Da Vinci Code

[Lynn7]

This is
LONDON
11/05/06 - Films section

Hanks blasts Da Vinci critics
By Tom Teodorczuk & Mike Goodridge, Evening Standard

The row over the imminent release of the Da Vinci Code film grew today when star Tom Hanks hit out at its Catholic critics.

Cardinals, speaking with the authorisation of the Vatican, have called for the Hollywood version of Dan Brown's bestselling novel to be boycotted.

They say the theme of the film - that Jesus Christ had children with Mary Magdalene and that hardline Catholic movement Opus Dei covered up his secret life - is highly blasphemous.

But Oscar-winner Hanks said objectors to The Da Vinci Code are taking the film too seriously, telling the Evening Standard: "We always knew there would be a segment of society that would not want this movie to be shown.

"But the story we tell is loaded with all sorts of hooey and fun kind of scavenger-hunt-type nonsense.

"If you are going to take any sort of movie at face value, particularly a huge-budget motion picture like this, you'd be making a very big mistake.

"It's a damn good story and a lot of fun... all it is is dialogue. That never hurts."

The Da Vinci Code book has sold more than 40 million copies since it was published in 2003. The film, released by Sony Pictures division Columbia Pictures, is set to be one of the year's most successful when it is released worldwide on 19 May.

As well as Hanks, it stars Audrey Tautou and Sir Ian McKellen and is directed by Oscar winner Ron Howard.

The Da Vinci Code receives its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival next Wednesday.

Calls for Christians to boycott it have been led by Archbishop Angelo Amato, the number two official in the Vatican doctrinal office, which was headed by Pope Benedict until his election last year.

Amato described the novel as "stridently anti-Christian" and called for believers to "reject the lies and gratuitous defamation" in the book.

He added: "If such lies and errors had been directed at the Koran and Holocaust they would have justly provoked a world uprising.

"Instead, if they are directed against the church and Christians, they remain unpunished. I hope you will boycott the film."

Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Nigerian tipped to be Pope last year, went even further.

He said: "Christians must not just sit back and say it is enough for us to forgive and forget. Sometimes it is our duty to do something practical.

"Some know legal means which can be taken in order to get the other person to respect the rights of others."

The Catholic church here is taking a more relaxed line, arguing that in the face of the film's blockbuster appeal, calling for a boycott would be pointless.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, head of the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales, told the Jonathan Dimbleby programme on ITV1 on Sunday: "I think it's a harmless thriller. If people want to read it they can and people who read it should realise it is fiction."

But some prominent UK Catholics favour a harder stance. Piers Paul Read, himself a best-selling novelist, said:

"I am for the boycott. I don't think Catholics should put money into the pockets of people who have invented lies about the church."

Another eminent Catholic, socialite Claus Von Bülow, said: "I am not going to see The Da Vinci Code. This has nothing to do with its historical claims but because I found the book unreadable."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think many of the churches are reluctant to call for a boycott because they don't want to make the film more forbidden and therefore more marketable. I will not be giving my money to the film because I do consider it to be an attack on my faith. Ron Howard had been approached by some churches who asked him to put a disclaimer on the film saying it was fiction but he didn't do it because he said that thrillers don't do that. So, if some of the faithful don't go it shouldn't really matter to him then since he didn't care if they were offended. I'm sure it will do big numbers though anyway since a lot of people think it doesn't matter- anyhting is OK as long as it is done in pursuit of a good time.

[someguy]

Hmm, this reminds me of a movie called The Body (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0201485/). This one was about a crucified body being found that could have possibly been Jesus. Of course this goes against Christianity and Catholicism among other Christ based religions that think he resurrected and was then brought into heaven.

Of course, this movie is pure fiction. Much like The DaVinci Code. The whole thing is just a theory/possibility, like Christ resurrecting is a theory/possibility also. I wouldn't consider this movie to be an attack on faith since it only brings in an idea that a majority of religious people don't believe in anyways.

I really don't see anyone walking out of the movie and getting all paranoid about Opus Dei being evil because that girl from Amelie and Forrest Gump told them.

[electriclite]

The Catholic League boycotted Kevin Smith's Dogma for pretty much the same reason.

I'm not in any mood to tell people to go see a move or not, that's what critics and advertising are for.

[Vong]

Loved the book, and I can't wait to see it in theatres.

It's a shame people can't take criticism, especially when it comes to people's faith. It's alright to take pot-shots at people, places and political parties, but when it comes to faith, its a no-fly zone where you are shot down for even thinking about criticizing it.

The film doens't neccesarily attack Christianity. More like answer the questions everyone is asking, Christians and non-Christians alike. It puts a likely life to Jesus without sugaring it up.

[outsyder]

As far as the quality of the book goes, it's utter shit.

Linear plot, simple clues that seemingly NOBODY can figure out, and fairly boring characters.

I wasn't too happy with the ending. Incredibly cheesy.


But the ideas it invokes ARE very interesting, however truthful they are. I hope Opie can do a good job with it.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Come on people, Christians boycott everything, quit acting like this is a new thing.

[The Young Son]

This debate will never get old.

My brother is a devout Catholic, I am Church of England. We are best friends and we don't talk about religion very much. At least I try not to, because he has deeper beliefs and traditions than I do. I don't think he will see the movie and he has mentioned that he doesn't really like Dan Brown (even though he's never read anything the man has written). He dislikes him for the reasons every other Catholic does; The Da Vinci Code.

I myself will go and see the film, not because of the religious content, but because I enjoy a good thriller and like the idea of a secret that could change mankind forever if revealed. I don't believe anything of what Brown says. I know Christ didn't have children. I don't really have an opinion on Opus Dei. I saw a featurette on it, where they tried to show that it wasn't the big secretive organsiation Brown made it to be (villainous or whatever). They had a guy who was allowed inside the sect to study it and he wrote a book on it. He interviewed over 300 members and former members of Opus Dei and came to one conclusion: Everybody agreed that certain things happen, but everyone perceived it differently. People who think of it as a positive force in their lives experience the same things as those who had a negative experience. That's fair enough IMO.

I like the fact that Cardinal O'Connor has the freedom of mind to say that the film "is a harmless thriller. If people want to read it they can and people who read it should realise it is fiction" Other members of the Catholic Church should take this stance as well.

I think the whole controversy is due to the Church thinking that everyone who goes to see this film will believe what is told through the story. Some people do, I've seen the news and those people are just stupid.

My final argument is the same as a lot of other peoples': This is a work of FICTION. It is not to be taken literally. Dan Brown says it is FICTION. You will find the book in the FICTION section of a bookstore. Almost every film you see is FICTION.

People who are angry because of the story's "blasphemy" should be strong enough in their faith to dismiss as fiction. I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I think that if it offends you so deeply, then you are not as strong in your faith as you would like to believe.

Those who want to see the film, see it. Those who don't, don't. But don't think poorly of anyone who just wants to go and see a good thriller. Because as one of the rules of Opus Dei states: "Never think ill of anybody".

[bigred760]

I like this whole stance that the Catholic Church feels it's "damned if you, damned if you don't" (no pun intended :D). They want a boycott because they feel the movie is anti-Catholic, but they don't want a boycott because they think it'll add to the "controversy" and that would make people want to see it.

I thought it was a very good book, though I thought its predecessor was better - "Angels & Demons." I will see this movie because Ron Howard and Hanks have always worked well together, it's got a great supporting cast, it makes for interesting theories and suspenseful thrills, and I KNOW IT'S A WORK OF FICTION!!!!

[echo_bravo]

Kudos to Catholics for not burning down Embassys like some other people would do:rolleyes:

[Lynn7]

The people who have strong faith won't be affected by this movie- the fear is how it will affect the people who have a limited understanding of the Bible. I am not going on a crusade to stop anyone from seeing it but I have no desire to watch something that uses my belief system as entertainment. They could've said some pope had had children but decided to go all the way and use Jesus, a sacred figure.

And Dan Brown says the book is fiction but he believes that Jesus was secretly married and had a child. So does the guy who wrote the first book who was suing Brown.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
but I have no desire to watch something that uses my belief system as entertainment.

So you didn't see Passion of the Christ, or Jesus Christ, Superstar, or The Greatest Story Ever Told, or The Ten Commandments?

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The people who have strong faith won't be affected by this movie- the fear is how it will affect the people who have a limited understanding of the Bible. I am not going on a crusade to stop anyone from seeing it but I have no desire to watch something that uses my belief system as entertainment. They could've said some pope had had children but decided to go all the way and use Jesus, a sacred figure.

And Dan Brown says the book is fiction but he believes that Jesus was secretly married and had a child. So does the guy who wrote the first book who was suing Brown.


A) how does The Da Vinci Code movie fit into the politics forum?

B) Some pope having kids isn't NEARLY as good a story as Jesus having a kid...hence the reason the book was so popular, and the movie probably will be as well.

C) How exactly do you think it will affect people who have 'a limited understanding of the Bible'? Most people I know who know anything about the Bible see it in very black and white terms as far as this debate is concerned: either you think Jesus had a kid, or you don't. I don't see how this is going to affect people.

D) If you're going to post Dan Brown's personal beliefs, you'd better get a link to an interview in which he says that, or else Bubba's gonna go downtown on your ass.


~darchangel~

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The people who have strong faith won't be affected by this movie- the fear is how it will affect the people who have a limited understanding of the Bible. I am not going on a crusade to stop anyone from seeing it but I have no desire to watch something that uses my belief system as entertainment. They could've said some pope had had children but decided to go all the way and use Jesus, a sacred figure.

It's funny because "Angels & Demons" - the book that came before Da Vinci has a subplot about the pope having a kid.

And the Pope's not a sacred figure? I know it's nowhere near as sacred as Jesus, but still.


And Dan Brown says the book is fiction but he believes that Jesus was secretly married and had a child. So does the guy who wrote the first book who was suing Brown.

Has he said that? I honestly don't know. And I don't hear anybody refuting their beliefs or claims. All I hear is that the guy's going to hell and Catholics bitching about how nobody should watch this. Maybe you should read the book or watch the movie and see what the guy is saying.


And darchangel:
A)We're discussing the politics of the book/movie

B)Again - "Angels & Demons" - good book, I liked it better than "The Da Vinci Code." And I'm not giving much away about it, it's a small part of the book.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Vong
So you didn't see Passion of the Christ, or Jesus Christ, Superstar, or The Greatest Story Ever Told, or The Ten Commandments?

I've seen them all and I'm going to see Godspell (the play) this weekend too! Those movies were reverential about Jesus- that's the difference. In The DA Vinci Code Jesus as used as the pivot point of a thriller. The only thing I would qualify is that in Jesus Christ Superstar there were some elements in the music that were twisted from the Bible (unintentional I'm sure).

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I've seen them all and I'm going to see Godspell (the play) this weekend too!

Good play; saw it a few years back. Enjoy!

Those movies were reverential about Jesus- that's the difference. In The DA Vinci Code Jesus as used as the pivot point of a thriller.

I wouldn't say he's "used" as the pivot point of a thriller. The point of the book (and I assume the movie) is finding evidence that supports that Jesus had a kid and the runaround that ensues.

Read the book/Watch the movie - I don't think your faith will be questioned or anything; if anything it'll give you a chance to say what a dumbass Dan Brown is.

[Lynn7]

This is my fourth time seeing it. I saw it once performed professionally and it couldn't compare to the community theatre groups and church groups who have done it. It really lends itself to the intimate production. And it is funny too.

I just cannot bring myself to see something (the movie) that seeks to undermine my religion like this does. I will read about it but I can't give my money to these people I would actually feel very crummy to watch a thriller based on this. As I said, I won't tell anyone else not to go but for me sometimes faith is overall. It is a loyalty issue. If my best friend was Jennifer Anniston and there was a movie put out that showed some untruths about her, I would not go to see that either.

Anyway, some people asked about Dan Brown's beliefs. Here is one interview that makes it pretty clear. And then at the end he claims to be a student of many religions which is like saying he is not a Christian at all. You can't be half a Christian. It's not open to us in the Bible. You are one or you aren't one. Jesus said if you are luke warm I'll spit you out. Harsh but there is no in between with him.

__________________________________________________ __
Was Jesus Married?
How "The Da Vinci Code" revived the debate.
By Deborah Caldwell

The DaVinci Code
In this excerpt from the new thriller, Robert Langdon learns of the murder of Louvre curator Jacques Sauniere.
By Dan Brown

The Da Vinci Code
By Dan Brown


An Interview with Dan Brown
'I consider myself a student of many religions. For me, the spiritual quest will be a life-long work.'


Excerpted from www.danbrown.com.

Your book mentions "the greatest conspiracy of the past 2,000 years." What is this conspiracy?

Revealing that secret would rob readers of all the fun, but I will say that it relates to one of the most famous histories of all time…a legend familiar to all of us. Rumors of this conspiracy have been whispered for centuries in countless languages, including the languages of art, music, and literature. Some of the most dramatic evidence can be found in the paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci, which seem to overflow with mystifying symbolism, anomalies, and codes. Art historians agree that Da Vinci's paintings contain hidden levels of meaning that go well beneath the surface of the paint. Many scholars believe his work intentionally provides clues to a powerful secret…a secret that remains protected to this day by a clandestine brotherhood of which Da Vinci was a member.How did you get all the inside information for this book?

Most of the information is not as "inside" as it seems. The secret described in the novel has been chronicled for centuries, so there are thousands of sources to draw from. In addition, I was surprised how eager historians were to share their expertise with me. One academic told me her enthusiasm for The Da Vinci Code was based in part on her hope that "this ancient mystery would be unveiled to a wider audience."

This novel is very empowering to women. Can you comment?

Two thousand years ago, we lived in a world of Gods and Goddesses. Today, we live in a world solely of Gods. Women in most cultures have been stripped of their spiritual power. The novel touches on questions of how and why this shift occurred…and on what lessons we might learn from it regarding our future.

The topic of this novel might be considered controversial. Do you fear repercussions?

No. As I mentioned earlier, the secret I reveal is one that has been whispered for centuries. It is not my own. Admittedly, this may be the first time the secret has been unveiled within the format of a popular thriller, but the information is anything but new. My sincere hope is that The Da Vinci Code, in addition to entertaining people, will serve as an open door begin their own explorations.

This novel unearths some surprising Christian history. Are you a Christian?

I am, although perhaps not in the most traditional sense of the word. If you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers. Some feel being baptized is sufficient. Others feel you must accept the Bible as immutable historical fact. Still others require a belief that all those who do not accept Christ as their personal savior are doomed to hell. Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may. By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious-that is, that we are all trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our own paths of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many religions. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For me, the spiritual quest will be a life-long work in progress.

Parts of the Da Vinci Code describe the activities of the religious group Opus Dei. How does Opus Dei feel about your novel?

I worked very hard to create a fair and balanced depiction of Opus Dei. Even so, there may be those who are offended by the portrayal. While Opus Dei is a very positive force in the lives of many people, for others, affiliation with Opus Dei has been a profoundly negative experience. Their portrayal in the novel is based on more than a dozen books written about Opus Dei as well as on my own personal interviews with current and former members.

[bigred760]

Is he a student of many religions or a follower of many religions? I think there is a difference. I mean you can study many religions for bookwriting purposes (among others obviously), but still believe in one particular faith. That's where the whole fiction angle comes in :).

He says he's a Christian.

[Lynn7]

He says it but then he really qualifies his statement. Let's dissect, shall we? ;)


BROWN:

"I am, although perhaps not in the most traditional sense of the word. If you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers. Some feel being baptized is sufficient. Others feel you must accept the Bible as immutable historical fact. Still others require a belief that all those who do not accept Christ as their personal savior are doomed to hell. Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may. By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious-that is, that we are all trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our own paths of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many religions. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For me, the spiritual quest will be a life-long work in progress."


He says he is BUT- that is always a dead givaway.

He goes on to say three different levels of the Christian faith. He condemns classification becasue he doens't want to 'debate semantics." We are all trying to decipher life's mysteries and our own paths of enlightenment (Brown).

People can debate over baptism etc but following our own paths is not a Christian belief. It is a New Age belief and it belongs to the faith of Budha and Hinduism and maybe some other belief systems, but it is not found in Christianity. Christianity always boils down to this: Accepting that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead and whoever believes in Him and his sacrificial death and resurrection will be saved and have eternal life.

Brown is just not saying that, and that is what ALL denominations of Christianity hold to be true.

He says he is a student of many religions (and Christinity is one religion- he didn't say he was a student of many denominations). I don't think that statement is as innocuous as you are taking it. He is actually telling us there that he is not a Christian. (And by Christian I mean one who beleives in the Christian doctrine).

Here is my cynical side- I think it is better for him to kind of claim to be a "Christian" because many people will say that he can't be attacking the Christian faith because he is a Christian himself! Many psychics do this when they are confronted with the fact that the Bible forbids what they are doing. They say, but I'm a Christian! Well, you aren't a Christian if you don't hold the doctirne to be true. You aren't a Honda driver if you don't drive a Honda.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by someguy
Of course, this movie is pure fiction. Much like The DaVinci Code.

Or the bible itself.

[someguy]

Originally posted by MacReady
Or the bible itself.

I was waiting for someone to say that

[MacReady]

I stole that line from another forum.:(

[Vong]

Keeping in mind that the Da Vinci Code isn't just about the relationship beteen Jesus and Mary Magdalene. it's mainly an argument on the present day Church disregarding the sacred feminine for which the early Church was based on. The Council of Nicea took all the gospels and weeded what they didn't want in their bible. Among it was any information about Christ being depicted as a "human". Doing so would contradict Christ's divinity. This would also include any mention of Mary Magdalene and her relationship wth Jesus. Being the sexist pigs the modern day church and its predecessors were, they took out anything that made women a sacred figure, as well as making all women in religious text the sources of sin. Such as Eve in Genesis. They also made Mary Magdalene a prostitute in order to suppress any divinity she might have.

As a woman Lynn, I'm surprised you are not the least bit concerned about the way the church sees and has treated your sex, or how they have restricted them from particpating in being priests, bishops or even popes. Doesn't it even bother you that your faith was created by shovinist men who wanted women to be nothing but followers of their male-driven club? If I were a woman, I would be bothered by it.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Vong
Keeping in mind that the Da Vinci Code isn't just about the relationship beteen Jesus and Mary Magdalene. it's mainly an argument on the present day Church disregarding the sacred feminine for which the early Church was based on. The Council of Nicea took all the gospels and weeded what they didn't want in their bible. Among it was any information about Christ being depicted as a "human". Doing so would contradict Christ's divinity. This would also include any mention of Mary Magdalene and her relationship wth Jesus. Being the sexist pigs the modern day church and its predecessors were, they took out anything that made women a sacred figure, as well as making all women in religious text the sources of sin. Such as Eve in Genesis. They also made Mary Magdalene a prostitute in order to suppress any divinity she might have.

As a woman Lynn, I'm surprised you are not the least bit concerned about the way the church sees and has treated your sex, or how they have restricted them from particpating in being priests, bishops or even popes. Doesn't it even bother you that your faith was created by shovinist men who wanted women to be nothing but followers of their male-driven club? If I were a woman, I would be bothered by it.


Vong does have a point with this, and the Church's restrictions of women even stretch to the Virgin Mary. There is more text written about the early life of Mary in the Q'uran than there is in the Holy Bible, the reason Christian priests and scholars give for this is that Mary's origins are almost similar to Christ's, in that she was conceived through divine intervention, her mother was old and barren but had always wanted children and "voila" she became pregnant with Mary. This makes Mary, in terms of conception, similar to Jesus, but her part in the Bible is shortened because scholars didn't want to take away from the story of Jesus.

[The Heart Collector]

hahaha all this fuss about THE BIBLE, of all things

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Vong
Keeping in mind that the Da Vinci Code isn't just about the relationship beteen Jesus and Mary Magdalene. it's mainly an argument on the present day Church disregarding the sacred feminine for which the early Church was based on. The Council of Nicea took all the gospels and weeded what they didn't want in their bible. Among it was any information about Christ being depicted as a "human". Doing so would contradict Christ's divinity. This would also include any mention of Mary Magdalene and her relationship wth Jesus. Being the sexist pigs the modern day church and its predecessors were, they took out anything that made women a sacred figure, as well as making all women in religious text the sources of sin. Such as Eve in Genesis. They also made Mary Magdalene a prostitute in order to suppress any divinity she might have.

As a woman Lynn, I'm surprised you are not the least bit concerned about the way the church sees and has treated your sex, or how they have restricted them from particpating in being priests, bishops or even popes. Doesn't it even bother you that your faith was created by shovinist men who wanted women to be nothing but followers of their male-driven club? If I were a woman, I would be bothered by it.

There were a lot of Mary's back then and it seems as though people want to think that everytime a Mary is mentioned it is Mary Magdalene. And I don't think the bible even says it was Magdalene who was the prostitute. I 'd have to look it up.

Jesus was half man and half God but while he was here he was man. No one denies that. Mary had no divinity. And the virgin Mary (Jesus' mother had no divinity either.

Electriclite- the Bible does not speak at all about how Mary was conceived so I'm not sure where anyone got that information about her conception. She is presented as a regular girl in the Bible who was faithful to God. She also happened to be from the geneolgy of King David which was one of the requirements for the messiah's birth. Jospeh was also from the line of King David but since he was not the biological father, the mother had to provide the line.

Jesus made it very clear that his mother was not to be worshipped. At one point he someone said to him while he was in a crowd "Your mother and brothers are here" and he responded "Who are my mother and brothers? Those who hear and do the word of God" or something like that. Even then he knew that there would be the danger of Mary worship. And later when he was being crucified he said to John- "John behold thy mother and woman behold thy son" or something like that. He called her woman.

She was his mother while he was here as a man but she wasn't his mother from the beginning of time. She served her role and she has a speeck in the bible where she is fully aware of what her role was- she couldn't have been more humble.She knew her place and would've been horrified to have people praying to her.

I dont' look at how the "church" has treated women but Jesus treated them just fine. He had them seatied at his feet while he talked and they had prominent roles in many parts of the Bible.

[Vong]

I dont' look at how the "church" has treated women but Jesus treated them just fine. He had them seatied at his feet while he talked and they had prominent roles in many parts of the Bible.

But doesn't it bother you that the church created by shovinist men are disrespecting you and hindering a possible status for women in the church?

You obviously don't feel the need to fight for women's rights.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
There were a lot of Mary's back then and it seems as though people want to think that everytime a Mary is mentioned it is Mary Magdalene. And I don't think the bible even says it was Magdalene who was the prostitute. I 'd have to look it up.

I thought you could recite the Bible from memory or something...



Originally posted by Lynn7

Jesus made it very clear that his mother was not to be worshipped. At one point he someone said to him while he was in a crowd "Your mother and brothers are here" and he responded "Who are my mother and brothers? Those who hear and do the word of God" or something like that. Even then he knew that there would be the danger of Mary worship. And later when he was being crucified he said to John- "John behold thy mother and woman behold thy son" or something like that. He called her woman.

She was his mother while he was here as a man but she wasn't his mother from the beginning of time. She served her role and she has a speeck in the bible where she is fully aware of what her role was- she couldn't have been more humble.She knew her place and would've been horrified to have people praying to her.

I dont' look at how the "church" has treated women but Jesus treated them just fine. He had them seatied at his feet while he talked and they had prominent roles in many parts of the Bible.

I think this is the point that Vong was trying to make, Lynn...women are not worshiped in the Bible...the feminine aspect of creation coming from a mother is taken away, making a male God the mother, rather than giving the credit to the 'chalice,' as its stated in the Da Vinci Code.

And I don't know about you, but as a woman, I'm uncomfortable hearing terms like 'she knew her place' and 'he had them seated at his feet' as far as roles of women in the Bible...that is, when they're not being villified, like Lilith, Eve, and Deliliah, among others.



~darchangel~

[someguy]

Originally posted by Lynn7
There were a lot of Mary's back then and it seems as though people want to think that everytime a Mary is mentioned it is Mary Magdalene. And I don't think the bible even says it was Magdalene who was the prostitute. I 'd have to look it up.

She wasn't a prostitute, and it appears there's no evidence that supports she was.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
I thought you could recite the Bible from memory or something...





I think this is the point that Vong was trying to make, Lynn...women are not worshiped in the Bible...the feminine aspect of creation coming from a mother is taken away, making a male God the mother, rather than giving the credit to the 'chalice,' as its stated in the Da Vinci Code.

And I don't know about you, but as a woman, I'm uncomfortable hearing terms like 'she knew her place' and 'he had them seated at his feet' as far as roles of women in the Bible...that is, when they're not being villified, like Lilith, Eve, and Deliliah, among others.



~darchangel~

Yes, neither women nor men should be worshipped in the Bible. Only God should be worshipped. But Jesus always treated women with the utmost respect (as well as men). When people sat at Jesus' feet it was to hear what he had to say. At his feet would be the very best place. It was thousands of years ago. I was impressed that women wree able to be with him in all of his talks since women were segregated in the synagogues. Jesus did not treat them as lesser to anyone. He also respected their intelligence.

Eve wasn't viliified. She had the same punishment as Adam. They both got expelled from the Garden of Eden which protected them with eternal life. And then they were out and about in the world we are all born into and their experince became like ours. Prior to that they were living in paradise.

[Vong]

But doesn't it bother you that the church created by shovinist men are disrespecting you and hindering a possible status for women in the church?

Lynn, I really want you to answer this question. From all the women I have talked to about this (my friends, mother, sister, grandmothers) who are Christians, they haven't given me a straight answer as to why they follow a faith that restricts the status of women in thier community.

It has surprised me, from the women that I have talked to, that none of them are concerned about the status of women in their religion. It's a key thing to note, that of all those women who I have talked about women's status in religion, only the moderates and atheists were the ones concerned. I mention the atheists because my friends who are atheists were all once Catholics devout in the faith as children, but left it due to conflicting beliefs.

Perhaps I should start a census to get a better picture of what women really feel about their religion and their status.

[Vong]

An interesting anecdote I heard today.

My grandparents came over for a visit today to celebrate Mother's Day. They mentioned that they went to mass before coming to our house, being the devout Catholics they are. My grandmother said that the priest, in his sermon, talked about the Da Vinci Code and its release on Friday. He said that he himself has read the novel and found it intriguing. The priest recommended that any in the crowd who were strong in their faith should see it, as it wouldn't do any harm to their faith. The priest mentioned that the novel raises interesting points in the Catholic faith and asked that those who do see it see it with an open mind.

My grandparents haven't read the novel, but are interested in what the book is about. Before they left, I lent them the novel. They said they would give it a try, but don't guarantee that they will take it to heart like so many others.

My grandparents are probably the most religious people I have met in my lifetime. If they are able to read the novel, you should be able to Lynn.

[The Young Son]

Originally posted by Vong
An interesting anecdote I heard today.

My grandparents came over for a visit today to celebrate Mother's Day. They mentioned that they went to mass before coming to our house, being the devout Catholics they are. My grandmother said that the priest, in his sermon, talked about the Da Vinci Code and its release on Friday. He said that he himself has read the novel and found it intriguing. The priest recommended that any in the crowd who were strong in their faith should see it, as it wouldn't do any harm to their faith. The priest mentioned that the novel raises interesting points in the Catholic faith and asked that those who do see it see it with an open mind.

My grandparents haven't read the novel, but are interested in what the book is about. Before they left, I lent them the novel. They said they would give it a try, but don't guarantee that they will take it to heart like so many others.

My grandparents are probably the most religious people I have met in my lifetime. If they are able to read the novel, you should be able to Lynn. I think that's great that they're willing to give it a try. They might find it very entertaining.

[SIREN30]

I am a Christian, as most of you know, and I am very interested in this movie, based on the trailer. But I really know zero about it.

I know there has been lots of controversy surrounding this movie/book, especially among the Catholic population. What is the controversy exactly? To sum up...?

[darchangel]

Originally posted by SIREN30
I am a Christian, as most of you know, and I am very interested in this movie, based on the trailer. But I really know zero about it.

I know there has been lots of controversy surrounding this movie/book, especially among the Catholic population. What is the controversy exactly? To sum up...?


to sum up...

SPOILERS



The secret they're searching for is the fact that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had a child, and the genetic makeup of Christ is in those in the Priory of Sion.

END SPOILERS



That's the reason the Catholics are freaking out...however, they don't want to boycott the movie for fear they'll create a sensation out of it, and get more viewers for the film...therefore, they just disapprove...


I think they should focus on being indignant over something more important....like I don't know, maybe keeping priests from molesting children.


~darchangel~

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by darchangel
to sum up...

SPOILERS



The secret they're searching for is the fact that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had a child, and the genetic makeup of Christ is in those in the Priory of Sion.

END SPOILERS



That's the reason the Catholics are freaking out...however, they don't want to boycott the movie for fear they'll create a sensation out of it, and get more viewers for the film...therefore, they just disapprove...


I think they should focus on being indignant over something more important....like I don't know, maybe keeping priests from molesting children.


~darchangel~

Okay, thanks. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I have seen and read many fictional stories based on actual people and liberties are always taken. I think the idea is probably very intriguing. I do think that since Christ is the Son of God, taking liberties with his character is a little disrespectful but no doubt the writer of the story doesnt possess this type of faith.

I definitely don't feel that it's any more disrespectful, however, than making him a source of entertainment by realistically and graphically depicting every aspect of his death and torture. Liberties were taken in that film as well. So if you saw The Passion of the Christ and it didnt bother you, I don't see why this would.

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by Vong

Perhaps I should start a census to get a better picture of what women really feel about their religion and their status.

Just wanted to add that I feel that women are very respected and dignified in the organization to which I belong. It's one of the things that draws me to it. We are teachers and preachers-from the stage at our meeting halls, right alongside the men. We are all ministers.

. In marriage, we believe we should be submissive when our spiritual conscience is not compromised but also respected and consulted with all decisions. We are a complement to our husbands and we work alongside them, all the while recognizing them as our head-just as a man is to recognize Christ as such. We all have an individual dedication to God that we must satisfy and that is a personal responsibility.

[Jon Lyrik]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060515/ts_nm/religion_india_davinci_dc_1

Christian and Muslim fundies uniting under the banner of intolerance, ignorance, fascism and the implication of violence. Never would have guessed.

[electriclite]

You know I haven't seen anyone in the media or here ask the question of how Jesus being married or not changes the dynamics of their faith? What would it take away from Jesus' teachiings and message.

Its seems that those who are of faith and complain about it are focusing more on the attack of the "physical life" of the body of Christ and not on the spirit, which in my opinion, still remains as potent, intact and relevant despite what the book may "suppose".


The only thing that I see would be hurt by this is the institution of the Catholic church. I believe part of their reasoning for enforcng celibacy of the priesthood was based on the celibate life of Christ. They exert great control over the lives of their priests through this mainly because it keeps church property, church property since priests can't have children who will grow up and lay claim to land and property belonging to the Catholic Church.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Vong
Lynn, I really want you to answer this question. From all the women I have talked to about this (my friends, mother, sister, grandmothers) who are Christians, they haven't given me a straight answer as to why they follow a faith that restricts the status of women in thier community.

It has surprised me, from the women that I have talked to, that none of them are concerned about the status of women in their religion. It's a key thing to note, that of all those women who I have talked about women's status in religion, only the moderates and atheists were the ones concerned. I mention the atheists because my friends who are atheists were all once Catholics devout in the faith as children, but left it due to conflicting beliefs.

Perhaps I should start a census to get a better picture of what women really feel about their religion and their status.

The interesting thing about Christianity is the fact that we are taught by Jesus to be humble. He washed his disciples feet. He said if someone strikes you, you should turn the other cheek. I'm not saying we are always successful with this but that is our teaching.

The church I go to is very open to women teachers etc. Women are on the church board and are active in every facet of the ministry except one: there is always a male pastor. Now, there are many Protestant churches who have female pastors (Episcopal, Methodist etc). I have no problem with a male pastor and I will even go so far as to say that I agree that there should be a male in charge of the church. Now, having said that there are some female ministers who have huge following, I'm thinking of one in particular, and I have no problem with her running a minsitry like that but a church is different..

I will probaly get a lot of hateful comments for this but I think men are often better in leadership positions than women are. I have heard tons of women say (not Christian women but regular everyday women) say that they hate working for a female boss. Men tend to be more straightforward in their dealings than women are. Women can be more emotional in their dealings. Men are able to separate emotions out of work more than women are.

Now having said that I am not saying men are better than women cause I happen to think that women often have more insight than men and are more caring oftentimes. (in fact it is these qualities that can interfere with leadership). I think men and women are made differently and each has strengths and weaknesses. If someone wants a woman pastor they can worship at a church that has them but for me, I am more comfortable with a male. Let me add that I did belong to two churches that had female pastors and they were very lovely women.


I grew up in the Greek church and that is a church that really treats women differently! Women are not allowed behind the altar and after they have a baby they are considered unclean for forty days and should not recieve communion during their time of the month. My current church doens't do any of that, lol! But I will always love the Greek church. They always treated women respectfully. Anyway, Christiantity is about humility and women's lib has never been known for that.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Vong
An interesting anecdote I heard today.

My grandparents came over for a visit today to celebrate Mother's Day. They mentioned that they went to mass before coming to our house, being the devout Catholics they are. My grandmother said that the priest, in his sermon, talked about the Da Vinci Code and its release on Friday. He said that he himself has read the novel and found it intriguing. The priest recommended that any in the crowd who were strong in their faith should see it, as it wouldn't do any harm to their faith. The priest mentioned that the novel raises interesting points in the Catholic faith and asked that those who do see it see it with an open mind.

My grandparents haven't read the novel, but are interested in what the book is about. Before they left, I lent them the novel. They said they would give it a try, but don't guarantee that they will take it to heart like so many others.

My grandparents are probably the most religious people I have met in my lifetime. If they are able to read the novel, you should be able to Lynn.


I just really disagree with this priest from the bottom of my heart and think he has made a grave mistake in recommending this movie. I don't think a priest should be selling this as entertainment. I am strong in my faith and that is why I won't see it. It goes against everything I beleive in.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060515/ts_nm/religion_india_davinci_dc_1

Christian and Muslim fundies uniting under the banner of intolerance, ignorance, fascism and the implication of violence. Never would have guessed.

Why intolerance? It is always OK to stand up for what you beleive in. If it was an anti-gay movie and gay protesters were out would you call them intolerant?

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Why intolerance? It is always OK to stand up for what you beleive in. If it was an anti-gay movie and gay protesters were out would you call them intolerant?


it is one thing to stand up and make your position known, it another to say your position is a reason to decide for everyone else that a movie should be banned and seen by no one, not to mention threatening violence if your demands aren't meant.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Why intolerance? It is always OK to stand up for what you beleive in. If it was an anti-gay movie and gay protesters were out would you call them intolerant?

They are pushing for the banning of a movie and considering (read: planning on) violence. Fuck them in their totaltarian, book-burning asses.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
it is one thing to stand up and make your position known, it another to say your position is a reason to decide for everyone else that a movie should be banned and seen by no one, not to mention threatening violence if your demands aren't meant.


It sounds just like what happened on an Americna college campus last month when students protested a job fair where military recruiters had a booth. the students effectively shut it down and prevented people who wanted to explore the military to do so. In fact, the military needed a police escort out because people were afraid the conditions were unsafe.

It also sounds like what happens on college campuses when a conservative speaker is asked to speak. They get drowned out by heckling by people who disagree with them.


Anyway, here is an interesting article I saw today:


Reading "Da Vinci Code" does alter beliefs: survey
Tue May 16, 2006 10:11am ET

By Paul Majendie
LONDON (Reuters) - "The Da Vinci Code" has undermined faith in the Roman Catholic Church and badly damaged its credibility, a survey of British readers of Dan Brown's bestseller showed on Tuesday.
People are now twice as likely to believe Jesus Christ fathered children after reading the Dan Brown blockbuster and four times as likely to think the conservative Catholic group Opus Dei is a murderous sect.
"An alarming number of people take its spurious claims very seriously indeed," said Austin Ivereigh, press secretary to Britain's top Catholic prelate Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor.
"Our poll shows that for many, many people the Da Vinci Code is not just entertainment," Ivereigh added.
He heads a prominent group of English Roman Catholic monks, theologians, nuns and members of Opus Dei, who commissioned the survey from leading pollster Opinion Research Business (ORB) and have sought to promote Catholic beliefs at a time when the film's release has provoked a storm of controversy.
ORB interviewed more than 1,000 adults last weekend, finding that 60 percent believed Jesus had children by Mary Magdalene -- a possibility raised by the book -- compared with just 30 percent of those who had not read the book.
The English group demanded that the "Da Vinci Code" movie, being given its world premiere at the Cannes Film festival on Wednesday, should carry a "health warning".
The group, which stopped short of following the Vatican line of calling on Catholics to boycott the film, accused Brown of dishonest marketing based on peddling fiction as fact.

The novel, which has sold over 40 million copies, also depicts Opus Dei as a ruthless Machiavellian organization whose members resort to murder to keep the Church's secrets.
The survey underlined the astonishing popularity of Brown's novel -- it has been read by more than one in five adults of all ages in Britain.
Ivereigh complained that Brown and film studio Sony Pictures "have encouraged people to take it seriously while hiding behind the claim that it is fiction.
"Our poll shows they should take responsibility for their dishonesty and issue a health warning."
In the survey, readers were asked if Opus Dei had ever carried out a murder. Seventeen percent of readers believe it had, compared with just four percent of non-readers.
Opus Dei spokesman Jack Valero said he was astonished.
"Since we were founded in 1928, Opus Dei has promoted the highest moral standards at work, spreading a message of Christian love and understanding," he said.
"Yet the Da Vinci Code has persuaded hundreds of thousands of people that we have blood on our hands."

[Jon Lyrik]

Anything that damages the Catholic Church is good to me.

The movie is a piece of fiction based on a piece of fiction based on a piece of fiction. And it incites the fascist in fundies to call for bannings. What a world we live in.

It sounds just like what happened on an Americna college campus last month when students protested a job fair where military recruiters had a booth. the students effectively shut it down and prevented people who wanted to explore the military to do so. In fact, the military needed a police escort out because people were afraid the conditions were unsafe.

It also sounds like what happens on college campuses when a conservative speaker is asked to speak. They get drowned out by heckling by people who disagree with them.

Nice way of dodging her point. The latter isn't even comparable. What protects you from being mocked at speeches? Is that comparable to mass demonstrations with the implication of violence?

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Why intolerance? It is always OK to stand up for what you beleive in. If it was an anti-gay movie and gay protesters were out would you call them intolerant?

The Da Vinci Code is not an anti-Jesus book; therefore, this argument is completely irrelevant.

And what the Catholic church is doing is not 'standing up for what they believe in'...it's trying to convince people that a FICTION story is trying to tear the fabric of Christianity apart.






~darchangel~

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
Anything that damages the Catholic Church is good to me.

The movie is a piece of fiction based on a piece of fiction based on a piece of fiction. And it incites the fascist in fundies to call for bannings. What a world we live in.



Nice way of dodging her point. The latter isn't even comparable. What protects you from being mocked at speeches? Is that comparable to mass demonstrations with the implication of violence?

I have no problem if someone who disagrees with a speaker gets up and gets in a debate with him or her but when people orchestrate heckling to the point where it drowns out the speaker then it is not about the open discussion of ideas. I am not avoiding the point only pointing out that in these times it has become very acceptable to become aggressive in ones beliefs. It happens all the time including with liberals who you would think would be open to hearing things discussed or giving people "choice"

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
The Da Vinci Code is not an anti-Jesus book; therefore, this argument is completely irrelevant.

And what the Catholic church is doing is not 'standing up for what they believe in'...it's trying to convince people that a FICTION story is trying to tear the fabric of Christianity apart.






~darchangel~

When an author rewrites history it is an anti type of book. I strongly object to anyone who rewrites history. But that's just me.

[someguy]

HAHAHAAHAH

Lynn, this book is FIIIICCCCTTTIIIIOOOOONNNN. Say it with me, fiiiicccttiiiooonnn. Fiction. If he said the entire book was non-fiction, yes he would be trying to rewrite history but he is not.

This is the equivalent of saying H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds is rewriting history

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
When an author rewrites history it is an anti type of book. I strongly object to anyone who rewrites history. But that's just me.


You heard it here first: Lynn objects to Forrest Gump.

[Raoul Duke]

Originally posted by someguy
HAHAHAAHAH

Lynn, this book is FIIIICCCCTTTIIIIOOOOONNNN. Say it with me, fiiiicccttiiiooonnn. Fiction. If he said the entire book was non-fiction, yes he would be trying to rewrite history but he is not.

This is the equivalent of saying H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds is rewriting history

I agree with you, but Dan Brown has admitted in interviews that he does believe the stuff discussed in his book. He also says that he wants the reader to reach their own conclusions on the subject. But, what does that mean. Reach their own conclusions on what exactly, I thought it was supposed to be fiction.

The fact page at the beginning also gives it an allure of whatever you're about to read is true. And, again, I'm with you that people should calm down because it is, in the end, fiction.

I also don't think all the damn "Decoding Da Vinci" books and counter argument books help either. This just puts it in people's mind more that Da Vinci Code was presented as fact.

There's just a lot of factors floating around, I can see why some people are over reacting to this whole ordeal more than they really should.

[someguy]

People can reach their own conclusions, in the same sense that people can conclude that aliens from other planets exist and want to kill us when they read War of the Worlds.

[littleupstart]

In the Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown toys with Christian presumptions like an author would toy with any other aspect of a story. People who are getting offended by this work of FICTION are truly missing out - they are being blinded by their faith. They are unwilling to extend their willing suspension of disbelief to the topic of faith and some basic tennants of religion. The shame here is, we must always question and assess what is true. By failing to challenge, and question, and consider different viewpoints - if only for mere entertainment - are not these people denying themselves the truest privilidge of life that is to be certain that their philosophy has truly encompassed all possibilities of what is real?

[SIREN30]

I think you make an interesting point, littleupstart.

I just don't understand the 'Christian' dilemma. If he is presenting his story as a possible alteration of history, as Raoul Duke stated, then I guess I can see where it would be viewed as 'apostate'. But if it truly is just a work of fiction, as everyone else is stating, then I don't see how it compromises your faith. You may not like it and it may not interest you and you may feel that it's disrespectful to Christ...but I think it's a bit phobic to say that it is dangerous to the faith of millions of people. If you are so easily swayed by an author's ideas, then you really don't have much faith, do you?

There are literally thousands of anti-Christian works of non-fiction out there. Spend time on those if you want but it's a waste of energy and resources to be so vocal and public about discrediting a work of fiction-as many churches are doing. It seem so shallow to me.

[Vong]

If you want to read something that's not fiction based on fiction, read "Satanic Versus" by Salman Rushdie. This shit was so powerful that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini put a fatwa on this guy in the late 1980s and the dude is still in hiding in the US today.

[Raoul Duke]

Originally posted by someguy
People can reach their own conclusions, in the same sense that people can conclude that aliens from other planets exist and want to kill us when they read War of the Worlds.

Okay, but Brown saying that is a factor helping bring about the idea that Da Vinci Code was presented as fact. As are the books trying to debunk Brown. All I was trying to say, basically, is that I can understand why some reilgious people and organizations are reacting like this. I don't think it solves anything by just yelling at them that the book is FICTION. There are simply intervening factors that don't help the book look just like another story. I can just see their point, if you will. I don't agree with them, because Da Vinci Code, ultimately, is found in the fiction section of the book store.

[MacReady]

My hero. (http://newsbusters.org/stories/dv.html?q=node/5402)

I love how he mentions the 'walking on water' thing as well.

[someguy]

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
I don't think it solves anything by just yelling at them that the book is FICTION.

I think that it does since calmly explaining does nothing. At least we do agree though.

I just find this all to be The Last Temptation of Christ on a much smaller scale with what's going on.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Lynn7
it has become very acceptable to become aggressive in ones beliefs.

There's aggressive heckling and there's implying the use of violence, two very different things.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by littleupstart
In the Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown toys with Christian presumptions like an author would toy with any other aspect of a story. People who are getting offended by this work of FICTION are truly missing out - they are being blinded by their faith. They are unwilling to extend their willing suspension of disbelief to the topic of faith and some basic tennants of religion. The shame here is, we must always question and assess what is true. By failing to challenge, and question, and consider different viewpoints - if only for mere entertainment - are not these people denying themselves the truest privilidge of life that is to be certain that their philosophy has truly encompassed all possibilities of what is real?

A person's religious faith is no small thing. Religious arguments have rocked the world since time began and I always maintain that religion is always at the base of all politics.

You say that people who get offended are missing out. Well, my faith will override any entertainment or anything that can ever come my way. We live in the land of smoke and mirrors. We have lots of food and TVs and computers and internet and great fashionable clothes and gorgeous sports cars and exotic travel destinations.But look around the world. Many people are starving or are dying of disease. People are getting machetied to death every day and there is the threat of nuclear war looming over our heads not to mention the bird flu, AIDS and whatever other pestilence comes along. Religious faith is not about a passtime that some people do. It goes to the depths of people's very souls.

It is fine to question religions and I did a lot of that before I committed to Christianity. Now I am firm in my belief and I don't trust anyone except for my own God. People are at all different levels and that is fine. I don't consider myself to be missing out on anything by not reading the Brown book or seeing the movie. I think like I think Siren said that there is a lot of anti-Christian stuff out there and this is just one more thing although I don't think it is as harmless as she thinks it is.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MacReady
My hero. (http://newsbusters.org/stories/dv.html?q=node/5402)

I love how he mentions the 'walking on water' thing as well.

I saw this article and i am wondering if his comments are going to cause the fires to flame or if it will just fizzle out. Unfortunately it seems like they have something else to deal with: reports are coming out of Cannes that the movie is really long and boring and that the acting is not good.

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by Lynn7
A person's religious faith is no small thing. Religious arguments have rocked the world since time began and I always maintain that religion is always at the base of all politics.

You say that people who get offended are missing out. Well, my faith will override any entertainment or anything that can ever come my way. We live in the land of smoke and mirrors. We have lots of food and TVs and computers and internet and great fashionable clothes and gorgeous sports cars and exotic travel destinations.But look around the world. Many people are starving or are dying of disease. People are getting machetied to death every day and there is the threat of nuclear war looming over our heads not to mention the bird flu, AIDS and whatever other pestilence comes along. Religious faith is not about a passtime that some people do. It goes to the depths of people's very souls.

It is fine to question religions and I did a lot of that before I committed to Christianity. Now I am firm in my belief and I don't trust anyone except for my own God. People are at all different levels and that is fine. I don't consider myself to be missing out on anything by not reading the Brown book or seeing the movie. I think like I think Siren said that there is a lot of anti-Christian stuff out there and this is just one more thing although I don't think it is as harmless as she thinks it is.

But doesnt the mixing of politics and religion show what a rediculous idea that is? Think of the blood that's been spilled in the name of Christ. It's awful...and NOT, I may add, what Christ wanted. He believed that his followers should be peaceable and teachers, not warmongers.

Jesus said in the last days there would be 'ridiculers with their ridicule'. The ammount of anti-christian publications and this novel also, if you like, are just evidence of that. It is no more harmful than any of the other. To those who have faith, it will more than likely be an example of disrespect-and they will choose not to see it. But I think all the negative publicity surrounding it , principally by the Church, is rediculous and a waste of news-space. Preaching against a piece of entertainment, especially from the pulpit-is demeaning to your congregation and a misuse of time that could otherwise be used condoning what is good and right-and important.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by SIREN30
But doesnt the mixing of politics and religion show what a rediculous idea that is? Think of the blood that's been spilled in the name of Christ. It's awful...and NOT, I may add, what Christ wanted.

...Preaching against a piece of entertainment, especially from the pulpit-is demeaning to your congregation and a misuse of time that could otherwise be used condoning what is good and right-and important.

THANK YOU!

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by MacReady
My hero. (http://newsbusters.org/stories/dv.html?q=node/5402)

I love how he mentions the 'walking on water' thing as well.

With the camera focused on McKellen, one could hear a distinctly nervous laugh in the background, seeming to come from either actor Tom Hanks or director Howard.

LOL!

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by SIREN30
But doesnt the mixing of politics and religion show what a rediculous idea that is? Think of the blood that's been spilled in the name of Christ. It's awful...and NOT, I may add, what Christ wanted. He believed that his followers should be peaceable and teachers, not warmongers.

Jesus said in the last days there would be 'ridiculers with their ridicule'. The ammount of anti-christian publications and this novel also, if you like, are just evidence of that. It is no more harmful than any of the other. To those who have faith, it will more than likely be an example of disrespect-and they will choose not to see it. But I think all the negative publicity surrounding it , principally by the Church, is rediculous and a waste of news-space. Preaching against a piece of entertainment, especially from the pulpit-is demeaning to your congregation and a misuse of time that could otherwise be used condoning what is good and right-and important.

Siren, your good reasoning is nigh seditious. America is getting bogged down by concentrating on stupid non-issues rooted in talking-point-compacted-emotion, but there are some who resist this, like yourself. Hats off.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by SIREN30
But doesnt the mixing of politics and religion show what a rediculous idea that is? Think of the blood that's been spilled in the name of Christ. It's awful...and NOT, I may add, what Christ wanted. He believed that his followers should be peaceable and teachers, not warmongers.

Jesus said in the last days there would be 'ridiculers with their ridicule'. The ammount of anti-christian publications and this novel also, if you like, are just evidence of that. It is no more harmful than any of the other. To those who have faith, it will more than likely be an example of disrespect-and they will choose not to see it. But I think all the negative publicity surrounding it , principally by the Church, is rediculous and a waste of news-space. Preaching against a piece of entertainment, especially from the pulpit-is demeaning to your congregation and a misuse of time that could otherwise be used condoning what is good and right-and important.

But when I say that religion is at the base of all politics I am not talking about politics and religion mixing together as in a church group pushing for a particular candidate. I am talking about if you are take the Bible as true then you will probably be against abortion and if you only beleive certain parts of the Bible you may think it is up to a woman to choose if she should have an abortion.

A church's job is to teach and guide their followers and even though the churches are not perfect in this it IS their duty to bring this issue to the attention of their believers. They should have been teaching right along instead of trying to catch up now. a lot of the people they are talking to have been gone from the church for a long time and will probably never come back at this point.

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by Lynn7
But when I say that religion is at the base of all politics I am not talking about politics and religion mixing together as in a church group pushing for a particular candidate. I am talking about if you are take the Bible as true then you will probably be against abortion and if you only beleive certain parts of the Bible you may think it is up to a woman to choose if she should have an abortion.

A church's job is to teach and guide their followers and even though the churches are not perfect in this it IS their duty to bring this issue to the attention of their believers. They should have been teaching right along instead of trying to catch up now. a lot of the people they are talking to have been gone from the church for a long time and will probably never come back at this point.

I'm sorry Lynn but I don't understand your response really. What does religion and politics have to do with taking the bible as the truth? And how does only reading parts of the bible justify abortion? And how did abortion enter this topic? :)

I think when it comes to entertainment...and this is the way things operate in my congregation-it is entirely a conscience matter. Each individual looks to his own bible trained conscience for guidance. Not a man telling them what to do.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
But when I say that religion is at the base of all politics I am not talking about politics and religion mixing together as in a church group pushing for a particular candidate. I am talking about if you are take the Bible as true then you will probably be against abortion and if you only beleive certain parts of the Bible you may think it is up to a woman to choose if she should have an abortion.

First of all, if you've got a dick, it's not your place to tell those who haven't when to give birth.

Second, your second part doesn't make sense. A politician can believe in the bible if he wants, but when he does as he believes, than he's essentially legislating all the jews, buddhists and non-religious citizens under his jurisdiction. Hence, he would be mixing politics with religion.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by SIREN30
I'm sorry Lynn but I don't understand your response really. What does religion and politics have to do with taking the bible as the truth? And how does only reading parts of the bible justify abortion? And how did abortion enter this topic? :)

I think when it comes to entertainment...and this is the way things operate in my congregation-it is entirely a conscience matter. Each individual looks to his own bible trained conscience for guidance. Not a man telling them what to do.

Sorry- I reread what I wrote and I am not making myself clear- let me try again. I didn't mean to bring abortion into this either but I just used it as an example. I just mean that whatever a person's religious beliefs are guides how they respond to any given issue so that a fundamentalist Christian may lean against abortion but an atheist might lean toward being pro-choice.

If a person believes in the Bible as truth then they are more likely to be offended at this book trying to undermine the message by inserting things that would by their very nature undercut the entire credibility of the Christian faith. Secret marriage, intrigue etc. It is all so not what Jesus stood for. It goes against everything I beleive about him and so I think it is a pernicious assault on Christianity. And for that reason I don't think it is a waste of time for churches to preach against the movie although knowing how this stuff works it will probably send people running to the theatres more than ignoring it would. But still it is the job of the church to teach its people and then the people will be responsible to make their own decisions. But as all beleivers know, we are accountable for our decisions.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by MacReady
First of all, if you've got a dick, it's not your place to tell those who haven't when to give birth.


Well considering that there are also women who are against abortion you may want to consider amending that statement a bit.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
But when I say that religion is at the base of all politics I am not talking about politics and religion mixing together as in a church group pushing for a particular candidate. I am talking about if you are take the Bible as true then you will probably be against abortion and if you only beleive certain parts of the Bible you may think it is up to a woman to choose if she should have an abortion.

A church's job is to teach and guide their followers and even though the churches are not perfect in this it IS their duty to bring this issue to the attention of their believers. They should have been teaching right along instead of trying to catch up now. a lot of the people they are talking to have been gone from the church for a long time and will probably never come back at this point.

A) Show me a passage in the Bible that says abortion is wrong.

B) The entire fucking book is based on the reader's interpretation, not to mention it's only been translated about three thousand times.

C) How is getting pissy over a FICTION book teaching people the right way to worship?



~darchangel~

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
When an author rewrites history it is an anti type of book. I strongly object to anyone who rewrites history. But that's just me.


A) That statement coming from the woman who believes that slaves threw down their old religions and opened their arms to Jesus the second they stepped on American soil....riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

B) You don't know whether Jesus was married or not...you weren't personally there. Oh wait...this must be more of that 'discarding the information that doesn't sync up with how you perceive things.'

C) Yeah...the whole argument about this film is pretty much 'just you'...mostly because everyone else on here recognizes that it's motherfucking FICTION.



~darchangel~

[bigred760]

No need to get nasty.


I'm a Christian, but not a Catholic. Even I don't consider the Bible to be 100% historical fact. That would be impossible; I'd believe it more if there was one version of the book, but no - there are several. I don't know if Jesus was married; the "Da Vinci Code" only brings up interesting thoughts and conspiracy theories. Nobody's claiming that it's historical fact.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by electriclite
Well considering that there are also women who are against abortion you may want to consider amending that statement a bit.

I know that, I'm just saying people who can't get raped and have to carry around an unwanted baby for 9 months should shut the fuck up.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
A) That statement coming from the woman who believes that slaves threw down their old religions and opened their arms to Jesus the second they stepped on American soil....riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

B) You don't know whether Jesus was married or not...you weren't personally there. Oh wait...this must be more of that 'discarding the information that doesn't sync up with how you perceive things.'

C) Yeah...the whole argument about this film is pretty much 'just you'...mostly because everyone else on here recognizes that it's motherfucking FICTION.



~darchangel~

I really like to debate but when it gets ugly like this I choose not to participate. I kind of think you would discount anything I have to say anyway. The problem is that although you have your own point of view, if you never have real debate then you will never understand where people of opposing beleifs are coming from.and there will always be people of opposing beliefs.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by bigred760
No need to get nasty.


I'm a Christian, but not a Catholic. Even I don't consider the Bible to be 100% historical fact. That would be impossible; I'd believe it more if there was one version of the book, but no - there are several. I don't know if Jesus was married; the "Da Vinci Code" only brings up interesting thoughts and conspiracy theories. Nobody's claiming that it's historical fact.

When you say versions of the book are you saying that there are different stories out there? There are different translations but they all say the same thing. If you say "Bon jour!" and I translate it to say Good day and someone else translates it to say "Hello" would that be all that different? If the versions of the bible are so different as to be discrediting to each other, why do the churches welcome their people to use all different transaltions? It seems like they would be trying to discredit other versios instead of welcoming them all in as the same truth. And if you go to Crosswalk.com they have lots of different translations of the bible right on line free to be compared any line to any line so you can see that there is no difference in meaning but maybe some different word choices. (On the right of the page click on bible study tools and when the next page comes up just type in a book or verse to look up and then choose the different translations of the verse or book from the drop down menu next to the word "using").

If Jesus was married then it would mean that there was a conspicarcy of silence among all of his followers to hide that from the followers cause there is no mention of it anywhere in the bible. And bible scholars do not buy this in any way shape or form. Of course people can always look into old paintings and try to guess what hidden messages the artists may have hidden there but then wouldn't that be a real stretch as far as proving something to be a historical fact? The Bible has stood strong for thousands of years and it will continue to stand strong. And there will always be scoffers who do not choose to beleive and try to always find creative ways to discredit the Word.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I really like to debate but when it gets ugly like this I choose not to participate. I kind of think you would discount anything I have to say anyway. The problem is that although you have your own point of view, if you never have real debate then you will never understand where people of opposing beleifs are coming from.and there will always be people of opposing beliefs.


Love how you disregarded the other post about showing me an actual passage in the bible that says abortion is wrong...


I've tried and tried to have civil debates with you; however, you choose to ignore any statement that doesn't fit with what you personally think...keep in mind that by YOUR OWN ADMISSION you said that in another thread...this isn't me trying to make you look bad.


I also would like to state for the record that you're the one saying that a FICTION book is threatening to your religion...if you and others feel that threatened by a fiction book, then maybe you should take minute to reevaluate your beliefs.

I'd also like to point out that I'm not the one who has called everyone else on this board communists because they don't agree with what I say...please keep that in mind the next time you decide to say that I'M incapable of having a civil debate.





~darchangel~

[Vong]

I saw the movie last night, and despite what alot of critics said about the movie, it was really good. There were some parts in the film that could have been redone, but all in all, it was a good run.

The movie was summed up very nicely by the end (and I'm sure Langdon said it in the novel as well, it's been a long time since I've read it). Langdon asks if it is so important whether or not Jesus was a father. Whether or not he was a divine prophet or a regular Joe. The fact is that his presence (in literature or reality, wherever you see him) in this world has dramatically altered our history in good ways, and bad. Why couldn't Jesus perform all these miracles as a human? You see that kind of shit even today with tele-evengalists and their fucked up healing techniques. People actually believe they are healed each time they come up to the stage. I'm sure if Jesus were alive today, he would do the exact same thing.

The movie did little harm to my Catholic friends who I coaxed into seeing the movie. They still believe that the story and its evidence is a work of fiction, but they are intrigued by the arguments made by the movie. I told them that if they really believe the facts in the movie are false, that they should investigate for themselves and find their own answers to the truth.

[Lynn7]

DArchangel- you take what I say and restate it to sound like I said something else. I never said "You are all communists!" as people reading your post would be likely to beleive. What I DO believe is that people who cannot tolerate other points of view and are hatful towards them are falling in with the Communist philosophy. In Communist countries there was no free debate- there was the state's way or no way. People could be taken away if they spoke up against the state. And of course there was no God in Communism. People's religious beleifs had to be taken underground.

I did respond to your abortion post- I said "I kind of think you would discount anything I said anyway" And that is my response. Feel free to go on hating me and bashing me. If you ever want to have a polite discussion I'll be more than willing to do so.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Vong
I saw the movie last night, and despite what alot of critics said about the movie, it was really good. There were some parts in the film that could have been redone, but all in all, it was a good run.

The movie was summed up very nicely by the end (and I'm sure Langdon said it in the novel as well, it's been a long time since I've read it). Langdon asks if it is so important whether or not Jesus was a father. Whether or not he was a divine prophet or a regular Joe. The fact is that his presence (in literature or reality, wherever you see him) in this world has dramatically altered our history in good ways, and bad. Why couldn't Jesus perform all these miracles as a human? You see that kind of shit even today with tele-evengalists and their fucked up healing techniques. People actually believe they are healed each time they come up to the stage. I'm sure if Jesus were alive today, he would do the exact same thing.

The movie did little harm to my Catholic friends who I coaxed into seeing the movie. They still believe that the story and its evidence is a work of fiction, but they are intrigued by the arguments made by the movie. I told them that if they really believe the facts in the movie are false, that they should investigate for themselves and find their own answers to the truth.

The diffeence is that Jesus claimed to be divine and he was killed for claiming to be divine. He did not claim to be a prophet. As C.S . Lewis said you can call him Lord, liar or lunatic - he did not leave any other oprion open to us. I guess people who doubt his divinity are calling him "liar" and so by saying that they are saying he was basically an evil man who knowingly decieved many and led them to their deaths much the way Jim Jones or all the other false prophets did. And that is the point of the movie.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The diffeence is that Jesus claimed to be divine and he was killed for claiming to be divine. He did not claim to be a prophet. As C.S . Lewis said you can call him Lord, liar or lunatic - he did not leave any other oprion open to us. I guess people who doubt his divinity are calling him "liar" and so by saying that they are saying he was basically an evil man who knowingly decieved many and led them to their deaths much the way Jim Jones or all the other false prophets did. And that is the point of the movie.

What's the point of the movie? I haven't seen it yet (I will on Tuesday :D), but the book is about whether or not Jesus was a husband and father. The only people that did the deceiving were the Catholic bigwigs.

And are you saying that just because the Bible doesn't mention that Jesus was married that he wasn't?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by bigred760
What's the point of the movie? I haven't seen it yet (I will on Tuesday :D), but the book is about whether or not Jesus was a husband and father. The only people that did the deceiving were the Catholic bigwigs.

And are you saying that just because the Bible doesn't mention that Jesus was married that he wasn't?

He was not married. There wasn't any evidence about that at all and it is not something people would have neglected to mention. He came with a mission and he wasn't thinking about settling down and having kids- that's for sure. His mission was to fulfill the entire Old Testament a plan that had been in the making for thousands of years and finally brought to fruition with many signs and wonders (angels appearing to shephards etc). He fulfilled all of the prophecies; he lived among men and then began his ministry which lasted for three years and then he had to die a sacrificial death for the sins of mankind. Peter was married and many other disciples were married and that is mentioned. Jesus was not married. The Bible mentions his parents, his brothers and sisters but it does not say anything about a wife. And Mary MAgdalene is one of many Marys in the New Testament. She had no elevated status and she was one of many.

[bigred760]

You didn't answer my question. But that's okay.

What is the big deal if he was married or not? Does that change what he stood for or what he did, according to the Bible? I don't think it does.

Originally posted by Lynn7
There wasn't any evidence about that at all and it is not something people would have neglected to mention.

"The Da Vinci Code" (the book) states that the Catholic Church purposefully neglected to mention that Jesus wasn't married. That's the point of the book.

He came with a mission and he wasn't thinking about settling down and having kids- that's for sure. His mission was to fulfill the entire Old Testament a plan that had been in the making for thousands of years and finally brought to fruition with many signs and wonders (angels appearing to shephards etc). He fulfilled all of the prophecies; he lived among men and then began his ministry which lasted for three years and then he had to die a sacrificial death for the sins of mankind.

I personally don't have a clue what Jesus was "thinking." He was around for a long time before his crucifixion and the Bible doesn't mention every single second of what he was doing and "thinking."

Peter was married and many other disciples were married and that is mentioned. Jesus was not married. The Bible mentions his parents, his brothers and sisters but it does not say anything about a wife. And Mary MAgdalene is one of many Marys in the New Testament. She had no elevated status and she was one of many.

Well, the Bible doesn't mention what meals Jesus had three times a day (or less) but that doesn't mean he didn't eat.

Which leads me back to my question: so just because the Bible doesn't include it, means it didn't happen?

[Vong]

He was not married. There wasn't any evidence about that at all and it is not something people would have neglected to mention. He came with a mission and he wasn't thinking about settling down and having kids- that's for sure. His mission was to fulfill the entire Old Testament a plan that had been in the making for thousands of years and finally brought to fruition with many signs and wonders (angels appearing to shephards etc). He fulfilled all of the prophecies; he lived among men and then began his ministry which lasted for three years and then he had to die a sacrificial death for the sins of mankind. Peter was married and many other disciples were married and that is mentioned. Jesus was not married. The Bible mentions his parents, his brothers and sisters but it does not say anything about a wife. And Mary MAgdalene is one of many Marys in the New Testament. She had no elevated status and she was one of many.

Lynn, you are contradicting yourself. You claim that there is no evidence that Jesus was married, and that since there is no evidence we should not believe it so. This is just like saying we have no evidence of Adam and Eve's existence or Moses' existence, therefore we shouldn't believe any of them existed. Evidence never stops anyone from believing whatever they want. You of all people should know that.

As for evidence to his marriage, its stated in the Gnostic Gospels that Jesus and Mary were "companions" (which back in those days meant they were married), and that Jesus loved Mary more than all of his disciples. Jesus used to kiss Mary now and then in front of his disciples and many of them were jealous of Jesus' love for Mary.

These Gospels exist. The only reason it does not appear in the bible is because the Council of Nicea forbid any mention of Jesus' mortality in the church and bible. Though the Gospels were rejected, they were not all destroyed.

Why Lynn, do you continually reject these Gospels from having any truth when they were created at the same time as the Gospels in the bible were? Is it because they aren't in the bible? You have the oligarchy of the early church dominated by men to thank for that. I think if you truly want to know your lord and saviour, you should read the Gnostic Gospels that give as much telling to Jesus' life than any of the Gospels written in the bible.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by bigred760
You didn't answer my question. But that's okay.

What is the big deal if he was married or not? Does that change what he stood for or what he did, according to the Bible? I don't think it does.



"The Da Vinci Code" (the book) states that the Catholic Church purposefully neglected to mention that Jesus wasn't married. That's the point of the book.
[b]

I personally don't have a clue what Jesus was "thinking." He was around for a long time before his crucifixion and the Bible doesn't mention every single second of what he was doing and "thinking."
[b]

Well, the Bible doesn't mention what meals Jesus had three times a day (or less) but that doesn't mean he didn't eat.

Which leads me back to my question: so just because the Bible doesn't include it, means it didn't happen?

It is a big deal not because it wouldn't have been allowed but what is being said is that Jesus was hiding this from people as if it was something to be hidden. When I read the gospels the last thing on my mind is if he should be married or not because his mission had such magnitude that him getting married would've been kind of weird. It's like a man who is involved in taking down a bomb but he stops to have a little romance with a coworker. He was intensely focused on his mission throughout all of the gospels. Even as a child he had been left behind accidentally by his parents and he was found in the synagogue having a serious discussion with the elders who marvelled at his wisdom. He told his parents don't you know I have to be about my Father's work?

The Ctholic church is something that didn't exist in Jesus' time. There was a church that evolved and then it split because of corruption so why in the world would a Catholic conspiracy have any resonance with any of the other denominations. It woud have to be a conspiracy that cut across all Christinaity and not guarded by a select few. And Paul said that it is better if people did not marry so they could be totally committed to God so why would he say that if Jesus the Lord he committed his life to, was married? It does not make any sense.

Not everything is mentioned inthe Bible- you are right about that but when you study the Bible you do get to know who God is and what he thinks and you can predict many things about how he would feel- remember that expression "What would Jesus do?" We have a good idea about many things based on who He was and the principles he stood for.

Why are you ready to entertain something that has so little support in any part of the historical (let alone Christian) community?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Vong
Lynn, you are contradicting yourself. You claim that there is no evidence that Jesus was married, and that since there is no evidence we should not believe it so. This is just like saying we have no evidence of Adam and Eve's existence or Moses' existence, therefore we shouldn't believe any of them existed. Evidence never stops anyone from believing whatever they want. You of all people should know that.

As for evidence to his marriage, its stated in the Gnostic Gospels that Jesus and Mary were "companions" (which back in those days meant they were married), and that Jesus loved Mary more than all of his disciples. Jesus used to kiss Mary now and then in front of his disciples and many of them were jealous of Jesus' love for Mary.

These Gospels exist. The only reason it does not appear in the bible is because the Council of Nicea forbid any mention of Jesus' mortality in the church and bible. Though the Gospels were rejected, they were not all destroyed.

Why Lynn, do you continually reject these Gospels from having any truth when they were created at the same time as the Gospels in the bible were? Is it because they aren't in the bible? You have the oligarchy of the early church dominated by men to thank for that. I think if you truly want to know your lord and saviour, you should read the Gnostic Gospels that give as much telling to Jesus' life than any of the Gospels written in the bible.

I'm running tight on time tonight so I'll come back tomorrow and respond, OK? I just didn't want you to think I was blowing you off ;)

A link to something that may help (http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-2.htm)

[Vong]

I read through a few paragraphs of the article, when I realized that this came from a Christian foundation. Wouldn't surprise me if a religious based institution created this. Show me an impartial article that argues against the Gnostic gospels.

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by darchangel
Love how you disregarded the other post about showing me an actual passage in the bible that says abortion is wrong...


I've tried and tried to have civil debates with you; however, you choose to ignore any statement that doesn't fit with what you personally think...keep in mind that by YOUR OWN ADMISSION you said that in another thread...this isn't me trying to make you look bad.


I also would like to state for the record that you're the one saying that a FICTION book is threatening to your religion...if you and others feel that threatened by a fiction book, then maybe you should take minute to reevaluate your beliefs.

I'd also like to point out that I'm not the one who has called everyone else on this board communists because they don't agree with what I say...please keep that in mind the next time you decide to say that I'M incapable of having a civil debate.





~darchangel~

Hi darchangel- I thought I'd let you know why I myself, as a Chrisitan, would never have an abortion. The word 'abortion' is not found in the bible and nowhere does it say that it is wrong. However, we get an idea of how Jehovah God feels about human life in the Mosaic Law Covenant when it was declared that if a man or woman caused injury to a pregnant woman and the baby died-that person was bloodguilty, punishable by death. This referred to intentional injury, by the way-not accidental. With the death of Jesus, the law was done away with but the entire law was replaced by these two: You must love Jehovah your God with your whole mind, heart, soul, and strength and You must love your neighbor as yourself. Because of my relationship with God, I couldnt concientiously do anything that would bring him pain and because of my dedication to him-I would never knowingly do anything that I feel disregards human life.

I'm not saying this to start an abortion debate. I'm just stating my feelings from my own study of the bible. I don't judge those who do choose to have an abortion and I don't actively protest the administering of such.

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by Vong
Lynn, you are contradicting yourself. You claim that there is no evidence that Jesus was married, and that since there is no evidence we should not believe it so. This is just like saying we have no evidence of Adam and Eve's existence or Moses' existence, therefore we shouldn't believe any of them existed. Evidence never stops anyone from believing whatever they want. You of all people should know that.

As for evidence to his marriage, its stated in the Gnostic Gospels that Jesus and Mary were "companions" (which back in those days meant they were married), and that Jesus loved Mary more than all of his disciples. Jesus used to kiss Mary now and then in front of his disciples and many of them were jealous of Jesus' love for Mary.

These Gospels exist. The only reason it does not appear in the bible is because the Council of Nicea forbid any mention of Jesus' mortality in the church and bible. Though the Gospels were rejected, they were not all destroyed.

Why Lynn, do you continually reject these Gospels from having any truth when they were created at the same time as the Gospels in the bible were? Is it because they aren't in the bible? You have the oligarchy of the early church dominated by men to thank for that. I think if you truly want to know your lord and saviour, you should read the Gnostic Gospels that give as much telling to Jesus' life than any of the Gospels written in the bible.

There are many Christian religions now and these do not accept the Council of Nicaea's dominion or ruling on what could and could not be in the bible. The restoring of God's name throughout the Hebrew and Greek scriptures is evidence of this. Even the King James Bible was based on the 'received text' of the day and since this version, many discoveries have been made of Masoretic texts, ancient scrolls, etc that have allowed bible scholars and advocates to restore it to its original state. What we have now is considered by impartial bible scholars to be the original bible cannon in its entirety. This is a general opinion as can be easily researched.

That said, it isnt likely that Jesus was married. The gospels mention particulars about his feeling for people-Lazarus, his mother, the apostle John. There is no mention of a wife and Jesus as the son of God had no reason to hide this since he advocated marriage and actually performed his first miracle at a wedding feast.


Mary Magdalene was his friend. She is mentioned on several occasions-none of which give her prime significance,really. After Christ expelled seven demons from her, she ministered to Jesus along w/ Susanna and several other women throughout the second year of his preaching. She was standing with others, viewing from a distance, at his death. After his burial, she and other women came to the tomb to bring perfumed oil, found it empty, and she went to inform his apostles. When she came back and discovered she was seeing his ressurected form, she exclaimed 'Rabboni', which means 'teacher', right? I don't believe that is the reaction of a wife upon seeing her husband rise from the dead. There is nothing in any of those passages to suggest that she was his wife.

But speculate if it pleases you. ;)

[Vong]

But speculate if it pleases you.

There is no need to speculate. The bible is one giant conspiracy to me.

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by Vong
There is no need to speculate. The bible is one giant conspiracy to me.

I definitely agree that Religion involves much conspiracy. But the bible is very pure, in my opinion.

But again, no one is telling you not to feel that way. It's your right. Free will, you know. ;)

[QUENTIN]

It's a shame that interesting ideas were so seriously diminished by being attached to the worst movie I've seen in a year and a pedestrian, inelegant potboiler.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Vong
I read through a few paragraphs of the article, when I realized that this came from a Christian foundation. Wouldn't surprise me if a religious based institution created this. Show me an impartial article that argues against the Gnostic gospels.

I thought the site was pretty fair in its examination of the gnostics but if you want to do more research on it feel free. I would start by reading the real Bible and then you can look up stuff that tries to tear it down and see which makes more sense to you. I would always start with the original before I looked at the other. I have never heard anyone give any real credence or consideration to the gnostic gospels so I really can't help you out on your quest.

I t has been my understanding that the gnostics were created well after the real gospels. Even 70 years later would have a big effect. The real gospels were from eyewitnesses to Jesus or from people who were listening to eyewitness accounts from Peter. There were thousands of people who could've refuted them back then but didn't. In fact people gave up their lives in support of them. and they gave up their lives by getting eaten by lions and other gruesome tortures. Siren did a really good job explaining about Mary M.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by SIREN30
Hi darchangel- I thought I'd let you know why I myself, as a Chrisitan, would never have an abortion. The word 'abortion' is not found in the bible and nowhere does it say that it is wrong. However, we get an idea of how Jehovah God feels about human life in the Mosaic Law Covenant when it was declared that if a man or woman caused injury to a pregnant woman and the baby died-that person was bloodguilty, punishable by death. This referred to intentional injury, by the way-not accidental. With the death of Jesus, the law was done away with but the entire law was replaced by these two: You must love Jehovah your God with your whole mind, heart, soul, and strength and You must love your neighbor as yourself. Because of my relationship with God, I couldnt concientiously do anything that would bring him pain and because of my dedication to him-I would never knowingly do anything that I feel disregards human life.

I'm not saying this to start an abortion debate. I'm just stating my feelings from my own study of the bible. I don't judge those who do choose to have an abortion and I don't actively protest the administering of such.

Thank you, Siren...but I really wanted Lynn to explain this to me rather than just saying that I'm bashing her when what I was really doing is asking for an explanation of her statements.

I may not agree with the sentiments expressed in the bible, but thanks again for taking the time to respond to me. :)



~darchangel~

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
It's a shame that interesting ideas were so seriously diminished by being attached to the worst movie I've seen in a year and a pedestrian, inelegant potboiler.



I was coming in this thread to say that I pretty much think the movie producers are promoting the hype of this controversy. Really - I've heard more about it from people attached to the movie than from anyone upset about the movie or the book.

Hanks was on SNL, and his monologue was about nothing but the controversy. When ever you see anyone attached to the movie, it's all controversy-this, controversy-that.

This is another case of Religous Fundamentalism as The Ultimate Marketing Tool.

[SIREN30]

Kind of reminds me of the Mel Gibson interviews surrounding 'Passion'

[bigred760]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I was coming in this thread to say that I pretty much think the movie producers are promoting the hype of this controversy. Really - I've heard more about it from people attached to the movie than from anyone upset about the movie or the book.

Hanks was on SNL, and his monologue was about nothing but the controversy. When ever you see anyone attached to the movie, it's all controversy-this, controversy-that.

This is another case of Religous Fundamentalism as The Ultimate Marketing Tool.

It seems to be working though - $200+ million at the worldwide box office. Though I don't think it's just the filmmakers; you've got Catholics and other religious groups calling for Christians everywhere to boycott the thing. Then you've got the media at Cannes asking Ron Howard and Tom Hanks to comment on the "controversy" and the boycotts. So I don't think it's just Hanks on SNL touting it, though I'm sure it does help.

[Vong]

t has been my understanding that the gnostics were created well after the real gospels. Even 70 years later would have a big effect. The real gospels were from eyewitnesses to Jesus or from people who were listening to eyewitness accounts from Peter.

The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were written at least 40 years after Jesus' death. And most of what was written about Jesus was told by a man named Saul, or Paul of Taurus.

Time should not make a difference in this case on which you would consider valid testimony. The bible's Gospels were mostly written through word of mouth, on hearsay. The Gnostic gospels could have easily been created the same way, but just because the Gospels that were accepted by the Council of Nicea are in the bible, doesn't neccesarily mean its the ultimate truth of Jesus' life.

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by Vong
The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were written at least 40 years after Jesus' death. And most of what was written about Jesus was told by a man named Saul, or Paul of Taurus.

Time should not make a difference in this case on which you would consider valid testimony. The bible's Gospels were mostly written through word of mouth, on hearsay. The Gnostic gospels could have easily been created the same way, but just because the Gospels that were accepted by the Council of Nicea are in the bible, doesn't neccesarily mean its the ultimate truth of Jesus' life.

Just wanted to clarify.

Mattew was an apostle of Christ. Eyewitness account. Completed in 41 c.e. Less than ten years after the resurrection of Jesus.

Mark was completed in 65 c.e.. about 30 years after the resurrection. He was a coworker w/ Jesus' apostles and a close associate of Peter-who was an eyewitness.

Luke was completed in 58 c.e, 27 years after Jesus' death. He did get the majority of his info from Paul, no doubt, but he also had access to matthew's eyewitness gospel. He would also have been able to personally interview many of the people who were eyewitnesses, much as a reporter would do today.

John was another apostle of Christ and his gospel was completed in 98 c.e. This was probably due to his active share in the ministry after Jesus death. However, being closer to Jesus emotionally-he would still have remembered intimate details that some of the writers did not. It is generally believed that he began his writing after his return from exile on the island of Patmos.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by bigred760
It seems to be working though - $200+ million at the worldwide box office. Though I don't think it's just the filmmakers; you've got Catholics and other religious groups calling for Christians everywhere to boycott the thing. Then you've got the media at Cannes asking Ron Howard and Tom Hanks to comment on the "controversy" and the boycotts. So I don't think it's just Hanks on SNL touting it, though I'm sure it does help.

No doubt it worked - had the opposite effect on me though. I wanted to see it because it looked like a neat conspiracy theory-type film - secret shit. I like that. Now that I see them hyping the controversy so much, I'm less inclined. The story in itself should have been the real focus.

I think I just notice the filmmakers promoting the controversy more, because I hear more from them. When the Pope starts hosting SNL, I'll see both sides more clearly. :D

[Scorpio24]

I've read every word on this thread.

Lets pretend I don't know anything about The Bible or the History of this debate.

Can people tell me if there is actualy any evidence of any of this:

a) Jesus was married?

b) The Council of Nicea held by Constantine to fast track Christianity actualy happened. And that they took all the gospels and removed any that would potray Jesus as a mortal man and not of the devine?

c) That scrolls have been found in the last few decades that counter act the claim Jesus was devine and the Son of God?

d) The Priory of Sion was/is actually an organistaion or a figment of someone's imagination?

e) That Mary Magdeline herself had written a scroll that was removed not to be entered into the bible?




The reason I ask these questions is because everytime I try to research any answers on these topics all anyone seem to have, is opinions. Is there any historical evidence to back up any of the above claims?


I have read The Da Vinci Code and then intrigued by it I read Holy Blood Holy Grail. There are some startiling claims in the Holy Blood.... book. Some of it historical evidence. Some of it guess work which the authors admit to. It's hard to keep up with what is fact and what is opinons.

Anyone with any answers on this would be greatly appreciated.



The main reason I have with religion(s) is the blodd shed they have caused not just now but always. It strikes me as bizzare the amount of killing that as been done in Jesus name. A man of peace.

I watched a program the other night on about the different claims. (That's all that's on every damn channel at the moment) Couple of questions they asked which I thought was spot on

What would Jesus think of the killing that has been done in his name?

What would Jesus think of the impressive Vatican building and their wealth?

Both were answered by a Catholic and a Christian with the word disgusted.

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
I've read every word on this thread.

Lets pretend I don't know anything about The Bible or the History of this debate.

Can people tell me if there is actualy any evidence of any of this:

a) Jesus was married?

b) The Council of Nicea held by Constantine to fast track Christianity actualy happened. And that they took all the gospels and removed any that would potray Jesus as a mortal man and not of the devine?

c) That scrolls have been found in the last few decades that counter act the claim Jesus was devine and the Son of God?

d) The Priory of Sion was/is actually an organistaion or a figment of someone's imagination?

e) That Mary Magdeline herself had written a scroll that was removed not to be entered into the bible?




The reason I ask these questions is because everytime I try to research any answers on these topics all anyone seem to have, is opinions. Is there any historical evidence to back up any of the above claims?


I have read The Da Vinci Code and then intrigued by it I read Holy Blood Holy Grail. There are some startiling claims in the Holy Blood.... book. Some of it historical evidence. Some of it guess work which the authors admit to. It's hard to keep up with what is fact and what is opinons.

Anyone with any answers on this would be greatly appreciated.



The main reason I have with religion(s) is the blodd shed they have caused not just now but always. It strikes me as bizzare the amount of killing that as been done in Jesus name. A man of peace.

I watched a program the other night on about the different claims. (That's all that's on every damn channel at the moment) Couple of questions they asked which I thought was spot on

What would Jesus think of the killing that has been done in his name?

What would Jesus think of the impressive Vatican building and their wealth?

Both were answered by a Catholic and a Christian with the word disgusted.

Youve put alot of thought into this, I can tell. So have I. From my personal study of the bible and reference works, I've come to the conclusion that the bible is indeed the word of God. I have many reasons for this which would be far too lengthy for this thread (fulfillment of prophecy, scientific accuracy, candid historical accounts, archeological discoveries etc.).

1. There is no evidence that Jesus was married. If you take the recoginized gospel (that being Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) in their entirety and at their word-no mention is made of a wife. See my post on the subject for further reasoning.

2. The Council of Nicaea took place in 325 c.e when Constantine wanted unity in his realm and decided to hold a council of bishops (between 250 to 318 were present). These people were predominantly Greek speaking and not necessarily representative of the populace at all. What resulted, after heavy debate, was the Nicene Creed with its heavy bias towards Trinitarian thought. It was a victory for theology but not, unfortunately, for those who held to the scriptures. Anyway, this debate raged for decades and it required several different emperors, more councils, and the threat of banishment for eventual conformity to be achieved. Forgive me if this sounds very negative but there it is. The bible has actually remained intact in spite of all of this, however.

3. I am not personally aware of any legitimate scrolls that have been verified as proving Jesus to be anything other than the Son of God-which is what he, himself claimed to be.

4. I do not know about the Priory of Sion...sorry.

5.Mary Magdalene may have written a scroll but it is not part of the bible cannon and never has been.

I too am completely apalled and disgusted by the ammount of bloodshed that has resulted due to religious domination. Jesus made it very clear that 'those who take up the sword will perish by the sword'. It is not the wish of Jehovah God or Jesus that man pursue that course, as you are surely aware. Jesus also made it very clear how he felt about those who used his father's house as a means to gain wealth. Remember he threw the 'money-changers' out of the temple for attempting this. The apostles lived by his example of free giving. 'You received free. Give free'. There is nothing wrong w/ beautiful buildings or having a lot of money but God does not appreciate a 'showy display of one's means of life.'

This is what I feel due a bible-trained conscience. I know the majority of people do not agree with me and that is just fine. :cool:

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
I've read every word on this thread.

Lets pretend I don't know anything about The Bible or the History of this debate.

Can people tell me if there is actualy any evidence of any of this:

a) Jesus was married?

b) The Council of Nicea held by Constantine to fast track Christianity actualy happened. And that they took all the gospels and removed any that would potray Jesus as a mortal man and not of the devine?

c) That scrolls have been found in the last few decades that counter act the claim Jesus was devine and the Son of God?

d) The Priory of Sion was/is actually an organistaion or a figment of someone's imagination?

e) That Mary Magdeline herself had written a scroll that was removed not to be entered into the bible?




The reason I ask these questions is because everytime I try to research any answers on these topics all anyone seem to have, is opinions. Is there any historical evidence to back up any of the above claims?


I have read The Da Vinci Code and then intrigued by it I read Holy Blood Holy Grail. There are some startiling claims in the Holy Blood.... book. Some of it historical evidence. Some of it guess work which the authors admit to. It's hard to keep up with what is fact and what is opinons.

Anyone with any answers on this would be greatly appreciated.



The main reason I have with religion(s) is the blodd shed they have caused not just now but always. It strikes me as bizzare the amount of killing that as been done in Jesus name. A man of peace.

I watched a program the other night on about the different claims. (That's all that's on every damn channel at the moment) Couple of questions they asked which I thought was spot on

What would Jesus think of the killing that has been done in his name?

What would Jesus think of the impressive Vatican building and their wealth?

Both were answered by a Catholic and a Christian with the word disgusted.

It's funny to me that people are willing to believe Dan Brown and a few other people who assert something different that all the historians or bible scholars without first looking into the Bible in a serious way. The bible must be something special to have gained such world wide appeal for a religion that holds up humility and kindness and love. For so many ordinary people to have given their lives in gruesome ways because of their beliefs in Jesus.Why should I even consider what Dan Brown has to say? He hasn't shown anything except speculation. He hid his wife from the court when he was being charged with plagiairsim despite the fact that she supposedly did his research- even the judge noted that.

Anyway, Jesus is NOT shocked that religion has cause bloodshed. It was this way from the beginning and during his time as a man on this Earth. The Jews had been persecuted for their beleies from the beginning of their time. When Jesus walked, people used to come to him to try to get him involved in political intrigue. They could not understand why he wouldn't.

His mission was so much more than any little passing political intrigue. The major cause of bloodshed and dissension is that battle between God and Satan. Satan always tries to destroy anything that God loves. It is all in the Bible. Look at how many times Jesus is scolding Satan or his demons (in the New Testament). It is amazing. The war is between good and evil ultimately. All of our dissension can ultimately be traced to that.

[SIREN30]

I don't think Scorpio was implying that Jesus would be shocked by the bloodshed-merely that he would disapprove.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by Lynn7
It's funny to me that people are willing to believe Dan Brown and a few other people who assert something different that all the historians or bible scholars without first looking into the Bible in a serious way. The bible must be something special to have gained such world wide appeal for a religion that holds up humility and kindness and love. For so many ordinary people to have given their lives in gruesome ways because of their beliefs in Jesus.Why should I even consider what Dan Brown has to say? He hasn't shown anything except speculation. He hid his wife from the court when he was being charged with plagiairsim despite the fact that she supposedly did his research- even the judge noted that.

Anyway, Jesus is NOT shocked that religion has cause bloodshed. It was this way from the beginning and during his time as a man on this Earth. The Jews had been persecuted for their beleies from the beginning of their time. When Jesus walked, people used to come to him to try to get him involved in political intrigue. They could not understand why he wouldn't.

His mission was so much more than any little passing political intrigue. The major cause of bloodshed and dissension is that battle between God and Satan. Satan always tries to destroy anything that God loves. It is all in the Bible. Look at how many times Jesus is scolding Satan or his demons (in the New Testament). It is amazing. The war is between good and evil ultimately. All of our dissension can ultimately be traced to that.


Unsurprisingly you've managed to side step any of the questions i've asked.

First of all I haven't asked you to consider what Darren Brown has said. In fact I haven't asked you to consider anything. I asked questions to anybody and everybody because I was having trouble remembering and deciphering the differences between Fact and Fiction.

You say it's funny that you find that other people are willing to listen to other historians without factoring in the bible or bible study. Then you show some quite breathtaking hypocrisy by saying that you will not read things that attack your faith or merley don't even agree with it.

I'm not sure why you picked my post and then when into full defensive mode when all I asked was for anybody who had done more recent research on this to refresh my memory about certain facts.

But as we are here I may as well discuss a few things.

As SIREN30 as said above. I said I agreed that Jesus would be disgusted with all the killing and the lavish lifestyles of certain people who preach his peasan't teachings. I didn't say he would be shocked. I really wouldn't know. I'm not in touch with him. Tell him I said hi.


I don't know why i'm really bothering replying because i'm unlikely to get any reply that relates to my post but 1 rather where I am wrong and the Bible is correct.

I'm not knocking your beliefs. You're entitled to them. But as more than a few people have asked in the past. Maybe just seeing things from a different point of view every now and then will open up the conversation a little.



Anyway thanks for your thoughts SIREN30

[The Young Son]

After watching the movie, I have no desire to argue about this shit anymore. It was an okay movie with interesting theories and a fictional story. I still have as much faith in my religion as I did before I saw the movie. Nuff said. Peace.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
Unsurprisingly you've managed to side step any of the questions i've asked.

First of all I haven't asked you to consider what Darren Brown has said. In fact I haven't asked you to consider anything. I asked questions to anybody and everybody because I was having trouble remembering and deciphering the differences between Fact and Fiction.

You say it's funny that you find that other people are willing to listen to other historians without factoring in the bible or bible study. Then you show some quite breathtaking hypocrisy by saying that you will not read things that attack your faith or merley don't even agree with it.

I'm not sure why you picked my post and then when into full defensive mode when all I asked was for anybody who had done more recent research on this to refresh my memory about certain facts.

But as we are here I may as well discuss a few things.

As SIREN30 as said above. I said I agreed that Jesus would be disgusted with all the killing and the lavish lifestyles of certain people who preach his peasan't teachings. I didn't say he would be shocked. I really wouldn't know. I'm not in touch with him. Tell him I said hi.


I don't know why i'm really bothering replying because i'm unlikely to get any reply that relates to my post but 1 rather where I am wrong and the Bible is correct.

I'm not knocking your beliefs. You're entitled to them. But as more than a few people have asked in the past. Maybe just seeing things from a different point of view every now and then will open up the conversation a little.



Anyway thanks for your thoughts SIREN30

Gee, sorry I missed this post or I would've responded sooner.I didn't respond to your questions becasue Siren already had. I used some of the points you made at the end as representative of things I have been hearing other people say. They are certainly not new observations.

I guess I never realized that there were such stringent rules on this message board for answering questions about how and when to answer things. I just never really see the other posters adhering to the same rules that have been applied to me. If people skip over some of the points I make I just ignore it and don't accuse them of ignoring my points. I figured that it is their perogative to answer the question in any way they see fit.

And actually, I wasn't even in "full defensive mode."
Here is a quote from my post:
"It's funny to me that people are willing to believe Dan Brown and a few other people who assert something different that all the historians or bible scholars without first looking into the Bible in a serious way."

Notice that I didn't say It's funny to me that "you" or that "Scorpio" ...
I was just giving my own viewpoint which is certainly in the minority around here. That is not to say that it is a minority viewpoint in the country but just on the BB.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Gee, sorry I missed this post or I would've responded sooner.I didn't respond to your questions becasue Siren already had. I used some of the points you made at the end as representative of things I have been hearing other people say. They are certainly not new observations.

I guess I never realized that there were such stringent rules on this message board for answering questions about how and when to answer things. I just never really see the other posters adhering to the same rules that have been applied to me. If people skip over some of the points I make I just ignore it and don't accuse them of ignoring my points. I figured that it is their perogative to answer the question in any way they see fit.

And actually, I wasn't even in "full defensive mode."
Here is a quote from my post:
"It's funny to me that people are willing to believe Dan Brown and a few other people who assert something different that all the historians or bible scholars without first looking into the Bible in a serious way."

Notice that I didn't say It's funny to me that "you" or that "Scorpio" ...
I was just giving my own viewpoint which is certainly in the minority around here. That is not to say that it is a minority viewpoint in the country but just on the BB.



Well i'm sorry Lynn but you actually quoted me in your reply. That would imply to me that you are responding at ME.

It's like me going into a Superman thread telling someone hey you're wrong Batman is better while quoting them. And then when they ask me what the hell i'm talking about I can just say "hey. I wasn't talking to you" mmm yeah that'll work.

And you know there is no certain standard. But when I discuss something with someone i'd like them to answer my questions or theories if i'm going to be informed of where i'm going wrong. If you people don't answer your questions and therfore you feel you don't need to answer any others in return, Fine. It's not going to stop me or other people asking why you haven't answered them

Maybe we should do it the other way around here. Say what ever the helll you like and if any of it's true well whaey we've got ourselves a party.

[Lynn7]

I'll really try not to quote you anymore and since you have such a low opinion of any of my responses I will try not to respond at all. No hard feelings.

[Scorpio24]

Yes because that's EXACTLY what I said. I'm the bad guy. Lock up your children because i'm coming to eat them.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
If you people don't answer your questions and therfore you feel you don't need to answer any others in return, Fine. It's not going to stop me or other people asking why you haven't answered them

Maybe we should do it the other way around here. Say what ever the helll you like and if any of it's true well whaey we've got ourselves a party.

I try my best to answer questions asked of me. The ones you asked had already been answered by Siren. I didn't even know the answers to some of your questions. I could've looked them up but then you could've done the same thing. I am no expert on the church history. I have studied the bible for years and I have read up on a lot of stuff but my interest lies in the Word of God not all the mechanations of the various church administrations over the centuries. My church focuses on the Bible and doesn't get involved with politics. I like it that way. If you reread my post it is bible based and that is where my knowlege lies. Of course if people don't beleive the bible then they will discount any answer based on that but all the Chrisitan churches base their faith on the Bible so it is standard procedure to refer to it.

You said I can say what the hell I like and IF ANY OF IT IS TRUE you can have a party. That seemed like a pretty pointed criticism of my opinions. Not only a criticism but a condemnation. You are saying that there may be a bit here or there that is true? And you would be OK if I made that comment to you? I don't think I have ever taken my responses here lightly. You have been taking hits at me for a while and so I offered not to offend you any further. I never called you the bad guy. I siad no hard feelings. People don't have to like every one they meet and I guess you don't like what I have to say. Fine.

[Scorpio24]

Okay.


1st of all. All I did was lay down a few questions to see if anybody knew more or any about. I didn't demand any answers just wanted to see if anyone could shed any light on it. Considering it is the in keeping with the topic of the thread I didn't see it as any bad thing.

2nd of all. Like I have said you quoted my post with the questions and then went off on a mini rant about why you feel you it's strange that people are willing to believe Dan Brown etc. etc.

Now as you have quoted me and made this statement I can only assume (maybe wrongly) that it was directed at me. That is why I said you ignored my questions. You responded by quoting my post and then not talking about anything I had asked. Can you see why I thought it was directed at me? And why I thought you had by passed the questions in the same instance?

If you don't know the answers fine. I don't and many others won't. But I asked to find out if anyone did.

I haven't been taking pops at you. 2 threads. This and another about Tom Cruise where I dissagreed with you. How that's taking shots at you i'm not sure. Also when I said the other way of doing things around here, you'll notice I said AROUND HERE Not implying YOU.