Da Vinci Code Movie

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I find it remarkable that there are people who believe a man could rise from the dead, yet who are unwilling to believe that the same man could have sex with a woman. I guess they follow Tertullian--credo quia absurdum.

 

It's called a 2000 year belief that still last to this day, and trying to change it is like trying disprove everything the Church has stood for from the start of its birth.

[Chyhoedd da]

I loved the book. Wonderfully written and factual (not all of it, but it makes some stuff that you can grasp how some things were like (Celtic ideaology)

 

Celts were really Matriarchal (Women slept with around 12 men .... she had the right too ... I dont know if a man could sleep with 12 women)

 

In my opinion the books revolves around women. That may why many are outraged.

 

Discrimination against women still exist today even today, not only in 3rd world countries but world powers. Though the gap between men and women is much shorter then it has ever been.

 

Perhaps we are offended by the Book because it APPRECIATES women, not make then objects or toys.

 

Also, many of are christain (and if European, most likely Catholic) so your natural instinct (Reminds me of the GAS laws in Pyschology, oh I hope i get them right)

 

 

Stage 1 - Deciding whether to ruhn or fight (Most case are fight ... Christains oppose suggestinos that the Church has done evil deeds)

 

Stage 2. - Adrenaline rush (This may be at same time as Stage 1 to help yo urun/fight) (This would concern the zealous opposition to the book, evne if you dont know exactly why)

 

Stage 3. - FIGHT! (This is were you openly oppose it /talk about it)

 

Stage 4. -Run (if failed)

 

Stage 5. - Rest (Exhausted by lost of Adrenaline ... sortof like a "I dont care anymore"

[tflex]

I find it remarkable that there are people who believe a man could rise from the dead, yet who are unwilling to believe that the same man could have sex with a woman. I guess they follow Tertullian--credo quia absurdum.

 

I think it's more remarkable that people are willing to discard or discredit a belief that has lasted 2000 years because some author decided to write his own version of the story 2000 years later without a shred of evidence to prove it.

Edited February 10, 2006 by tflex

[Primus Pilus]

I find it remarkable that there are people who believe a man could rise from the dead, yet who are unwilling to believe that the same man could have sex with a woman. I guess they follow Tertullian--credo quia absurdum.

 

I think it's more remarkable that people are willing to discard or discredit a belief that has lasted 2000 years because some author decided to write his own version of the story 2000 years later without a shred of evidence to prove it.

 

Hey, if it makes everyone feel better... I find both equally implausible.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think it's more remarkable that people are willing to discard or discredit a belief that has lasted 2000 years because some author decided to write his own version of the story 2000 years later without a shred of evidence to prove it.

 

Almost every thing written about Jesus was written long after the fact. The gospels themselves are so riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, we're not even sure whether Jesus' ministry lasted one year or three! So what difference does it make whether the fabulae are 200, 2000, or 20000 years old?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I think it's more remarkable that people are willing to discard or discredit a belief that has lasted 2000 years because some author decided to write his own version of the story 2000 years later without a shred of evidence to prove it.

 

Almost every thing written about Jesus was written long after the fact. The gospels themselves are so riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, we're not even sure whether Jesus' ministry lasted one year or three! So what difference does it make whether the fabulae are 200, 2000, or 20000 years old?

 

Bahhh... Then why bother argue because Catholics are Catholics with fundamental beliefs and non-believers are nonbelievers... it really isn't gonna change!

[Ursus]

Bahhh... Then why bother argue because Catholics are Catholics with fundamental beliefs and non-believers are nonbelievers... it really isn't gonna change!

 

 

Because militant atheists, like militant monotheists, feel the need to convert people.

 

As for the book itself, I've not read it, and have only heard about in passing. What, exactly, is all the buzz about?

[Chyhoedd da]

I think the main thing is is that the Catholic are bad guys in the book .... or atleast the radical group which in the book alot of Catholics liked.

 

Also one of the "devout" christians (the albino) took part in dself-torture when he did something wrong.

 

Hmmm lemme see what else, the badguys (radical group) were friends of the Pope, so maybe the readers think that the author infers tbat the pope has bad friends.

 

Also in the book it said that Jesus made Mary pregnant which if you followed would mean that Jesus loved Mary as much as Joseph did (get my drift?)

 

The Church also looks greedy and wants to destroy all things related to Mary's pregnancy.

 

The book hits the Church hard on alot of things, so maybe christains hate seeing thier once-a-week pastime made looking like sludge. Though notice like the Bible, Koran, Torah, or any other book it doesnt say in the begining "Based on a True story, or True Story" (I agree with Primus, I mean)

 

So in my opinion, all religious text are as true as the as white is black.

 

I think people mainly got mad becuase it had lots of famous people (Benjamin Franklin, Davinnci, Isaac Newton) as athiest who opposed the church and tryed to resist the church and in davinci's case, paganize the christain art.

 

Though since most havent read it I wont say much more.

[Sextus Roscius]

and trying to change it is like trying disprove everything the Church has stood for from the start of its birth.

 

Hell, we can try...

 

Cato, there is so winning against mysticism, if you care to stop the beleif, the only way is to destroy it, not change it, and they've got that covered to. As of the moment, fight against them only when what they say is hindering your own personal development or the development of those you care for. 2006 is not the time where we can fight the battle on the side of logic, and win...

[Favonius Cornelius]

Could someone give me the low-down on what this book is about? I'll never read it, I can think about a few hundred books ahead of it, but I would like to know the basic premise.

[Andrew Dalby]

In my opinion the books revolves around women.

 

I don't like the book -- for one or two reasons which I might put in another post -- but I have to disagree with this. There are female figures in the book's mythology, yes, but the only actual female character seems to spend most of her time listening to pseudo-historical lectures with her mouth open. Or am I wrong?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cato, there is so winning against mysticism

I may not win, but I can laugh and taunt.

 

2006 is not the time where we can fight the battle on the side of logic, and win...

If you believe that, you might as well break your pen and cut out your tongue. If logic cannot win in an age of space travel, nuclear weapons, and the internet, the human race is doomed--and I don't believe it is doomed.

[tflex]

Almost every thing written about Jesus was written long after the fact. The gospels themselves are so riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, we're not even sure whether Jesus' ministry lasted one year or three! So what difference does it make whether the fabulae are 200, 2000, or 20000 years old?

 

The Da Vinci Code talked about Jesus and the new testament which was written two thousand years ago, therefore it's the authors job to prove his baseless claims that aim to revise the new testament. In one of your earlier posts you implied that it's very possible that Jesus had sex. So what proof do you have and what proof does the author have to disprove the new testament?

 

It seems as though you apply a different standard of interpretation to the two books. You are close minded when it comes to the bible but you are open minded when it comes to the Da Vinci Code which is based on lies. This goes to prove that some (and I underline some) atheists are just as close minded as some monotheists.

[Ursus]

Could someone give me the low-down on what this book is about? I'll never read it, I can think about a few hundred books ahead of it, but I would like to know the basic premise.

 

 

From what I can gather on the internet, the plot involves a conspiracy by the Vatican to conceal the true nature of Christianity - and the true nature of Christianity seems to be something along the lines of Gnosticism, where Mary Magdelene was a disciple of Christ and in fact his lover. Leonardo da Vinci somehow knew of the conspiracy and reflected it in his paintings, which explains the title of the book.

 

I believe I saw a movie like this before. Ever see "Stigmata?" It's part of a growing interest in Gnosticism - or at least what the New Age crowd wants to take from Gnosticism. A version of Christianity more friendly to the feminine, and to mysticism, and so forth.

 

As for myself, I really don't care either way. But I do give modern Christians their due that they can disagree with the book and denounce it as heresy or blasphemy without killing people or burning things. That's something that apparently modern Islam hasn't learned, as demonstrated by recent events.

[M. Porcius Cato]

It seems as though you apply a different standard of interpretation to the two books.

 

Nope--I regard both the New Testament and the DaVinci Code to be bad fiction. I only like Dan Brown more than the Gospel-writers because at least Brown clearly labels his book FICTION. When the Gospels get labelled 'fiction', I'd be a lot happier.

 

And BTW it's no one's job to disprove the Gospels or any other fabulae--it's up to the Gospel-writers to convince their audience, not their audience to disprove the Gospel-writers. If any random assertion is to be held true until proven false, then we might as well forget about critical-thinking altogether.

Edited February 12, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato