logo Sign In

The Da Vinci Code Movie — Page 3

Author
Time
Post link
I think that jesus was a fictional character and I liked it.


Regardless of religous affiliation, there are enough first documentary sources to prove that Jesus is 'non-fiction'.

The historical argument of 'did jesus exist' is moot.

He existed.

Get over it. The argument surrounding birth and resurrection and marriage to mary are a whole different can of worms that belong in a different thread.
gtfo
Author
Time
Post link
To those who are irritated/angered/whatever about the claims made regarding Jesus in the movie/book, I have a question: Whether you believe the particular claims made in the Da Vinci Code or not, do you at least concede that the church as an organisation has twisted truth and deceived the masses in order to gain/hold onto power throughout history? I was raised Catholic and while I am not sold on the mary Magdelene was Jesus' wife thing (I don't reject it either though), I 100% beleive that the church, and in fact most (all?) organised religion is bullshit. Man created religion, not God. These silly clubs that we humans create and fight over are just silly, and they are NOT what Jesus would have wanted.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
True. That's why I hate people talking about christianity as being 'the church'. Christianity is not an 'institution'. Likewise, going to church does NOT make you a christian.

I ESPECIALLY hate it when people ask me what denomination 'non-denominational' is .

Here's the deal. As long as organisations exist, they WILL be perverted by men to their own ends. Every religion in history has been abused to trick, manipulate, etc.

Christ did not institute a church. In case you've forgotten, he was against the concept of the pharisees, saducees, and the whole 'holier than though' concept. As such, I find the concept of confessing to priests to be completely alien, doesn't doing so admit they are closer to god than you? You're really supposed to confess to god, and have the holy spirit tell you what to do in your heart. The whole 'confess to man' thing was because keeping things secret is hurtful to ourselves. Considering the lashing he gave the disciples for doing the same thing... The church was originally created to help christians escape from persecution, act as a 'safe house' where they could pray with friends. It was a place to pray and rejoice. Not a place to pay and be damned.

The instant christianity became a major religion, the need for an organisation was removed, the elders should have stood to the side, and allowed these 'religous centres' to continue to be places of worship. However, having all this power over a major part of the population is pretty hard to give up eh?

One last point. Consider the story of the widow and the copper. That does not only hold true to money. It is far more in the eyes of God to recieve small acceptance from a prodigal child than it is to recieve heaps of praise from those who are already rich in spirit. God does not need impressive works, or monuments in his name. "His fortress is a faithful heart, his pride in suffering." We too often associate religion with well-being and grandeur. News flash. The only thing that promises that are some of the new-age, feel good, religions. Heck, BUDDAH (yah, chubby happy buddah) states that gratification is SUFFERING.

Serve as I have served, let your actions be your words, be the salt of the earth, blessed are the weak. Where the heck does 'build a great religion in my name', 'rule countries in my name', 'raise armies, go out and kill in my name' fit into that. If you believe the bible you should realize that it DOESN'T work that way. Christianity is SUPPOSED to fail. If you are chrisitan you have to believe the devil exists. That doesn't mean roll over, but it doesn't mean 'take over' either.

I despise organized religion, because a hierarchy is the death of any religion. In the words of CS Lewis. Petty squables within the church serve only to bring disgrace to the it. Be you baptist, protestant, catholic, you are christian, so present a united front to the world. (this was in 'mere christianity', paraphrased here
(theres some irony in that last statement for sure )
gtfo
Author
Time
Post link
clearly not everyone will agree with you. The fact still remains: a movie like this about Christ is ok and cool. But the same movie about Mohammed would offensive and no one would dare to make it.
Author
Time
Post link
I agree, and I hate that for the same reason that I hate reverse racism.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Don't forget reverse sexism. That's just as bad. Double standards in general, whether applying to religion, race, gender, or any other area of life is just ignorant and should be wiped from this earth.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
And, I am sure that the Christian Church is not the only church to have twisted the truth.
Author
Time
Post link
The fact still remains: a movie like this about Christ is ok and cool. But the same movie about Mohammed would offensive and no one would dare to make it.


Not only mohammed. Same is true for any religious figure other than Christ. Sad......
gtfo
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Warbler
clearly not everyone will agree with you. The fact still remains: a movie like this about Christ is ok and cool. But the same movie about Mohammed would offensive and no one would dare to make it.

i dont quite agree with you there warbler. first of all, islam doesnt proclaim mohammed to be a son of god, they dont deny that he was a man, nor do they deny that he was married so... a movie couldnt actually be made about mohammed in the same way the da vinci code was made about jesus. second i dont agree cause the onyl reason a movie like that would be frowned upon if it could be made would be, because of th current political state with islamic people.
Author
Time
Post link
Wouldn't there be an uproar if there was a movie depicting Mohammad at all, since, like that comic uproar a few months ago, it is against their law to represent Mohammad in any way?

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
no not really, that comic was a mockery, if the same had been done with jesus and chirstians or moses and the jews, well there would have been jsut as much anger. but Mohammed has been in lots of different movies.
Author
Time
Post link
Given that said 'mockeries' are released just about once a week, I have to disagree.

A couple of british newspapers did comics remarking on that after the whole uproar. They did one where mohammed is in heaven with Jesus, God, and someone else, i forget who, and they say, welcome to the club.

If a movie came out, saying mohammed was just some guy who was a trickster, a manipulator, who didn't actually communicate with heaven, and was just spewing bile out for money and fame, you don't think the muslims would be upset? The comic contreversy would look like nothing in compare.
gtfo
Author
Time
Post link
how do we know that jesus really said these things. that he spoke to god and everything, history always get opinionated along the way. martan luther king once said 'i have a dream' that dream lead to the civil rights movement and alot of freedoms for african americans. in 2000 years do you think would be so difficult to change the line from 'i have a dream', to 'i have a dream from god'. the results from his actions were certainly miraculous, complete freedom for millions in the span of 40 years. he was also shot and died. is it so hard to think that 2000 years go his tragedy couldnt also be interpeted as him scarificing himself for his people.
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, but the thing is, that comparison doesn't work because the story of Christ hasn't changed a whole heck of a lot in the last 2000 years. The gospels were written within a century after his death, and Church Tradition has held other teachings over time, very few of them having any significant changes. Church customs and things of that nature have had significant changes, but the actual doctrine and central beliefs surrounding Christ have changed very little.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Shimraa
how do we know that jesus really said these things. that he spoke to god and everything.


The same could be asked about Mohammed. And yes if I am not mistaken, it is against the Muslim religion to depict a likeness of Mohammed, so they would be very offended by any movie that shows the face of Mohammed. I also think they would be very offended if a movie alleged that a part of the Koran was false.

My point is, is that somehow we've gotten to the point where we must respect the Muslims and other religions, but it is cool and ok to bash the Christians. We must respect African American's, but it is cool and ok to bash white people. We must respect women, but it is cool and ok to bash men.
Author
Time
Post link
My point is, is that somehow we've gotten to the point where we must respect the Muslims and other religions, but it is cool and ok to bash the Christians. We must respect African American's, but it is cool and ok to bash white people. We must respect women, but it is cool and ok to bash men.

I've often wondered about this myself. It's like when I hear people complain that freedom of speech in this country is becoming a lot less free, and I can't help but think "People bash the President, the government, religion, and Lord knows what else, and you say we're LESS free?!"

What you said reminded me of this article I read not that long ago:

From The Best Page in the Universe


The label "African American" is the dumbest, most persistently used phrase in our vernacular. Every time you call someone an "African American," you're making at least two assumptions about the person:

1. That the person is an American. For example, if you saw this guy walking along on a street, you would probably think:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/african_american_lol2.jpg

...which is fine, except for one small detail: this man is British, which makes you a presumptuous cock.

2. That the person is African (because it's inconceivable that black people could come from Haiti, India, Trinidad, Dominican Republic, Brazil, Australia, or Jamaica). Nevermind that; BLACK PEOPLE ONLY COME FROM AFRICA.

Not to mention that every time you give a black person the distinction of being "African American" out of a mixed group, you're making an assumption about an entire continent; not everyone from Africa is black. I guarantee all you politically correct morons out there have never called a white person an African American. Of course you could avoid all these problems by using the same standards on blacks as you would on whites by simply assuming that all whites are from Africa just as you do for all blacks, but that might be too forward, and in a polite society like ours, people would be all too pleased to point out which of the 192 countries you didn't guess they were actually from.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Wouldn't there be an uproar if there was a movie depicting Mohammad at all, since, like that comic uproar a few months ago, it is against their law to represent Mohammad in any way?


Google a movie called The Message and you'll learn a very sordid history about what happens when you try to make a movie about Mohammed. Muslims protested the depiction of Mohammed in this film and he wasn't actually depicted in it. You'll never see The Passion of Mohammed. Therein lies the great difference ... you cannot depict Mohammed even in a positive light. As an American protected by the First Amendment, I will support any Muslim's right not to see such a depiction just as I will salute any artist's desire to create such a depiction. Neither has the right to shed blod over the issue. That is the ultimate affront to God.

On a different subject, I think it is interesting how many more people raised Catholic have developed a negative taste for all organized religion when compared to those raised Protestant. I think it is indicative of how the Catholic Church conducts itself. Its inflexibility and monarchial structure and is causing it to snap apart. The structure is beyond passe, it is damn near despotism in today's enlightened, democratic world. On the flip side of the coin, you have the Baptist approach, which like The Ol' South from which it was born, thinks that whenever you disagree on something, you just break off and start your own new system of governance. Jefferson Davis would be proud.

I'm quite particular to the core Protestants: The Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans and Episopalians, who engage in theological debate and apply democratic process to the administration of their respective denominations. But the democratic process was established way, way back at the Council of Nicea. The Great Schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy (predating the Protestant Reformation by roughly nine hundred years) was caused largely on the Pope's assertion that -- (insert Jack Nicholson voice here) he ... was the #1 ... guyyyyy -- and not one voice among many bishops. Every attempt at reconciliation failed upon the Pope's unwillingness to relinquish absolute power over the church and recognize a reversion that all bishops had an equal voice in affairs of the church. They had a constitution, the Pope chose to ignore it, and set up an absolute monarchy over the Western world. Wasn't the first time in history, wasn't the last.

Now, all religions have been and continue to be abused, but don't discount the good that it has brought to those who actually "get it" when it comes to religious enlightenment. Whenever I feel cynical about organized religion, I look at the mission work that smaller churches do both in their communities and globally. I admire average people who give up not just their money in the offering plate, but their time and energy, either to feed the homeless, or to build a roof in an Appalachian home, or who take a week's vacation to pour concrete floors for impoverished villages in the third world.

Those are whom I choose to align myself and support. They are everywhere, doing good every day. But they are neither boastful nor do they give of themselves to be seen doing so. Those are the REAL Christians.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
See, the thing is, the whole Catholic monarchy thing may have been a problem in the past, but in the modern age when a good many people have no respect for organized religion, the Church really doesn't have the power to do anything. I hear people say things about no agreeing with the papacy and things like that, and I stop and think, "Wait, when was the last time the papacy really DID anything? Vatican II in the 60s?!"

When talking about the "real" Christians, also don't forget the monks and nuns who go about preaching and doing charity and missionary work. I believe those are just as important as the "lay folks".

Another thing I learned this past year at school is that if it weren't for the Church in the Middle Ages (monasteries more specifically), a lot of our classic literature, and quite possibly our written language, would have been lost, because the monks were the only people that copied books and manuscripts until the printing press came around.

And lastly, ADM:
(insert Jack Nicholson voice here) he ... was the #1 ... guyyyyy


That made me chuckle.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
i donno if its quite that dramatic, i.e. the monostaries keeping record and thus without them we wouldnt have the written word. you forget about the role of ireland in the dark ages, and europe isnt the only place in the work that was civilized, in fact after the fall of rome all of europe was like a backwater area to the world, europe was like the 3rd world, now one went there and no one cared. the centers of the world were china, india and the middle east.

its funny i took a course on world history and how the world has changed from 1400- 1945. and something that i realised, a connection i wouldnt have made without that course though i knew the facts. europe can owe its rise to power to the black plague. WHAT, NAW, not the black plague. yes the black plague. what people dont know is that the plague came from the east, its thought that it first surfaced around the black sea, and at the time europe wasnt a big tradeing area so it didnt go there till later. china was, and so the plague first struck in there. at the time china was like the US of the world only a 1000 times more powerful then the next most powerful. think of a world of canada's with one US that was what it was like at that time. india might have been like england, but thats about it. the chinese owned the indian ocean where all the trading took place, and they had a massive navy, like massive in the sense that it was bigger then the rest of the world's navy. now also at the time china was ruled by the mongal empire which loved trade, and thrived on it. with the arrival of the plague thousands died and there was a huge rebellion in china. they eventually overthrough the mongal rules and took over. the people of china blamed trade for the black plague and so they shut themselves off from the world, they dry docked the navy and within 5 years it had rooted away. the global power that was china was gone. now just as this happened who should happen to figure out how to sail around africa, oh the portugese. they fell into the power niche that china had left and became super rich, spain followed and so did france and england and all of europe, eventually we had colonialism. the rise of the west.
Author
Time
Post link
donno if its quite that dramatic, i.e. the monostaries keeping record and thus without them we wouldnt have the written word. you forget about the role of ireland in the dark ages, and europe isnt the only place in the work that was civilized, in fact after the fall of rome all of europe was like a backwater area to the world, europe was like the 3rd world, now one went there and no one cared. the centers of the world were china, india and the middle east.


I didn't say the ENTIRE written word, but without those monasteries (and yes, a good many of them were in Ireland), we wouldn't have such writings as The Bible, "Beowulf", "The Canterbury Tales", "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight", and other pieces of literature to that effect. That's why if you read Beowulf, you will see references to both Christianity and such pagan ideas as "wyrd", which more or less means "fate". This is because (and this is the current hypothesis, mind you) the original story was pagan, and when it was copied copied by the monks, the Christian elements were added.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
yeah i see what you saying, you could also argue that the monasteries did a disservice in altering the original story too. and alot of history was lost due the them also, as there was alot that they didnt resort, and a lot they distroyed.
Author
Time
Post link
Well, the original story would have been handed down verbally, and the story was probably altered the very first time it was written down. But I don't think much was actually "lost", as both Christian and pagan images are present in the manuscript.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
I have lots of respect for the nuns, and most of the monks and priests. Those few who are molesters and thieves should be dealt with more severely than they have been. It's the upper echelon that needs to pull its head out of the sand. The Pope needs a good woman more than any man on earth.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
At my school, which is also on the grounds of St. Bernard Abbey, one of the priests there faced sexual misconduct accusations, but everyone who's ever known him knows it's bullshit, because A) he's just not the type of person that would do that, and B) he's been wheelchair-bound/bed-ridden for most of his life. So when you hear about all these charges, ya kinda have to stop and wonder about just how many of them are true.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Shimraa
i donno if its quite that dramatic, i.e. the monostaries keeping record and thus without them we wouldnt have the written word. you forget about the role of ireland in the dark ages, and europe isnt the only place in the work that was civilized, in fact after the fall of rome all of europe was like a backwater area to the world, europe was like the 3rd world, now one went there and no one cared. the centers of the world were china, india and the middle east.

its funny i took a course on world history and how the world has changed from 1400- 1945. and something that i realised, a connection i wouldnt have made without that course though i knew the facts. europe can owe its rise to power to the black plague. WHAT, NAW, not the black plague. yes the black plague. what people dont know is that the plague came from the east, its thought that it first surfaced around the black sea, and at the time europe wasnt a big tradeing area so it didnt go there till later. china was, and so the plague first struck in there. at the time china was like the US of the world only a 1000 times more powerful then the next most powerful. think of a world of canada's with one US that was what it was like at that time. india might have been like england, but thats about it. the chinese owned the indian ocean where all the trading took place, and they had a massive navy, like massive in the sense that it was bigger then the rest of the world's navy. now also at the time china was ruled by the mongal empire which loved trade, and thrived on it. with the arrival of the plague thousands died and there was a huge rebellion in china. they eventually overthrough the mongal rules and took over. the people of china blamed trade for the black plague and so they shut themselves off from the world, they dry docked the navy and within 5 years it had rooted away. the global power that was china was gone. now just as this happened who should happen to figure out how to sail around africa, oh the portugese. they fell into the power niche that china had left and became super rich, spain followed and so did france and england and all of europe, eventually we had colonialism. the rise of the west.


That's very interesting Shim. It does make some sense.