It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

da vinci movie

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   
anyone seen 'the last temptation of christ'?

''This striking vision from the mind of director Martin Scorsese offers an allegorical interpretation of the last days of Jesus Christ, based on the book by Nikos Kazantzakis. Based strictly on Kazantzakis's book, the film has a very different focus than past portraits of the "Messiah." This Jesus (Willem Defoe) is a man wracked with doubt over his position among his followers and fear of the role God has chosen for him, as well as the pain that must accompany it. He is unsure whether the messages he receives come from God or Satan, and he is tempted by a mortal life filled with earthly possessions and sensual love, resulting in a controversial, though genuinely sympathetic, account of Christianity’s most revered figure''.

Sometimes you've just got to look at certain things without the bible in the way, and accept it might just be a 'good' film, or a 'good' book. Plus David Bowie is in the last temptation of christ


If these movies of open minds, free thoughts are not for you then I suggest:

movies.yahoo.com...

So you can stay in your bubble for a little longer...




posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw

So I guess that you were alive two thousand years ago to prove all of the disciples wrong? There is no evidence that you speak of, never has been, never will be. If ya gots problems with GOD, take them up with him. Not believing in him doesn't make him unreal.


i bet you i have more evidence that he didn't exist than you say he does, you say i wasn't around 2000 years ago to see if he was true, but were you?? so if that's the case your arguement is just as flawed as mine cos you don't know either way yourself if jesus did/didn't exist, and i never said that GOD wasn't real, i said JESUS wasn't, but again, that's only my opinion, but i think it is the right one.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   


My old pastor and friend once told me that being a Christian is like having two dogs inside you that are constantly fighting. I asked him which dog wins? He said whichever dog you feed the most.


Interesting that your "pastor" should have to resort to plagerizing " Pagan Native American Spiritual Leaders".



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
www.sonypictures.com...


Looks like a winning combination of filmmakers, I will see it for sure. I didn't read the novel since it is about theories I have read dozens of books on before. It is bound to make some waves, but that is good, it will make people think. Or at least it will try to.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
The Bible is not FALSE! It is just not the COMPLETE story of Jesus Christ and ALL of his teachings. In fact, it is a small slice of the extent of Gospels written about him.

The Christian church simply does not want QUESTIONS. The Davinci Code causes people to ask some fundemental questions which the Church is not prepared to answer.

And THAT is what the whole stink boils down to. Simply that.

[edit on 10-9-2005 by jupiter869]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
I bet I can come a lot closer than you can.
Billions of people throughout history have died in the name of Jesus Christ. I don't think anyone has ever died in the name of Davinci.


I totally agree. This is just another example of the church's ongoing mission of censorship. I HATE the idea of censorship. If I don't like a book/film, I don't read/watch it. Simple as that. I don't get up every day determined to change anyone's ideas. To the church, show me everything you have about Jesus Christ and let me make up my own mind!


Originally posted by shaunybaby
a christian friend of mine told me she was so excited when she learnt about 'bible codes', basically because she believed it. then only reason she believed it is because bible codes are trying to say that there really is a god and mysterious power. when it comes to books on that subject christians will choose to believe it etc, yet when something comes out saying the bible is wrong...burn it!!!


Again, I agree. I have no issue with the Chriatian faith, but I DO have an issue with mindless censorship and ignorance.

The Da Vinci Code is a story. The whole point of stories is to share an experience or idea with someone and hopefully, have them make up their own mind about it. So what if people choose the DVC over the bible. For every one that does this, there is one who chooses the bible over the Da Vinci Code.

To those with a personal vendetta against this truly brilliant story, have you actually read it yet?

But hey, who am I to argue, I'm only an atheist.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 06:40 AM
link   
When 'Indiana Jones' came out, I can't remember atheists coming forward and complaining that the movie was based on myths, legends, hearsay, fairytale ideas that are very unlikely to be at all realistic. I'm sure no atheist had a problem when they found the Holy Grail and it saved Dr.Jones' father. I'm pretty sure no atheist had a problem when the Ark of the Convent was found. All of these 'Holy Grail' and 'Ark of the Convent' would suggest in the movie trilogy 'Indiana Jones' that there was indeed a higher power and the bible was completly true. But did we hear atheist saying this movie shouldn't be released, or the story/plot changed to be infitting with atheist beliefs? No, I certainly don't remember that happening. So why then, when a movie comes out that doesn't agree with what Christians believe, does the plot have to be changed or even commented on that Christians don't like it??

Movies are just that...movies. They are for our imagination, and to entertain. With the 'Indiana Jones' trilogy it was a 'fun' and 'imaginative' concept that it might all be true. The same goes for The Da Vinci Code movie. However, the difference between atheists and Christians here, seems to be that; atheists can watch something pro-christianity like Indiana Jones and enjoy it, yet Christians can't sit back and enjoy a movie like The Da Vinci Code.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
When 'Indiana Jones' came out, I can't remember atheists coming forward and complaining that the movie was based on myths, legends, hearsay, fairytale ideas that are very unlikely to be at all realistic. I'm sure no atheist had a problem when they found the Holy Grail and it saved Dr.Jones' father. I'm pretty sure no atheist had a problem when the Ark of the Convent was found. All of these 'Holy Grail' and 'Ark of the Convent' would suggest in the movie trilogy 'Indiana Jones' that there was indeed a higher power and the bible was completly true. But did we hear atheist saying this movie shouldn't be released, or the story/plot changed to be infitting with atheist beliefs? No, I certainly don't remember that happening. So why then, when a movie comes out that doesn't agree with what Christians believe, does the plot have to be changed or even commented on that Christians don't like it??

Movies are just that...movies. They are for our imagination, and to entertain. With the 'Indiana Jones' trilogy it was a 'fun' and 'imaginative' concept that it might all be true. The same goes for The Da Vinci Code movie. However, the difference between atheists and Christians here, seems to be that; atheists can watch something pro-christianity like Indiana Jones and enjoy it, yet Christians can't sit back and enjoy a movie like The Da Vinci Code.




Here Here Mate couldnt of said it better myself, I should probably add that I was born a Catholic before becoming a born again christian (due to pressure placed upon me by my girlfriends family). I have a good relation ship with god, but then again I know that i will believe what i want to believe... I do not believe that the bible is accurate in all respects. Anyone heard of chinese whispers? The same theory applies here Im sure the original stories differed greatly from what is written today. I also would like to add that as of yesterday i began reading The Da Vinci Code and its a good book so all to all other Christians out there stop your whining and bitching... This book does not force anything upon you and the only reason you fear it is obviously because you fear that it may threaten your faith in god. And if a Fiction book has the power to shake your faith in god then perhaps your relationship with god was not all that strong to begin with.

Thanks Red Rose

P.S. Tom Hanks is a great actor.

[edit on 25-9-2005 by Red Rose]

[edit on 25-9-2005 by Red Rose]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
The best movies I have seen were thoughtprovoking and spurred me into contemplating their concepts and ideas long after I left the theatre. I know quite a bit about the subject matter that the book was fabricated around, and so I won't read it. I will see the film, though, as it is in my area of interest, and I want to see how much of the stuff I found to be possibly true about those times is in it. I read Holy Blood Holy Grail over 20 years ago, and have read related books by the dozens since. Some of the proposed alternative accounts make quite a bit more sense to me than the generally taught ones. I would rather see Jesus as having experienced all of human life, including parenthood and marriage, since it is such a big part of our humanity.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   

originally posted by deesw
Disprove the BIBLE, disprove JESUS.
No man or woman in history has ever been able to do so.


Well, you got to love a challenge. I guess the following is just an intellectual exercise since I doubt the points I'm about to present will be considered with the proper scrutiny and consideration they deserve. Before I begin I'd like to say that if you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that you experience as real than you should not be threatened by what anyone has to say about the matter. Not Dan Brown, or Tom Hanks or me or anyone. My purpose in this is not to challenge your perception of reality, which is yours and yours alone. If you feel the love of Christ as an active part of your being, good for you and more power to you.


originally posted by deesw
Billions of people throughout history have died in the name of Jesus Christ. I don't think anyone has ever died in the name of Davinci.


I had to laugh at this as it shows that you are completely unfamiliar with the book your railing against. "The DaVinci Code" in no way presents Leonardo DaVinci as an alternative to Jesus Christ. Do you even know what the book is about? If not then go Google and familiarize yourself with the material at the very least or actually read the damn thing. It won't hurt you. That being said, billions is an awfully big number. Let's use millions just to be on the safe side. Millions of people of people have died in the name of Jesus Christ and no one has ever died in the name of DaVinci but remember also that millions of people have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ and no one has been killed in the name of DaVinci. Something to consider.


originally posted by deesw
Ya gots ta look at the fact that Christianity has always been the most persecuted religion ever.


I didn't know Popeye was a fundamentalist. I'm not sure if Christianity is the most persecuted religion ever. I would imagine the most persecuted religion ever has been wiped off the face of the Earth. Maybe if you factor in all the occasions when Christians have persecuted other Christians it might reach the level of most. It could just as easily be argued that Christianity is the most persecuting religion in history, but I digress...

Okay, so we'll start with the standard question of "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?". The typical, and unsatisfactory answer: "The Lord works in mysterious ways".

I'll leave the Old Testament out of this for the sake of brevity and focus on the New Testament. If the New Testament is so very provable doesn't it stand to reason that the authorship of the canon would be readily apparent and that its tenets would be readily apparent and acceptable to all of its practitioners, particularly in the earliest years of its existence? Unfortunately this is not the case.

In fact we know nothing about the authors of the Gospels. We only have speculation. There is not one shred of evidence confirming their authorship. The early Christians felt they had no need of a written testament because they felt that Christ's return was imminent. Why wouldn't Christ have clued in his closest followers that his return would be delayed for several thousand years? Once the life spans of those who could have conceivably known Christ first hand dwindled out they started to realize that they better start writing some stuff down so they could transmit it to future generations. When they did so their were many, many stories and gospels that gave differing accounts that were often contradictory to one another, especially in regards to the resurrection. Some argued it was a physical resurrection. Others contended it was a spiritual event that could be experienced by anyone, a "heresy" that naturally was threatening to the authority of the church.

Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels because they generally agree on details and the timeline. They often used the same words to describe the same event causing some to posit a previous collection of Christ's sayings used as a mutual source. Mark is regarded as the earliest, and of his 661 verses only 24 aren't quoted by Matthew or Luke. Matthew and Luke do occasionally disagree with Mark but never over the same detail.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the Synoptic Gospels were written by who they are said to have been written by, Mark was not an apostle but an associate of Paul, also not an apostle. Neither Mark nor Paul had first hand experience of Christ. The Gospel is said to be based on the preaching of Peter and dates to c. 65 CE. Matthew is held to be the tax-collector mentioned in Matthew 9:9, aka Levi. But Matthew borrows heavily from Mark so one has to wonder why an individual with first hand experience of Christ had to rely on a second hand source. Matthew dates to anywhere between 64-134 CE. Luke and the Book of Acts are assumed to have the same author as they are both addressed to the Roman Theophilius and they most likely represent the teachings of Paul. The dating, especially regarding Jesus' birth, is inconsistent with other sources. Luke is a character in Acts and a companion to Paul. It dates to 65-70 CE. It's interesting that even within the Synoptic Gospels that there isn't a uniformity of thought.

John is quite different from the other Gospels, following a different timeline and containing additional stories and details. The identity of the author of John is unknown. It's traditionally held to be written by "the disciple that Jesus loved" mentioned in John 13:23. While John does mention the names of the other Gospel writers he never mentions his own name. John dates to c. 100 CE. Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (the Pauline Epistles) are assumed to have been written by Paul. The author of Hebrews is unknown but it is grouped with Paul's letters. The Revelation of St. John is attributed to the author of the Gospel of John but this claim is unlikely. The style of Greek is different and unlike John the author mentions his own name repeatedly. He calls himself a prophet but never an apostle. Revelations dates to 95-100 CE. If the apostle John wrote either John or Revelations he would have been extremely aged at the time.

Early Christians argued what constituted the nature of Christ and Christianity. The chief competitor to what was to become the mainstream was Gnosticism, whose tenets held that an individual did not need the church to serve as an intermediary with God. The second century Gnostic Marcian produced the first list of books he felt were appropriate for the New Testament, a heavily edited Luke and some of Paul's letters. Marcian was heavily anti-Semitic and felt Christianity should completely separate itself from Judaism. He believed that Jesus was not born of Jewish parents and manifested fully grown from the mind of God. His writing was eradicated by the orthodox church.

Lodovico Muratori compiled a list (the Muratorian Canon). This inspired other Christian leaders to compile lists and councils were held to determine a single set of books. Fearing the effect of Gnostic principles, Irenaeus of Lyon determined that the canon should be based upon Scripture and the apostles. This established the basis for future orthodoxy determinations. It wasn't until the fourth century that a list was produced that matches what is in place today, courtesy of the church historian Eusebius. In 367 CE Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria under Constantine (who worshipped Sol Invictus until his deathbed), set forth what proved to be the final canon, listing 27 works. In 382 at a council held in Rome under Pope Damasus, church leaders adopted the list. It was affirmed in councils at Hippo in 393 and 419 CE, and wasn't officially ratified until 473 CE. It should be noted that these councils made decisions through voting, meaning the will of God could be usurped potentially through the free will of a single or small group of individuals. The Greek Orthodox Church didn't finalize their canon until the 10th century, with the primary contention occurring over the inclusion of Revelations. The Syrian Church to this day only recognizes 22 books, excluding 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelations. Copts and Ethiopians both have additional books.

If there is such validity to the story of Christ then why was it so difficult to come to a uniformity of thought on the matter? Why did it take nearly 500 years to produce the official New Testament? How could the arguments and counter theories exist to begin with? This doesn't even take into account the Protestant revolution and the scores of variations that have been generated since.

It's an observable fact that the Christ mythos contain many elements found in numerous earlier mystery religions, some of which date to thousands of years before the supposed birth of Christ. Here's just a sample:

Mithras - A Persian (Iranian) tradition dating to prehistoric times, c. 3,000 BCE at the latest. Revered in Zoroastrian and Vedic (Hindu) literature. Imported to Rome c. 70 BCE. The early christians asserted their dominance on the followers of Mithra through mass murder, the razing of temples and the burning of sacred texts. Mithra was born of a virgin mother on December 25th (celebrated near the winter solstice) and after he died he was resurrected (celebrated near the spring equinox). He was called God's messenger of truth, Savior, Son of God, Redeemer, and the Lamb of God. On the sabbath his followers ate a sacramental meal of bread and water or bread and wine symbolizing flesh and blood. Initiation included baptism. At a Mithric temple in Rome an inscription reads, "And thou hast saved us by shedding the eternal blood".

Dionysus/Bacchus - First worshipped in Thrace (NE of Greece). Imported to Greece by the time Homer wrote the Iliad (c. 800 BCE). By Hellenistic times (after 332 BCE) worshiped from Italy to Greece into Egypt and the Middle East. Mentioned in tablets c. 1,200 BCE. Herodotus described initiation into his mysteries in the 5th century BCE. Euripides' play "The Bacchae" was first performed c. 400 BCE. Livy mentions worship in Rome as early as 186 BCE. Julius Caesar formally recognized the mysteries in the 1st century BCE. Entered Palestine with Helenism after Alexander's conquest in 332 BCE. Dionysus' father was the all mighty god Zeus, his mother was the mortal Semele. Dionysus is identified with the lamb. He's called the King of Kings, the Only Begotten Son, Savior, Redeemer, Sin-bearer, Anointed One, and the Alpha and Omega. Dionysus died, was resurected and ascended to heaven. Belief in Dionysus was said to bring salvation. Initiation in the mysteries included baptism. The inscription on the following image reads "Orpheus Bakkus" and appeared 200 years prior to images of Christ on the cross.



Dionysus was the god of wine and one can see the imagery at play in images of an agricultural deity when one considers grapes ripening on stakes or crosses.

Isis and Osiris - Major Egyptian deities dating to prehistory, as early as the 3rd millennium BCE. There were Greek temples as early as 333 BCE. The tradition was introduced in Rome in the 1st century BCE. Osiris is killed, resurected, becomes immortal and rules the afterlife as the judge of the dead. Initiation to the mysteries included baptism and a sacramental meal.

Note the striking similarity of the following sculpture of Isis and Horus to images of Mary and the Christ child.



Cybele and Attis - From Phrygia (modern Turkey). Worshipped for centuries in Phrygia before being imported to Rome in 204 BCE. Mentioned by Lucretius (b. 98 BCE, d. 54 BCE), Catollus (86-40 BCE), and Varro (116-28 BCE). Attis was born to the virgin Nana on December 25th. Before and during the years the Gospels were written, Romans yearly celebrated the Festival of Joy in remembrance of Attis' death and rebirth. On March 22nd a pine tree was brought to the temple of Cybele on which hung an effigy of Attis. Two days of mourning were followed by revery on March 25th to represent the god's resurrection. Worshipers ate a sacramental meal of bread and wine representing the god's body and blood. Initiates were baptized with bull blood on a site on Vatican Hill where now stands St. Peter's Basilica.

Christian apologists such as Tertullian and Father Justin Martyr (who wrote in the 100s CE) owned up to the striking parallels and the earlier origin of these and other pagan figures. The explanation, the only one ever presented, was that the devil read in the Old Testament about the coming of a messiah and sent these figures to Earth earlier in order to confuse the masses. A pretty flimsy excuse by anyone's account and one wholly dependent upon the belief in the devil.

Note the frequency of these agricultural gods to a goddess figure who survives the physical death of their male counterpart and factor in the relationship of Christ to Mary Magdelene as presented in "The DaVinci Code". As mentioned by others, TDVC draws heavily from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Richard Leigh, Michael Baigent and Henry Lincoln. One of the primary characters in TDVC is Leigh Teabing (anagram of Baigent), who is crippled in a manner similar to Henry Lincoln. HBHG presents much more material than Brown's pulp-style page turner and goes in great detail discussing the possibility that Christ was a political figure with a legitimate claim to the throne of Israel as an ancestor of King David. They raise questions such as how anyone could be taken seriously as a Jewish leader if they were unmarried and didn't sire children. They also wondered why Christ would be executed and paid so much attention to if his followers at that time numbered so few. I have yet to hear any explanations for these and many other salient points in their book.

The bottom line is that belief in Jesus Christ as presented in the Bible depends upon belief in the soul, an intangible quality that is unobservable making it untenable to study through the scientific method. Even the mind is a construct. Mind is minding. The separation of body and spirit is a dualism that can not be demonstrated. If the material I've presented is insufficient to you as proof first prove to me that the soul exists and then we can talk about Christ.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 02:22 AM
link   
So I read all the related books until I had exhausted my thirst for information that I could use to piece together a historical timeline that I was satisfied made sense. And then I got distracted by life, and spent my evenings much more enjoyably than with a book, no matter how good a book it was.
Here are a few good links with lots to digest and ponder.

www.nexusmagazine.com...

www.electricscotland.com...

www.lundyisleofavalon.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I hope the movie is as good as the book.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by deesw
Disprove the BIBLE, disprove JESUS.
No man or woman in history has ever been able to do so.


no one has yet 'proved' jesus existed. all we have are fabricated documents. no physical evidence. we have to take someone's 'word' that he was an actual person.


originally posted by deesw
Billions of people throughout history have died in the name of Jesus Christ. I don't think anyone has ever died in the name of Davinci.


basic showing of a christian's ignorance towards knowledge of anything outside the bible.


originally posted by deesw
Ya gots ta look at the fact that Christianity has always been the most persecuted religion ever.


i love it when christian's play this card. it's their last ditched attempt to prove they are the true chosen ones, and have been right all along, and that's why they've all been persecuted in to a non-existent religion of 800,000,000 members.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
The problem I have with Dan Brown's book is that he blurs history and fiction in a manner that has far too many people forgetting that this is a work of fiction - and, frankly, not a terribly original one. Take the tired old saw of gnoticism out of the equation and the book reads as a second rate mystery.

But a flood of websites, books, television 'news' programs sought to capitalize on the money train the Da Vinci Code generated. Far too many actually sought to legitimize this FICTIONAL piece of - let's be kind - literature as some sort of secret history or manifesto.

As a devout Catholic, I don't like the book. As a historian, I laugh at some of the assumptions Brown tries to peddle off. But even more ludicrous are the folk who are seeking for the secrets buried in this or that. The tired old saw "EVeryone has 20/20 hindsight" is appropriate here. Anyone can look and find symbols in just about anything. To paraphrase once more here - "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

I won't go see the movie, I think that it is another assault on the Church, but I also believe that people have the right to write what they wish to write, make movies on what they choose to make movies about, and to read or watch what they wish. As a man of Faith, I believe in the doctrine of Free Will. Man has the choice to choose good or evil, right and wrong. The mark of a man is the choices he makes and the reasons why he makes them.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I've read better books as far as plot, character, etc. go for sure. I think it's obvious that Dan Brown had a different agenda to his story-writing, and one that has paid off handsomely. Reverse capitalizing off of the fervent paranoia of the modern day church is a marketing move equally clever to Mel Gibson's pandering to it. Brown basically lifted the material from another book, recognizing the compelling narrative in "Holy Blood Holy Grail" and realizing that your average suburbanite wasn't going to read a long piece of non-fiction. It's kind of funny that Richard Leigh and Michael Baigent are suing Brown.
How can anyone really own a piece of esoteric tradition?

The "revelations" of Mary Magdelen as wife of Jesus and mother of his children only further cements the Christ mythos to the mystery traditions of many, many other preexistent solar/agricultural deities. The best thing about "The DaVinci Code" and "Holy Blood Holy Grail" is the revelation of the argots hidden in the paintings of Leonardo DaVinci and other Renaissance and Baroque artists. They don't teach you that in art history 101. Observation alone makes it apparent that a form of Gnostic/Rosicrucianism thought of some nature is being employed in the compositions. Symbolism is like any language. Once you learn how to read it you can't not read it. While the Freudian statement 'sometimes a cigar is just a cigar' is bandied about frequently when discussing this subject, it's being misapplied as Freud was referring to the psychosexual symbolism of his brand of psychoanalysis and not the visual art of symbolism. A more appropriate authority to refer to on this subject is probably Renee Magritte who correctly showed that the image of a pipe is never a pipe.

P.S. Everyone please feel free to explain the crucified Bacchus image posted above. Was it the devil?



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by shantyman
The problem I have with Dan Brown's book is that he blurs history and fiction in a manner that has far too many people forgetting that this is a work of fiction - and, frankly, not a terribly original one.


i think the exact same thing could be said for the bible.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
Shauny, there is truth out there, and it is the word of GOD.
There is a farce out there, and it is the davinci code. It is yet another attempt by people like you to twist and pervert the BIBLE to further your own agendas. I would like to present a challenge to you or anyone else on this site.........
Disprove the BIBLE, disprove JESUS.
No man or woman in history has ever been able to do so.
So I challenge you shauny.


First of all, don't think just because I make this comment that I am not a Christian, as I am, however I'd like to say something in his defense. In counter, I challenge you to prove the Bible TRUE. You will find that alot harder to do than one might think because the only thing that makes many people believe its the absolute truth is the faith that has been put into it for over a millenia. Secondly, of course no one has been able to disprove Jesus, because it's a fact that he existed. There is historical evidence that proves so. There, however, is NO historical evidence proving that he was the son of God or NOT the husband of Mary Magdalene. You made an accusation which could be used either way. When it comes to religion, it's hard to prove one wrong or right, and I think that's a problem with people today. Callin God "the only truth" is a powerful and unfactual statement. While I believe in God, it has never been physically proven that he exists. Referring to The Da Vinci Code as a "farce" is also another illumination of your sheer ignorance toward this subject, as he states before the book even starts that it is a fictional novel that CONTAINS factual or recorded references to secret societies, their rituals and various other information. To add onto that, who says that no man or woman has ever in history been able to disprove the Bible? Perhaps some are just to ignorant to realize so. One of my only problems with the Bible is one stated in The Da Vinci Code. It says what God's wishes are, and yet it was written by men. God did not write it, but a person like you and me.

Just my thoughts.
Omniscient.

[edit on 2-10-2005 by Omniscient]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cicada

It's an observable fact that the Christ mythos contain many elements found in numerous earlier mystery religions, some of which date to thousands of years before the supposed birth of Christ
.


Good point take the Ancient greek myth of Heracles
A child is born to a mortal mother conceived by a god, he has considerable power and faces tests and trials throughout his life he dies and joins his father in Mount Olympus



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by shantyman
The problem I have with Dan Brown's book is that he blurs history and fiction in a manner that has far too many people forgetting that this is a work of fiction - and, frankly, not a terribly original one.


i think the exact same thing could be said for the bible.


Actually, if you want to look at the bible as fiction, its a pretty good story. The bible also has a fair amount of solid archeological research AND primary source documentation which lends evidence to a fair amount. (Of course, this statement will spark a flood of rigged results, etc, etc...)

As I have said before, if you want to compare the Bible to Borwn's work as pure fiction, the Bible - any of the comprehensive list posted earlier - wins hands down.

Believe what you want to believe, that's your exercise of Free Will. I - and many religious people I know - really don't have this mindset that we are the Chosen or the Elect or some such foolishness. God chooses who he takes into the Kingdom, not man or any institution. For me, the church and the Mysteries of the Faith are a means for me to meditate on what is Holy inside of me, to appreciate the Gifts that God has bestowed upon me, and to enjoy the fellowship of my congregation. If you want to go a mosque, or a synagouge, or a wooded glen somewhere to talk to the Divine, that's your choice. Having sought - and found - the Divine in all of these places (and more), I truly believe that God really doesn't care what you call him.

I do believe that the Roman Catholic church, through the Pope, is the foundation of Christianity. From Peter to Benedict, the line of the successors of Christ - while sometimes broken through the agency of sinful men and malign purposes - continues to perform the Good Works of Christ. Having said that, I have not the hubris to even consider that my faith is the only faith, that my path is the only path to salvation and those who don't follow it are surely damned.

I have read the Bible - several 'flavors', the Koran, the Vedas, and a host of other theological and secular works on belief, faith, and existence. I have a long way to go in my lifelong pursuit of understanding (at least I HOPE I do...), but I am enjoying the ride.

The problem I am having with some of the venom surrounding this issue - both the book and the assault on religion - is the absolute closemindness of those who are attacking people of faith. One would think the secular humanist to be more tolerant than the bigoted Roman Catholic Knight of Columbus, but that's hardly the case, is it?

Dan Brown's book really isn't just a piece of fiction. It's an assault on the Church. A deliberate assault with the same motivations that other works that have attacked religion - to garner publicity, to mobilize the religious in order to gain free press, to align the humanist who embraces anything a chuch condemns. Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" - an odious example of this practice, is the example that springs to mind. Where is the artistry in either of these works? By several accounts, and not just my own, Brown's novel is pedestrian when you strip away the controversy.

I have absolutely no question that I am about to endure a torrent of abuse and contempt heaped on me, but perhaps some of you are so angry because you really don't have much to believe in. It's a lot easier to hate than to love - believe me, I know that all to well.

I have tried to express my opinions with sensitivity to those who might not share my perspective. I welcome those who wish to debate a topic on merits and not with cheap shots, quips, and spurious logic. If you are going to take a shot, make it count.

Thanks for you courtesy and your attention to this latest epistle.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I believe that this fight over religion versus The Da Vinci Code is unwinnable by either side. Each side can say the exact same about one another. However, you stated The Da Vinci Code is pure fiction, which it is not. There is some very much factual information in it. Just thought I'd make that note.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join