jesus sent back by God to show us all how to live in harmony once again how many "believers" would follow? I think the difference between myself and TorontoHab is that to me the teachings of the church/Jesus can be summed up with "Do onto others as you'd have them do unto you" and I feel that if I live my life doing good and respecting my fellow man than the belief in organized religion or Christ should not matter. I am afterall living my life acording to the words of God. The church should change its name. Catholic church is not universal, it is not for all .... they will not marry gays/lesbians, they will not ordain women, they do not treat all equally. My problems are not with the "word of God", but with a church that does not practice what is preaches and tries to cover up its skeletons. Amen! I'm not adding much, but you have my intellectual, moral, spiritual support. Anybody who pays attention to the gospel will tell you that you will find him in the poor and suffering of this world. As to your wondering if "believers" would, it's not really your concern, but he did say that "he who hears you (his church) hears me." "Believers" are in the right place to hear, and statistically they have happier, fuller lives (including sex lives!!) less depression and It doesn't sound like you recognize him. As to his church he warned them that as they hated him because he was the truth, they would hate his church. They did and they do. And also of his church he said, "He who welcomes you welcome me" Now I'm sure you're as reknowned as Mother Theresa and the other orders dedicated to the poor and suffering, for your life of selfless dedicatiojn to the poor, +and I'm sure you can hear the voice of God in all its chrystalline clarity in the church he fills, but us other folk need regular infusions. We leak. When Christ was asked, he stressed loving God first. I think that was in recognition of human proclivities to wander off in selfishness. I'm pretty stupid, so I find the ten commandmemts for instance as guidelines or the rules of reasonable human happiness for when I'm being stupid, which is of course, not infrequently. And apparently Jesus thought the issue might be a little more complex, though easily stated in such simple moral axioms. Apparently, the people who were authorized to forgive sin and celebrate the eucharist and marry for life, also thought Christ had more than moralisms behind him. The historical record supports a different Jesus. Does, for instance a guy who just loves getting laid a lot, in helping his friends get laid a lot, though doing for others what he would do for himself, therebye become a real loving guy. How about the dopesmoker sharing his stash or neede. How about a guy who thinks that male bodies are designed to be penetrated sexually by male sex organs? ANd was Jesus bullshipping when he spoke of eternity and repentence. Odd that you don't reference this. Love is not LUV. Love is demanding. So was Jesus and the organized religion of Jesus. Jesus, according to the people he sent out into the world, didn't seem to think that following him was an easy thing at all. He was a celibate and challenged people to give up every human comfort including the consolations of marriage and children to follow him. I don't know too, too many who have taken up that challenge. Catholicism, like Jesus does not say or teach that good atheistic folks in remote provinces in China, following their consciences are damned. God is not a religious bigot, but neither is he an anti-religioius bigot. Jesus was history's greatest fan of organized religion. I am curious to know what your sources are that seem to be giving you funny idea about what the real Jesus had to say. It's not like we haven't had a couple of thousand years of his many teachings in this culture. The Catholic church is manifestly universal, and you are right, it does not treat all identically rather does it strive to treat them for what they are, unique and different. You have bought into the bogus junk science that claims that homosexually oriented persons are "just born that way" and further that sexual acts between same-sex persons is a completely good thing. There is absolutely no biological evidence or as the American Psychiatruc Association says, there is no evident genetic etyology. I think you are completely duped in this, like a lot of the culture, but will happily consider anything you have to say. The church, and I have homosexually oriented friends by the way, who know exactly what I think AND that I am their good friend, recognizes the real plight of some caught up in the lifestyle, and just as I ahve my crosses to bear and you yours, is there to help. Most psychologically healthy males find the iimage or idea of kissing or being kissed by another male, extremely and completely naturally repugnant, even as we tend to find sexual acts with beautiful women quite naturally appealing. We are jsut designed that way and in a universe designed by someone a little brighter and insightful than you or me, I'd recommend getting used to it. The Catholic church will never do anything as ridiculous and harmful as offering marriage, a physical and sexual impossiblity to persons of the same sex. The idea, as a report of the government of France stated recently is utterly absurd. I'm sorry you can't see that. I'd recommend checking your sources on this issue too. As to whether women have a right to be Catholic priest...where on earth would that right have come from. Jesus, who broke with many Jewish customs and practices did not call or ordain women specifically to the priesthood. Accordingly, the church does not feel authorized to do this. Fidelity to Christ is their mission. On a further note, a Catholic priest is to act, in persona Christa . in the person of Christ. You may have bought into what I perceive as a somewhat quaint bit of nonsense that, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Persons are always sexual. Masculine and feminine are very, very different modes of being human. The universe, as may have escaped you, is heterosexual. Most cultures in their language which embodies their sensibilities divide the world into male and female, le and la, ying and yang etc, etc. More importantly, a woman cannot act in persona Christa. Christ was male. You seem to buy into some sexless impersonal androgenous model, one incidentally derived funnily enough from marxism, in its origins. It is further the case, that in virtually all religious and symbolic traditions of human history the woman or female is represented as tied to or symbolic of the immanence of God and is realational, while the male or masculine is almost exclusively symbolic of the transcendent and other. Jesus, incidentally, spoke of God as Father, not the great cerebral Androgenous One. Throughout its history, which is largely the incredibly fecund history of western civilization and it's very principles of existence, the church has very, very much lived its principles and continues to do so. History books are a good source of boundless evidence for any one with eyes to read. Your views are shared by a considerable number in a culture that is considerably given over to moral relativism and consumerism, and a grossly exagerated individualism. North American civilization and her founding European peoples are also in very considerable decline, and in fact, disappearing. (Italy will mostly be a Muslim nation at current rates by the year 2050. I hope I have addressed some of the false premises underlying your opinions, and please feel completely free to attempt a rebuttal of what I have written or if you have some evidence countering my response, please feel free to bring it to my attention. As Dis would say, Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 22, 2006 20:58:58 GMT -5
Don't worry Franko, it won't turn into a "dis"......as long as I have these evil moderating powers. Did I ever tell you how I got them? I will tell you on x6-x6-x6.... The last week or two, I have seen several programs surrounding the Mary Magdalene, DA Vinci and the book. Actually, I think it has been about a dozen programs so far. In the process, I have learned more on a subject that does not really create any passion in me. When I saw the movie today, what startled me was that there were A LOT of older people that you don't normally see in the theater. As an avid movie goer, this is the FIRST thing that struck me. As for the movie itself, I did not find that it disrespected Christ. In fact, it paid respect to him as what I always believe for him to be. Not that of a deity, but that of a man with a message. Of course, this may not sit well with people that want to believe that he was a deity but then again, EVERYBODY is entitled to their opinion. Crusades and Inquisitions notwithstanding. Does the book help or hinder Christianity? It will probably help Christianity as anything that arouses interest and pushes discussion can not be all bad. Like any religion, there are many branches on the tree and in this case, the branch that believes that Christ was a man with a vision and a message will greatly be enhanced. In fact, while it may arise discussion and anger amongst those who believe Christ is the son of God, it will help sell him to three quarters of the world who don't believe in him at all...or his message. Can that be all bad from possessed Hollywood devils? Take someone who is as "devout unbeliever" as myself, now I know way more about the history of Christianity then any self respecting atheist should ever have to (joke!). While it may not have swayed me to "believer", it did bring out a intellectual curiosity. Is that all bad? How much "harm" can so much world wide exposure cause? Does it matter if Christ was human? Or the son of God? Is it the message or the messenger that should be "sold"? Is it the message or the messenger that is more important? What is of greater importance to Christianity? What is the message of Christianity? Remember one thing, you can kill the messanger and bring down walls but NOTHING can ever destroy an IDEA....or IDEALS. Amen Is it a sin to doubt? To ask questions? Can this state of uncertainty be the basis of my personal spirituality? Or does it absolutely have to be faith, dogma? Another reason for Da Vinci Code success, may lie in that for some people looking for answers, it opens some interesting reflection paths. Jesus presented as a husband, a man equal to woman, the celebration of the latter for the miracle of life... no wonder it appeals to lots of occidentals... it seems much more closer to our modern culture especially when compared to a relatively conservative catholic church. Again the book is just a no-so-well written piece of entertainment and the subsequent ain't presented as a documentary. I think I'm more worried about the reaction of the church than of the "lies" perpetuated by the novel. A couple of things. You are dogmatic. All human beings are dogmatic. Dogma is simply teaching. The most dogmatic person in human hitory was Jesus Christ. You find Jesus offensive to your dogma. Too bad. THe issue is whether Jesus' dogma or yours is worthwhile, where they differ. It is normal to experience doubt. Faith is a gift and a virtue. I sometimes dump my faith. Usually I get over it I think. God knows. Dan Brown is a liar and a fraud, who claimed on ABC television and in interviews that he was delivering the truth. You are perhaps ignorant of this fact. He has slandered and maligned 2000 years of history (and alll of your ancestors) in the process. Only modern man stupid enough to think he's so damned smart. The Catholic church is not "conservative", Historically most Canadians including my family going back to the 17th century in Canada has always advanced an ethic of compassion that has usually found political expression on the liberal side of the political spectrum. The church asks you to have compassion for the child in the womb. It begs you not to dump a wife or husband because things got flat for a while and break up a family. She asks us to be responsible with our sexuality. aANd she reminds us that this life is a very quick and passing thing in an otherwise eternal life. It asks us to consider the poor in all things and Jesus said we will be judged by our response to this. It's frankly bizarre to me that in the face of Brown's very successful attempt to dupe his would be readership by lying about its historicity and filling a book with slander and really brutal lies and deceptions concerning not just the church, but the very meaning of life, that you can say something about fearing the reaction of the church. If it is fair game to speak of the church and criticize and misrepresent and deride her....I am reminded of Jesus saying to his church that "he who hears you, hears me". While you accept slander and lies as good things, I am curious as to what on earth you would fear in response from the church. Are you thinking that at mass today, the priest is going to suggest that instead of going golfing or playing tennis later, that we drop by a theatre and pound out a moviegoer or two? People say the oddest damned things. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 22, 2006 21:36:36 GMT -5
I am now, for a couple of minutes listening to a few morons spouting innuendo and crap in Angels and Demons.
Moronic pap. Fool fodder. The real danger of this stuff which is to schoarship and education what the WWF is to the Olympics is that the poor sops who buy into the moronic become ....guess what? right. Morons.
We have enough morons.
|
|
fence. (Btw, I used to be a devout agnostic, but since my lovely wife came into my life I would consider myself Christian, just very anti-organized religion). But if Nebakanzer and Metuzelah could live to be 653, then why not the apostles ..... ahh that was an attempt at humour.