| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Cohiba
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
|
 Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 3:22 pm Post subject: Jesus Types Boost DaVinci Code Release! |
 |
|
People will never learn. I wish I could calculate how
much free advertising these bible thumpers have given
the release of that "so-so" book. I read the book and was
totally non-plussed both by the theme and the writing.
I hope the movie will be better. I like Tom. However, I
will be viewing it in the comfort of my own home because
I'm not shoehorning myself into a theatre packed with
people who have no real interest in the movie with the
exception of it's negative publicity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It really is just a cheap romance novel with a few not so arcane dollops of pseudo-arcana. It's perfect for the "talent" of Hanks and even more perfect to just ignore. I am sure the hype and ensuing culture wars will be far more interesting than the film.
So I'll eat popcorn with the morning paper.
(And curse Dan Brown's millions.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: Jesus Types Boost DaVinci Code Release! |
|
|
| Cohiba wrote: |
People will never learn. I wish I could calculate how
much free advertising these bible thumpers have given
the release of that "so-so" book. I read the book and was
totally non-plussed both by the theme and the writing.
I hope the movie will be better. |
| Quote: |
nonplused, also nonplussed:
To put at a loss as to what to think, say, or do; bewilder.
n.
A state of perplexity, confusion, or bewilderment. |
Nonplussed should not be used to mean "not impressed" or "not surprised". It has the opposite meaning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The fact that some Christians actually see this work of second-rate pseudo-scholarship as a threat says something about their own lack of intellect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hermes.trismegistus
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| The fact that some Christians actually see this work of second-rate pseudo-scholarship as a threat says something about their own lack of intellect. |
Agreed. The actual history appears significantly more damning, but how many Christians bother to educate themselves on primary sources?
Namaste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowkr
Joined: 03 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a Christian. I'm neither for nor against this book and movie. Don't see what all the fuss it about but I'm looking forward to finding out!
Please don't stereotype us all as misinformed, uneducated fools. Some of us do bother read and heed the bible while keeping an open mind to other interpretations and beliefs without accepting them.
If Tom Hanks is in this movie, I would think it to be well worth seeing. Much like the Passion of the Christ which caused many churches to fuss and fume as well! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DanielInKorea
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
Location: Not a small village
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hermes.trismegistus wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| The fact that some Christians actually see this work of second-rate pseudo-scholarship as a threat says something about their own lack of intellect. |
Agreed. The actual history appears significantly more damning, but how many Christians bother to educate themselves on primary sources?
Namaste. |
You've got a great point. Most Christians don't bother to educate themselves on primary sources.
But..er... how can the actual history be more damning than the idea that Jesus married Mary Magdelene, had children, and gave her the authority and reign over the church?
I think you'll find that history is decidedly more favorable towards rational Christian belief than Dan Brown's unoriginal fiction.
Oh, and by the way Yu_bum, I think those who are standing against the movie are doing so because Dan Brown purports the book as fiction, and yet mixes in so many historical place names (as well as saying he himself believes the story) that it could cause weaker Christians to stumble in their faith. You should have a look at "Facts and Fictions in The Da Vinci Code" by Bill Wilder, available here:
http://www.studycenter.net/
And there's a whole heap of stuff available here:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/davinci.html
Last edited by DanielInKorea on Tue May 16, 2006 10:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DanielInKorea wrote: |
| rational Christian belief |
There is no such thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DanielInKorea
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
Location: Not a small village
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Im not opening those links. Life is too short. I'm just reacting to the phrase "rational christian belief". It is an oxymoron. In order to be a christian you have to have "faith" in the lord. Faith, by definition, means belief in something with no proof. It's a catch22 problem. If you finally do find proof that God exists ( I've yet to encounter it ) then you obliterate the fundamental basis of christianity, which is faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
| Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DanielInKorea wrote: |
| But..er... how can the actual history be more damning than the idea that Jesus married Mary Magdelene, had children, and gave her the authority and reign over the church? |
| here endofthewor1d wrote: |
| what's so appalling about jesus having married mary magdalene? |
| DanielInKorea wrote: |
| it could cause weaker Christians to stumble in their faith. |
| here jaderedux wrote: |
When "Life of Brian" was released I remember 2 protesters cutting their wrists in front of the theatre. Uh...whatever darwinism in all it's glory!
If your faith is so weak it is shattered by a movie with Tom Hanks in it then you don't have much faith do you.
I really feel sorry for those who feel faith is weak and can be spoiled by a movie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tweeterdj
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Location: Gwangju
|
| Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Im not opening those links. Life is too short. I'm just reacting to the phrase "rational christian belief". It is an oxymoron. In order to be a christian you have to have "faith" in the lord. Faith, by definition, means belief in something with no proof. It's a catch22 problem. If you finally do find proof that God exists ( I've yet to encounter it ) then you obliterate the fundamental basis of christianity, which is faith. |
i have to ask, wouldn't you be obligated to believe in God, simply because it can't be proven that He DOESN'T exist? just trying to follow your logic... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Im not opening those links. Life is too short. I'm just reacting to the phrase "rational christian belief". It is an oxymoron. In order to be a christian you have to have "faith" in the lord. Faith, by definition, means belief in something with no proof. It's a catch22 problem. If you finally do find proof that God exists ( I've yet to encounter it ) then you obliterate the fundamental basis of christianity, which is faith. |
Perhaps-- but you've drawn, I think, a very strict definition of faith. The disciples and eyewitnesses of Christ did believe they had visual proof, but they also had faith. Thus proof is not contradictory to faith. People had faith in Gandhi, and they certainly could see him.
We could also consider rationality in less black and white terms. A believer might not be logical in the sense that his faith isn't based on observable facts, but there might be rationality in his faith having a structure, purpose, and non-factual proof-- a spiritual sensation or emotional conviction, or that "something" that many believers just know more deeply than their physical senses can tell them. Of course, some believers aren't rational at all in their non-spiritual lives, to say the least.
I find the Davinci Code's portrayal of Christ offensive, and in a way I think its promoters have deliberately tried to stir up controversy and book sales by doing little to emphasize that it's a work of fiction. But I'd still like to see the movie--I even laughed at Life of Brian. I also think that it's the cost of living in a free society. I also don't think it makes my faith look reasonable if I get my shorts in a knot and form violent protests over a perceived insult, like other religions of peace I won't mention.
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tweeterdj wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| Im not opening those links. Life is too short. I'm just reacting to the phrase "rational christian belief". It is an oxymoron. In order to be a christian you have to have "faith" in the lord. Faith, by definition, means belief in something with no proof. It's a catch22 problem. If you finally do find proof that God exists ( I've yet to encounter it ) then you obliterate the fundamental basis of christianity, which is faith. |
i have to ask, wouldn't you be obligated to believe in God, simply because it can't be proven that He DOESN'T exist? just trying to follow your logic... |
Traditionally it's the person who makes the positive assertion that has the burden of proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Moldy Rutabaga wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Im not opening those links. Life is too short. I'm just reacting to the phrase "rational christian belief". It is an oxymoron. In order to be a christian you have to have "faith" in the lord. Faith, by definition, means belief in something with no proof. It's a catch22 problem. If you finally do find proof that God exists ( I've yet to encounter it ) then you obliterate the fundamental basis of christianity, which is faith. |
Perhaps-- but you've drawn, I think, a very strict definition of faith. The disciples and eyewitnesses of Christ did believe they had visual proof, but they also had faith. Thus proof is not contradictory to faith. People had faith in Gandhi, and they certainly could see him.
|
Believing that you've seen something is proof of god?
I agree my definition is strict. It is, however, straight from Mirriam Webster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
