TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- The Da Vinci Deception
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by El Kay Dee Apparently this came out the same day as when the Code came to theatres and sold out in the first week itself...lol

bwahahahahahha

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT oh, no argument from me on that... I've long felt that the Church's priorities have been a little 'off' for quite some time

very true, unfortunately

they seem to take too much interest in earthly things

Oh RJ, ye be a good Catholic boy!

I think the best thing to keep in mind when examining this novel is that it is, in fact, A NOVEL. Moreover, the book it is primarally based on (Holy Blood Holy Grail) is a somewhat dubious piece of theology based on records of competing interpretations of the life of Jesus in the early church. With that in mind one must consider that this work of fiction is based on a poorly writen piece of theology based on rather limited and potentially highly self interested letters and testiments of the early church leaders. That said, one must also recognize that the Roman Catholic church is simply the most successful evolution of the hundred or so early christian churchs.

The key problem the Vatican faces with regard to questions of credibility is that it operates in relative secracy. The inner echelons of the vatican do not report on their activities. The Vatican does not release it's financial records. The Vatican does not allow open access to it's archives. The Vatican is not governed by a democratic process. All of the above are choices the Vatican made many centuries ago for reasons I am certain they will never reveal, however, until these things change the Vatican will always be viewed with suspicion and rightfully so. Hell, I recently chose to become Roman Catholic and I still view the Vatican with suspicion. A family friend of mine, a Roman Catholic priest (also a history professor at one of the religious colleges at UW) even views the Vatican with suspicion.

The way I see it is this, what the Vatican does or does not do will never be fully known or understood but one must examine the religion and the administrative body seperately. The church and the Vatican are two different entities, one is a faith, the other is a state. What the Vatican does has little bearing on my faith.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I've long felt that the Church's priorities have been a little 'off' for quite some time

I agree. But the Catholic church has been through some thought of reform of late, in order to fit itself into more 'modern' thinking and ways of life.

Personally, I did not find the movie that great. The mystery was set up nicely, then peaked half-way though the movie. I thought it to be a little anti-climactic.

It does take advantage of the cloak & dagger atmosphere, mysticism, and other techniques, but I see no reason for all this outrage at the movie. Those devout followers will not be swayed by this, so I'm not certain what massive dammages this will bring. But I guess their argument is no different that the Islam->Muhammad images argument.

quote:

Originally posted by zokissima I agree. But the Catholic church has been through some thought of reform of late, in order to fit itself into more 'modern' thinking and ways of life.

Another thing to keep in mind regarding the RC Church and it's "off" priorities..... This church ministers to over 2 billion people from all over the world. Not all, in fact few, of it's members are willing to accept or adopt the "priorities" we have in the developed world. In order to maintain stability the church cannot simply make wholesale changes to make itself more palatable to the developed nations. This isn't to say it does not want to, it simply cannot.

The Da Vinci Code itself isn't really what's causing the turmoil in the Catholic church - it's the reopening of discussion about 'official' church history, and the roots of sacrament and theological interpretation.

I'll have to disagree with the early post on this thread that the New Testament is a superior manuscript. The New Testament NEVER was a manuscript, it's a compendium of several transcripts, that has been highly edited with some books removed and others added. For example, in early versions of the Bible, The Shepherd of Hermas regularly replaced Revelations.

There are also many alternative scriptures, discarded by early church fathers as 'heretical' because they didn't toe the official church line. The most famous of these are the gnostic gospels found at Nag Hammadi in 1949. These include the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. What the abundance of alternative scriptures teaches us is that there was a considerable amount of dissent as to what the nature of Christs teachings were. Christianity only became unified by political fiat under Constantine.

The Catholic church will have to deal with people questioning doctrine, as long as there are items in the Bible that don't make logical sense. The question of whether Christ was married is very problematic because of the use of the title 'Rabbi' throughout scripture. In traditional Jewish culture, rabbis were always married.

From a theological standpoint, my biggest problem with the Catholic church (and other orthodox versions of Christianity) is the focus on the personhood of Jesus Christ. Frankly, it doesn't really matter if he was married and had children, it doesn't matter whether he was the literal son of God, it doesn't matter if he was able to perform supernatural miracles. I argue that these things were added to the gospels in order to give Jesus legitimacy.

What's getting lost is the message of Jesus of Nazareth. He simplified the rules of Jewish faith from ten commandments down to two - love God, and love they neighbour. Everything else is superfluous. In my view, people who get wrapped up in miracles and the debate over whether Jesus actually existed have missed the point of Christianity entirely.

^^ good post.

quote:

QUESTION: But the Da Vinci Code says the bible evolved though countless additions and revisions. After all, there weren't printing presses or copy machines in the ancient world. How do we know that the New Testament we have today is an accurate representation of the original NT? ANSWER: Let's compare the NT manuscript traditions to the second best attested work of antiquity: The Iliad, the ancient Greek epic by Homer. Homer wrote The Iliad around 800 BC, but we have no original manuscript of the work. Or modern day editions of this classical work are based on manuscripts that date from long after Homer's lifetime. Of the approximately 650 extant manuscripts of The Iliad, the oldest dates from around AD 200 to 300 - about 1000 years after Homer's lifetime! Nevertheless, most scholars recognize that these very late copies of The Iliad are reliable representations of Homer's original work, even through they date from more than a millennium after Homer himself.

Say what? There is still significant debate over whether Homer ever even existed... it is improbably that the Iliad was anything other than a spoken poem for hundreds of years, so there is no manuscript to find. The use of dactylic hexameter might make the whole thing easier to remember and less prone to change over time, but I've never read anyone say the Iliad we know is identical to the Iliad of a hypothetical Homer's day.

I wonder what this sez about the apocrypha.

quote:

Originally posted by King Luis if you listen to Above and Beyond's Essential mix 06-06-2004, there is some who comes on near the beginning that say religion can be good and bad. its bad because all of the wars were from religion. but its good because it can be used for education. he also says when you grow up you need to get rid of it. its some guy who says it near the 3min 45 second mark.

That is definatly the most amusing post in the thread.

I was passing by a church the other day and on their billboard it read, Don't Believe the Devil's Davinci Code.

This is utterly rediculous. The church expects people to believe its message. Why can't it let people be open to all messages?

Honestly, 80% of humanity is just fucking retarded. If one stupid book can change the way you view your faith, then obviously you haven't done your homework, or weren't very confident in it to begin with. I have no problem with religious people, but I can't stand people who just accept their faith as truth, without ever considering the alternatives, or the motivation of those who want their support. People are so damn ignorant.

Of course, if people weren't so ignorant, the church would have nothing to worry about, as in an ideal world, no simple work of fiction could ever change somebody's mind . The problem is that because people ARE ignorant (80% of people are simply the same religion as their parents, because they've been indoctrinated since childhood). Consequently, ANYTHING that makes people question their faith is dangerous to the church, because it peels away those who support their faith without reason.

I guess we'd be asking too much if we wanted the average human to simply QUESTION HIS OR HER FAITH .

If people actually developed an interest in science, philosophy, history, and mathematics, instead of just believing what they were taught in Sunday school, we wouldn't have to deal with this bullshit.

To me, citing religion over reason is the most blatent, prevalent form of human ignorance in existance.

I'm glad most of you guys on TA aren't like that.

PEOPLE ARE STUPID AS FUCK, NEWS AT 11

Faith in society: -12 points

quote:

Originally posted by VERTiG0 PEOPLE ARE STUPID AS FUCK, NEWS AT 11

I tried to be a little more eloquent than that... but yeah... I guess you summed up my point rather concisely.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot I guess you summed up my point rather concisely.

I tend to do things like that.

quote:

Originally posted by nacarter What's getting lost is the message of Jesus of Nazareth. He simplified the rules of Jewish faith from ten commandments down to two - love God, and love they neighbour. Everything else is superfluous. In my view, people who get wrapped up in miracles and the debate over whether Jesus actually existed have missed the point of Christianity entirely.

What i must say to all the anti-church people is simple.
I, as a devout Catholic, am not stupid to think there is no corruption in my church.
But PLEASE remember that the bad/evil people (pedophiles,crusaders,etc)
who ARE/were in the church do not represent God's will/views.
God will NEVER condone anyone who kills/has killed in the name of ANY religion.

VERTIGO said it best:
PEOPLE ARE STUPID AS FUCK, NEWS AT 11

I'm not in favour of the Da Vinci Code, but a lot of IGNORANT
ppl will be swayed even if just slightly.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot This is utterly rediculous. The church expects people to believe its message. Why can't it let people be open to all messages? Honestly, 80% of humanity is just fucking retarded. If one stupid book can change the way you view your faith, then obviously you haven't done your homework, or weren't very confident in it to begin with. I have no problem with religious people, but I can't stand people who just accept their faith as truth, without ever considering the alternatives, or the motivation of those who want their support. People are so damn ignorant. Of course, if people weren't so ignorant, the church would have nothing to worry about, as in an ideal world, no simple work of fiction could ever change somebody's mind . The problem is that because people ARE ignorant (80% of people are simply the same religion as their parents, because they've been indoctrinated since childhood). Consequently, ANYTHING that makes people question their faith is dangerous to the church, because it peels away those who support their faith without reason. I guess we'd be asking too much if we wanted the average human to simply QUESTION HIS OR HER FAITH . If people actually developed an interest in science, philosophy, history, and mathematics, instead of just believing what they were taught in Sunday school, we wouldn't have to deal with this bullshit. To me, citing religion over reason is the most blatent, prevalent form of human ignorance in existance. I'm glad most of you guys on TA aren't like that.

Fuck - I've always liked the way you think man! It's refreshing to find another with the same views and who sees shit exactly the same way as I do.

quote:

Originally posted by TheVrk I'm not in favour of the Da Vinci Code,

Why do you have to be "not in favour" of the movie (sounds like you dont condone it).

Why cant you just dislike the topic and therefore have no desire to see it, or just feel it wont be your type of movie??

I mean, if I a) don't believe in dragons or b) don't like the subject matter of race cars, id simply not see a movie on dragons or race cars because a) i think its silly and made up [not of interest to me] or b) because I don't like what the movie is going to be about.

But neither of the above means that I'm not in favour of this flick. It's a movie. I don't wanna see it, others will. It was made by someone who wanted to make it... for the same reasons as someone wanted to make a movie about a boy named Will Hunting... only this one is fiction stemming from recognizable figures. This author's fictional story he wanted to write about!

Even if this movie could influence many ppl (with weak beliefs) where as my examples could not, that doesn't make this film illegitimate.

Human being are INTELLIGENT beings. They can decide for themselves the merits of hte movie... if they are in fact trying to take any from the film. I know I wouldn't. Id see it as what it is - a work of fiction.

quote:

Originally posted by Candeeman I was passing by a church the other day and on their billboard it read, Don't Believe the Devil's Davinci Code.

lol...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.