Vatican speaks out about Da Vinci Code

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:51 pm

You'd think Jesus would have been keen to try out sex...after all his dad was the one who invented it.

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:20 pm

But... how did god invent it? He doesnt have anyone to shag.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:35 pm

He likes to watch.

That's why Adam and Eve got chucked out of the garden the moment they put clothes on.

"Hey! I was looking at that!"

bobaprime85 · Post by **bobaprime85** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:48 pm

spiderfrommars wrote:
Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:
good stuff Martin!
Martin's the man.

Scorcese rules.

Last Temptation of Christ is the best religious film I've ever seen. Pisses all over stuff like The Ten Commandments. Kudos for treating the material intelligently and having the guts to put in the "sex" scene. [/i]

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 1:47 am

Obfleur wrote:But... how did god invent it? He doesnt have anyone to shag.

Hence the term "Go [composite word including 'f*ck'] yourself"

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 4:54 am

This reminds me a bit of one of my favorite moments at college.

The Black Campus Christians (or something to that effect) were having a little demonstration in the student lounge. A member of their group approached me and asked if I would like to sign their petition. Now, as some of you may know, I really have zero respect for the principles of christianity, but I do have some respect for behaving in a manner that I believe decent. So I don't tell him to piss off, get out of my face, or ignore him. I ask him what the petition is for. He says, "It's a petition to ban gay marriage."

Hmmmmm. Mind working again. Weighing pros and cons. Worth it? YES!

I told him that I'd be happy to sign his petition. If he was willing to sign mine. He asks me the obvious questions, "What's your petition?" I looked him in the face and said, "It's a petition to ban inter-racial marriage."

Guy called me a intolerant.

Irony (and the Campus Black Christians) damn near killed me.

btw, I read and enjoyed The DaVinci Code. Enjoyable mystery/thriller. You'd have to be some kind of idiot to think it's all fact, though.

Blacksword · Post by **Blacksword** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 8:10 am

I'm going over the same ground again too folks.

I do not care if you happen to disagree with Christianity religion or theism. That's your right and it's a free society and a free board. I always advocate free speech, and anyone's free to speak their mind.

What I object to is the continual smug dismissive tone. The implication that people who believe in God are mentally retarded. The continual childish "hee hee, Christians are stupid," level of discourse. Again please tell me when I've set up a thread ridiculing atheists and agnostics as weak minded children, or consistently dropped comments to that effect when ever the subject of God or religion comes up. I don't go out of my way frequently making wise cracks about atheists or agnostics the way certain people on this board ridicule religious people and their beliefs. That is insensitive, immature, and inappropriate in a public forum where religious members of this board or general internet traffic may read it. One can criticise points of view without ridicule and disagree with another person or group of people without demeaning them. It's called having sensitivity about diversity. Making fun of other people to their face belongs back in the play ground. We live in a pluralistic society, and while that does not require us to be pluralists our selves it does require that we should try to avoid stepping on the feelings of others. Everyone has the right to say "I think you're an idiot for believing that" but there is such a thing as being polite and considerate to others. So no Brend I am not being a hypocrite, you can say whatever the hell you want, I just happen to think it's civil and decent to choose not to exercise that right when you may unnecessarily offend others.

Now one might ask why I entered this thread in the first place, given that I should have known that this sort of diatribe against religion was likely. I thought I'd give it a look in hopes that I might find some intelligent debate about the issues raised in the Da Vinci Code, about the accuracy of the New Testament, about conceptions of Jesus in Western culture. But instead I found, "hee hee, Christians are stupid" from several people. Not all, not the whole board, not everyone in the thread to that point. I do apologise for my remarks being overly general. My remarks were primarily intended for MV and Brend.

Dylan, to answer your question:

I believe atheism to be severely mistaken and flatly wrong. On a strictly intellectual level as I answered Paul some time ago I do find it foolish to believe there is no God/higher power. But I do understand why people would believe such things, and there are valid (not in pure rational terms, but personally valid) reasons why they do so. Religion has disgraced itself an innumerable number of times and in the clutter of this world God can be hard to see. While I think atheism is a delusion, I don't think atheists are particularly deluded or stupid. One can be sincerely and reasonably wrong. Again, in all honesty I feel that as a philosophy, atheism just as flawed and harmful as many atheists find religion. But it's their right to believe as they do.

I regard other religions to be the honest attempt of humanity to find God (in whatever form they may regard he/she/it, personal or non, singular, plural, pantheistic even non-theistic). All religion is flawed even Christianity, as religion is expressed in humanity by humanity. I find Christianity to be most correct as it has (by my beliefs of course) its source in God made human. It is flawed because Christ lived for a finite time and his life and message is only known through the recollections of humans (though I do believe this flawed medium has been aided by God). However, all religions have some element of God in them. Though I believe that the way to God is through Christ alone, but the philosophical question is what exactly does "through Christ" mean. I do not believe that a right relationship with God can only be found in outward acceptance of Christianity. I believe that people of other faiths can know Christ through the elements of Christ in those faiths, and the same can even be true of atheists through their principles. But I also believe that as a prerequisite of free will, and from the statements attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels, not all will chose a relationship with God and be saved. I tend to believe that God created free wills and then placed at some distance from himself in order that they might be able to chose whether they wished to be united in relationship with him or not (God's immediate presence by this model would bend all wills to him). Thus kept at some distance from God, wills choose to return to their creator (with some help from God that can be refused) and live in fullness or flee from him entirely and be lost. Free will to be truly free, unfortunately means freedom to do harm to one's self. This life provides the grounds in which to make choice. And I believe that Christianity is the most accurate map back to God (think of a sketch from memory of the perfect map). Other maps may lead others back to God (in that they have elements of the perfect map), but they are less certain. And one can certainly get lost with the best map. Not all who believe themselves to be Christians will be saved. But I think it is best to have the most accurate map available. Which is why I express my belief to others in hopes that they will accept the map I have chosen (or some other copy of it). But everyone is free to pick the map of their choice, even if, as in the case of atheists, it is a map to a different destination (which I pray may lead them in the right direction anyway).

I also believe in the fundamental equality of all people. I am no better than anyone else. I am no more righteous, or of more worth to God than any other. Thus I must treat every person with respect, no matter how wrong I believe them to be. Humans were given free will and can believe what they want. And so long as those beliefs do not result in the observable harm of another I will not go out of my way to criticise the beliefs of another or their actions resulting from those beliefs. If matters relating to those beliefs come up or direct discussion of beliefs arises, I will express what I think, and will disagree with what I find to be wrong. Emotion and (I'll fully admit) my own intellectual snobbery will at times lead me to be disrespectful and belligerent, but I do try to avoid being hurtful. And I fully understand that not all disagreements can be amiable, but there is a difference between a debate and a fight. I try to live by the rule of "do as you would be done by". I don't like being belittled and having my beliefs and intelligence demeaned so I try not to do that to others.

One of my two best friends is Jewish. We totally disagree over who Jesus was and what was his significance. But we've never gotten in an argument over it. Here's another, one of my housemates a few years back was a total atheist, though God was a foolish waste of time. We debated the matter back and forth for a couple hours and agreed that each though the other was being exceedingly foolish - without calling the other a fool - without getting angry, dismissing the other or making snide comments. It is possible to disagree without one demeaning the other.

Thanks for your sincerity and interest Dylan.

Dylan · Post by **Dylan** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:59 am

And thank you very much for your detailed answer, Blacksword, lots of interesting things in there. I'll probably have to read it a couple more times.

I appreciate the fact that you "accept" other religions and up to a point even atheism - it seems you realise there are other ways to think about existence.

What I kind of regret (but I guess that's part of the deal) is that you do reason from within a God-centered religion. You say that other religions are wrong, but still somehow resemble parts of yours, and thus are moderately ok. You come up with reasons of your own why atheists wouldn't want to believe in God... but with all due respect I don't think you're capable of doing so, since "you're in too much".

In that sense, you indeed have a very specific and strong world view, which perhaps is what is sometimes mistaken for a "holier than thou" mentality.

In the same sentence I want to add: You as an individual seem to be very open-minded though, diplomatic even. That's good.

I'll give this some more thought, thanks again for your post, Blacksword.

[edit]
Hrmpf, I had written a bunch more, but deleted it (on purpose), but now this post seems a bit short and negative. That was not my intention. I hope I can be more like your jewish friend next time.

And if you feel like discussing details of the Da Vinci Code, I'd like to hear more!

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:23 am

Dylan wrote:You as an individual seem to be very open-minded though, diplomatic even. That's good.

I'd like to concur with that.

And I don't think it's anyone's intention to lump all Christians in the same boat.

Post by **Denyer** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:28 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:Hmmmmm. Mind working again. Weighing pros and cons. Worth it?

Very nicely done.

Blacksword wrote:The implication that people who believe in God are mentally retarded.

In direct honesty, that is what it comes down to with comparisons to St. George and the Eostre rabbits. I don't (and won't) mock people for wanting to believe. Vouching credence because something can't be justified in other ways, that's when the knives come out—but belief in an invisible with a personality, yup, silly and childish.

Silly and childish are very important things, since they drive everybody. They also feed into a sense of wonder and limitless possibility without which life wouldn't be pleasant.

The minute someone gets as far as "my invisible entity will kick your ass if you don't behave how I say is right" is the dangerous one. The baseline of human experience is pragmatism—fear of consequence—but the really cool thing about some faiths is the emphasis can be shifted towards doing things because they're the 'right' thing to do[*]. Motivation by satisfaction is a much more positive thing than motivation by fear, and the best aspects of religion accomplish that.

Here's to silly, childish and keeping things fun, rewarding and positive.

--

[*]Yes, whole other theses are missing here, and we can fight about 'right' pretty much ad finitum. Chances are people will as long as there are people.

bobaprime85 · Post by **bobaprime85** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:43 pm

Blacksword wrote: I believe atheism to be severely mistaken and flatly wrong. On a strictly intellectual level as I answered Paul some time ago I do find it foolish to believe there is no God/higher power. But I do understand why people would believe such things, and there are valid (not in pure rational terms, but personally valid) reasons why they do so. Religion has disgraced itself an innumerable number of times and in the clutter of this world God can be hard to see. While I think atheism is a delusion, I don't think atheists are particularly deluded or stupid. One can be sincerely and reasonably wrong. Again, in all honesty I feel that as a philosophy, atheism just as flawed and harmful as many atheists find religion. But it's their right to believe as they do.

Blacksword, I first want to say that I have tremendous respect for you as you have always seemed to be a rational, good-hearted person who simply cares a great deal about the Christian faith. As someone who has only recently cut his last ties with Christianity and theism in general, I can understand the impulse that spurs one to defend their faith from whatever perceived slight. It's something that has gotten me into arguments in the past. However, you must be willing to admit that sometimes Christianity deserves mocking and a smug dismissal, at least when you have idiots like the people who get their proverbial knickers in a twist over something like the Da Vinci Code and what it suggests about Jesus and Mary. With such a knee-jerk reaction of "It can't happen!" and "SEX! BAD!" one would be hard-pressed not to send some derision their way and in the way of a faith system that could give rise to this train of thought. As it has been said, the intention is not to lump all Christians in the same boat, to do that would be an insult to reasonable people like you, but rather to deminish an institution that influences millions, but really doesn't do much to help them. If organized Christianity is the best that could be produced from the "Holy Scriptures", surely something is wrong?

And I believe that Christianity is the most accurate map back to God (think of a sketch from memory of the perfect map). Other maps may lead others back to God (in that they have elements of the perfect map), but they are less certain. And one can certainly get lost with the best map. Not all who believe themselves to be Christians will be saved. But I think it is best to have the most accurate map available. Which is why I express my belief to others in hopes that they will accept the map I have chosen (or some other copy of it). But everyone is free to pick the map of their choice, even if, as in the case of atheists, it is a map to a different destination (which I pray may lead them in the right direction anyway).

Again, I find a good deal to agree with in your post, but there are certain things that bother my line of reasoning. You clarify your belief of "through Christ alone" so that it doesn't make you a Pat Robertson-esque jackass, but surely you see how easily it would be to distort that idea, as has beend done for centuries, and I'm not going to bother with the shaky foundations that the "God as man" claim rests on. Now, a spiritual tradition that is supposedly ordained by God, one would think, would make it harder to twist the message into something perverted. Which ties into your remarks about free will: why would God make us sentient if he knew some of us would go bad? If he's omniscient, then he would already know which of us would be lost, so what's the point? Is he just curious to see what would really happen? You say Christianity is the best map to God, but what about religions like Buddhism and Taoism, which have far less bloody histories. There has never been a "Buddhist Inquisition" for example, nor have differenct sects gone after each other like Catholics and Protestants. Shouldn't that say something about the divine roadmap?I don't say this as any kind of challenge, but rather in the spirit of friendly philosophical inquiry and discussion.

It is possible to disagree without one demeaning the other.

It's not about demeaning you, it's about questioning an institution that has caused a great deal of suffering for a religion that proclaims to set forth peace while doing so based off a book that contradicts itself. I know many will disagree with my next statement, but I try not to associate people with the faith systems they attatch themselves to, because I don't believe we are our faith systems. We're just who we are, and it doesn't matter what we believe in so long as it promotes peace and does no harm to others. You don't need a God for that, you just need your own sense of compassion and decency.

And while I'm not able to discuss the Da Vinci Code proper, I wouldn't mind sharing some thoughts about what it is based on and why it is getting so much press.

Post by **Denyer** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 8:11 pm

It's finally gone mainstream, in the same way most comic, game and film renditions of Nazis these days include an occult connection. I was reading stuff about Leonardo, the Turin Shroud, Knights Templars, Black Madonna etc. in fantasy books (and cyberpunk, at that) ten years ago.

The reason it's pushing buttons is essentially the same reason books other than the KJV were viewed with suspicion historically; given exposure to enough history, fiction and other religions, people often begin evaluating the stories of their faith more critically.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 8:39 pm

the guy who wrote it statyes very clearly he made it up - so why has the vatican got a problem with it?

Post by **Denyer** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:04 pm

If people regard one story as fabrication, other texts with similar elements are more likely to be regarded as fabrication.

Dead Head · Post by **Dead Head** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:50 pm

Blacksword wrote:Again please tell me when I've set up a thread ridiculing atheists and agnostics as weak minded children, or consistently dropped comments to that effect when ever the subject of God or religion comes up. I don't go out of my way frequently making wise cracks about atheists or agnostics the way certain people on this board ridicule religious people and their beliefs. That is insensitive, immature, and inappropriate in a public forum where religious members of this board or general internet traffic may read it.

As an agnostic, reading a thread ridiculing agnosticism would be interesting. And given it's place in the general discussion forum, it would not be inappropriate.

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:56 am

I had lost my faith for many many years. Only recently started to believe with the birth of my first son. Since then it has been pretty much trial and error. I refuse to blindly believe everything the Bible says to be true. I also find it hard to believe that I can be so blessed to have 2 wonderful sons and a wife who makes me fall in love with her more and more every day without some sort of help.

I agree that some people take thier faith too far. Most in fact. I just ask that I be free from ridicule due to my personal faith. I have always looked to this place as a gathering of friends and kindred spirits. You have all helped me through rough times and through bouts of self pity and self loathing.So for that, thank you.

This has been a refreshingly flame free post. This gives me hope. Not that "Christians will win the fight", but that people will finally get the message that a few noteworthy people in history have tried to spread.

Be nice to one another. Treat others with kindness, and perhaps they will treat you with kindness as well.

Im not sure where my faith lies. But I do believe in something, even if it is just a random event in nature that caused me to be the man I am today and have the morals and values I hold dear. Its not from a fear of retribution from some supreme deity, its how I view the world as it should be.

Blacksword · Post by **Blacksword** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:54 am

Don't worry about coming across as too negative Dylan, I'm pretty sure I understand what you mean. True objectivity is utterly impossible, people will always have some degree of bias for their own opinions. Because of my upbringing and because of feelings and experiences which I regard as my personl experience with the divine, I come from the position of assuming the existence of God. And as much as I may try to step into someone elses shoes I can never fully understand another's perspective and will never be able to say exactly why anyone believes as the do, I can only give conjecture and my interpretation. So you are completely right in saying I'm in too much. But then so are we all.

Deyner, I want to say that my remarks were not directed at you. Though we come from different perspectives, you have not been rude, or dismissive of me or religious people. You've always disagreed resolutely but kept things on a intellectual level. Intellectual bluntness is not something have issue with. I've always rather admired your ability to remain detatched.... or atleast give that appearance.

More later my Girlfriend's here.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:01 pm

Since Blacksword did it first ("I have a Jewish friend and and I had an atheist friend once"), I'ma pull out a couple of Christians out of the bag. First of all there's a good friend of mine from school, who has been Christian as long as I've known him. Last time we met up we spent an incredibly long time discussing religion, faith, belief in general. We found that we were arguming from pretty much the same viewpoint, because despite his faith and beliefs, he told me that he didn't go to church much these days because he didn't get on with other Christians. They didn't approve of his relationship with his girlfriend (not a Christian), they didn't approve of the fact that they slept together, they didn't approve of him going out at weekends and partying...yet he is one of the most Christian people I know. I find it sad that he's excluded from his religion just because he and his girlfriend share a bed.

But despite this, he still has a great belief in God and we talk over loads of stuff to do with religion. And he's well aware of my views and I've expressed them to him in stronger terms than I've expressed to anyone on this board (mostly because of the autocensor) yet we still found time to talk about all aspects of belief and atheism - I told him about Joining, for example. We had a long talk about a book he's planning concerning the themes of God, faith and virtual reality.

If I called him right now and talked to him about the Vatican and the Da Vinci code, saying the exact same phrases I used in this thread, d'you think he'd hang up on me?

Another guy I know is born again. Again, we've discussed all kinds of religious stuff, and he's heard my opinions on religion, but to be honest I usually get more riled when he says Star Wars is crap. When we were talking about the Da Vinci code thing in the office I raised the subject in almost the same way as I did here, we had a bit of a laugh about the irony of it and then we went on to pondering whether the film would be any good. Why didn't he tell me that I had insulted him and everything he held dear?

Blacksword wrote:Real sensitive people.

Yes, I rather think you are.

Blacksword wrote:Now one might ask why I entered this thread in the first place, given that I should have known that this sort of diatribe against religion was likely. I thought I'd give it a look in hopes that I might find some intelligent debate about the issues raised in the Da Vinci Code, about the accuracy of the New Testament, about conceptions of Jesus in Western culture. But instead I found, "hee hee, Christians are stupid" from several people. Not all, not the whole board, not everyone in the thread to that point. I do apologise for my remarks being overly general. My remarks were primarily intended for MV and Brend.

It's not "Tee-hee Christians are stupid", it's the humourous irony of the Vatican being worried that people might read a book about Jesus and believe it to be true. Well, I thought it was funny.

It's true that I have a low opinion of religion and I joke about it all being a joke. Well surely my opinion doesn't matter since I'm wrong anyway? If God exists and you're saved, then one atheist in England making jokes about him on the internet won't change your path at all. Really, why does it get you so riled?

You want a serious debate about the accuracy of the New Testament and conceptions of Jesus in Western culture, bring it on. But don't go crying blasphemy every time I make some flippant comment about believing in God being a bit silly.

[edit]Incidentally, I'm very good with maps and I rarely get lost.

Blacksword · Post by **Blacksword** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:50 am

Sorry for the long delay in replying, I had an insanely busy week.

Anyhow...

I fully admit to being sensitive, it's something I'm working on. Why, because of a point a buddy of mine made to me a while back. The people I hung out with in high school were the type who cut eachother up pretty badly all the time. It was in good fun most of the time, though it was not always funny and it went a bit too far in somecases. I'm still a bit this way with my closest friends (who were also in this group in high school). Being acidic is all fine and good so long as everyone's in on it and you don't unintentionally hurt someone's feelings. But the thing is that not everyone is always in on it. To prove this point a friend of mine took offense over something I joked about over MSN, got really pissed... and it turned out to be a joke, but it made a good point. Not everyone knows you're joking, and even if you mean it as a joke not everyone's gonna take it that way. Bottomline is that it's uneccessary. And in any case, sarcasm and irony have become so common place that it's getting impossible to say anything straight anymore.

And then there's when you're not joking. I know a number of people on this board are hostile to religion. That's fine. If it's relevant to the discussion at hand bring it up intelligently. But side comments are unecessary and will offend some. I think atheisim is a foolish belief but I don't feel the need to say that at every opportunity. I also think most right-wing beliefs are equally moronic, but again (well these days atleast) I try not to drop anti-right statements whenever the opportunity presents itself. Some people I know are right-wing. There are right-wing members of this board. It's pointless to incite hostility and insensitive to demean other people's beliefs (unless those beliefs can be shown to be clearly harmful, like racism, misogyny etc). To disagree and even attack them in debate, is fine, to keep a level of open hostility is counterproductive and uncivil. Then add in the fact that this is a public board. Anybody can come by and read it. There are lurkers here too. Casual statements of ridicule won't make this place overly welcoming to people who have those points of view.

Among regular posters I think it would be fair to say that Transfans is a largely left-leaning areligious board. There are notable exceptions and plenty of people in the middle. I'll be the first to say that this is a sweeping generalization, but I think it's fairly accurate. Politically I'm a lesftist, same goes on most social policy, so I fit in with the predominant tide of opinion in those areas. It's on religious and moral issues that I usually find myself in the minority. And that's fine, that's life, you'll always be a minority somewhere. But what I see is that ridicule for certain dissenting opinions is tollerated. I'm not innocent, I've done plenty of right-bashing on this board. It's not a glaring problem, and in general I find this board quite welcoming, but I feel there are areas where certain people on this board could afford to work to be more accomodating to people of other view points in general discussion, and confine the discord to deabtes of specific issues.

I didn't screamed blasphemy, though I've heard plenty of it

, heck some of my favourite music can be rather blasphemous at times (the lyrics of Richie Edwards come to mind). What I feel the board can do without is the uneccessary ridicule of the opinions held by others. If I were on a Christian, right-leaning board I would make the same appeal about comments about atheists, agnostics and other religions. The fact that I have been vocal about such ridicule on this board is of course directly connected to the fact that some of ridiculed beliefs are those that I hold, but I'd like to think I'd speak out about it in any case.

So no I'm not screaming "Blasphemy!", more like "Uneccessary ridicule that's harmful to a welcoming pluralistic environment!"

EDIT: Oh and I do appreciate the humour in the Vatican being concerned about a bit of fiction that uses a historical fantasy that was debunked nearly 20 years ago. But I can see some reason for concern in that many people are not educated that fact (though there was an interesting show hosted by the guy who played Baldric on Black Adder that broadcast here last week that was devoted to giving a littel education on teh truth around the Da Vinci Code). Many people unfortunately tend to take pop culture as fact. Though I rather doubt that the Da Vinic Code will affect the faith of many serious believers.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 4:16 pm

Are there people in power that really think that people who read something in a book are going to believe everything in it is absolute truth? This reminds me of the early 90's when Jurrasic Park was released and there were a half-dozen TV specials that were released talking to scientists that all said the same thing. That the book was inaccurate because it would be impossible to clone dinosaurs from DNA in mosquitos.

With The DaVinci Code, though, people have gone a step farther. There are nearly a dozen book written on the subject (such as The DaVinci Hoax, a book I'm reading as part of the project I mentioned in the religion/get well Karl topic) that accuse the author of trying to pull one over on the eyes of the religious faithful.

Can anyone on the board agree that Dan Brown (the book's author) was trying to pull a hoax with his novel?

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:43 pm

Personally I think he was trying to entertain, and for that you have to believe. It's well documented that virtually all of the 'fact' in the Da Vinci Code comes from a book written in the 80's ('The Blood of Christ and the Holy Grail' is it?) which has been known to be virtually total twaddle for years.

He must know that, and I suppose that he would think anyone half informed on the subject would also know that.

He's essentially dusting off an old myth and making it entertaining (as well as huge amounts of money...) imo.

Post by **Best First** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:47 pm

He's not a million miles from the truth with regard to the churchs rather odd attitudes towards women and sex tho is he?

for example.

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:55 pm

The church has been institutionally sexist for years, but that doesn't prove anything DB is trying to say.

I think it's fair to say that the main thrust of DB's work is not to highlight the monumental bigotries in religion, but to weave them into a fabric of loose-knit baseless theories for the purposes of giving the reader an enjoyable X-hundred pages.

Any book seriously devoted to expanding the down side to organised religion would have to be infinitely longer for a start...

Post by **Best First** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:13 pm

i'm just saying there are elements of truth in some of the themes he raises, at no point do i suggest that this means the whole book is true.

However i am sure there are those out there who would happily gloss over the former point as well.

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:31 pm

Quite so, I get lost in the book's commercialism very much.

I sometimes think we need a book which does point out all the errors of all world religions and all the pain that they cause...

Unfortunately it wouldn't help, anyone can see what organised religion has been responsible for and no amount of text will help those who can't anyway. Bah.

So live it up. Sexism, racism, homophobia, murder, mutilation, torture and oppression. All here to party under their old banner.

Not that they wouldn't exist without it, but at least people would have one less rock to hide under as an excuse. They might actually have to deal with their own issues instead of using religion as a justification for those issues.

{And thus, the thread entered it's final phase...}

Post by **Denyer** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:45 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:Are there people in power that really think that people who read something in a book are going to believe everything in it is absolute truth?

They're, er, the people complaining in the initial statement linked in this thread. More to the point, the Roman Catholic Church is very attached to its 'absolutes', as well as to the possibility of abstract absolutes being, well, possible.

Blacksword wrote:I think atheisim is a foolish belief

Atheism isn't a belief, nor a disbelief. It denotes an absence of belief rather than a conviction that there isn't a god. Agnostic, by the same token, indicates someone is actively considering the question in order to doubt it.

The former term has been bastardised down the years, in no small part by those with a conviction who wanted a banner to stand under, but mostly by theists who couldn't get their heads around the notion of people working from the initial point of not having formed a belief.

Antitheist would unequivocally indicate someone who believes that there is not a god. (edit: Though it would also indicate a reaction to theism, rather than simply a formation of that belief.)

Blacksword wrote:unless those beliefs can be shown to be clearly harmful

There's the "gateway drug" argument (which perhaps hold more validity for ideology than chemicals) since signing up to a religious group indicates acceptance and endorsement of its holy scriptures. Many of which contain the active bigotries of societies from centuries past.

That's the main reason I'd not consider myself Christian (asides from the fairly major matter of the metaphysical stuff)—it involves identifying with Biblical texts and attitudes. I could with easy conscience call myself Christian—Jesus seems like a nice enough character, there's even a bit of evidence a bloke existed who fit some of the details, and I certainly follow on a few areas of thought—but it'd involve making a connection with Christianity.

In order to demonstrate beliefs as harmful, it would first have to be established what beliefs Christians hold... and it's a fair old range.

Largest amongst them for me personally is probably the commitment to and privileging of ignorance. Eve is said to transgress by being lured to eat of knowledge (rather than simply transgressing by doing something she was asked not to.) Faith is raised as a one true path, opposing all else. It serves in instructional parables as a substitute for ability, knowledge and other forms of merit—basically as an ideological trump card.

Some churches extend this by holding repentance above actions, whilst retaining a stake in the "believe or else" practise—because the downside of "we believe that if we do X then Y will happen" is "we believe that Z will happen to everyone else". Most religions produce opposition to themselves simply by existing and promulgating beliefs.

Leastways, I haven't found a religion that likes to publically suggest that Hitler will inevitably be redeemed alongside every single other person—wanting to believe in retributive justice is rather integral to the human character, some feel it would remove impetus to recruit (or do anything...) etc.

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:27 pm

Denyer wrote: film renditions of Nazis these days include an occult connection.

Check out the movie Conspiracy with Kenneth Branuagh. Great flick!

I would also like to point out to the board that Jesus was not a Christian. He did not follow himself. Agnostic is what generally people believe Christ to have been.

Blacksword · Post by **Blacksword** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 6:37 am

Denyer wrote: Atheism isn't a belief, nor a disbelief. It denotes an absence of belief rather than a conviction that there isn't a god. Agnostic, by the same token, indicates someone is actively considering the question in order to doubt it.

Leastways, I haven't found a religion that likes to publically suggest that Hitler will inevitably be redeemed alongside every single other person—wanting to believe in retributive justice is rather integral to the human character, some feel it would remove impetus to recruit (or do anything...) etc.

My verbal laziness, said belief, system of thought would have been more appropriate.

As to Hitler... if he sincerelyrepented before he died well then he's as saved as St. Peter. Not something you'll hear from most, but the idea that anyone can be saved no matter what they've done is one of the unsatisfying points in Christianity for a number of people. The formula of repent and believe fromthe Gospels seems like a cop out to many.

As to Jesus' beliefs, well he certainly wasn't an agnostic UW. Was very specific about God and his personal relationship to him. Was a practicing Jew (lest we forget that the Last Supper was in the context of a Passover meal among any number of other things) though he practiced in a fashion different than that of the Pharisees and Saduccees. As to what he believed about himself, well even if you drop out the Gospel of John and go strictly by the synoptics it's fairly clear he considered himself a tad more than an ordinary joe. You don't walk around forgiving other people of their sins unless you have some rather elevated notions about yourself. All the non-cannonical material also seems to regard Jesus as somone more than just another religious teacher. And that's all we really have to go on. I tend to find many modern reconstructions of the 'historical Jesus' tend to say more about whoever's making them than about a real 1st century Jewish rabbi who considered himself as something more than the ordinary, or atleast inspired that point of view in others.

Ultimate Weapon · Post by **Ultimate Weapon** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:29 pm

Blacksword wrote:
Denyer wrote:Agnostic, by the same token, indicates someone is actively considering the question in order to doubt it.
As to Jesus' beliefs, well he certainly wasn't an agnostic UW. Was very specific about God and his personal relationship to him. Was a practicing Jew (lest we forget that the Last Supper was in the context of a Passover meal among any number of other things) though he practiced in a fashion different than that of the Pharisees and Saduccees. As to what he believed about himself, well even if you drop out the Gospel of John and go strictly by the synoptics it's fairly clear he considered himself a tad more than an ordinary joe. You don't walk around forgiving other people of their sins unless you have some rather elevated notions about yourself. All the non-cannonical material also seems to regard Jesus as somone more than just another religious teacher. And that's all we really have to go on. I tend to find many modern reconstructions of the 'historical Jesus' tend to say more about whoever's making them than about a real 1st century Jewish rabbi who considered himself as something more than the ordinary, or atleast inspired that point of view in others.

Jesus was activly questioning the workings of the Jewish faith. As to why cripples and others could not enter the temple. Jesus basically set up shop on the streets. Sorta like a vendor but dispensing salvation rather than commerce. This enraged the priests because he was seen going above the church. I think Jesus had a death wish, or wanted to experience the pain so he could ascend, or reincarnate beyond this world.