Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
It is a known fact that the Vatican is very upset about The Da Vinci Code coming to a movie theater near you. They are upset about the heathens hurting their god, their messiah, and last but not least... their pocket books. They are publishing articles like crazy telling Catholics and Christians alike to protest the movie, and trying to get them to take legal action.
First of all, the movie is fiction... even though there are many facts on which the fiction is built upon. So why would they get all upset about a movie that is "fictitious"?
I've posted articles about my religious views, so for those of you who read them, you know I am not a Christian. So I found the book very entertaining, and not only that, I found it to be quite enlightening. The church is worried about people believing the content to be true, and for good reason.
The Catholic church has and Christianity in general has a very shady past, and a lot of effort has been put forth to keep their lies and half truths secret and safe. When they refer to the crusades, they refer them as to themselves as righteous warriors spreading the truth of God, when in actuality, they were just ruthless conquerors. They keep the gospels they don't want anyone to see hidden so they can keep tight reigns on their followers to milk them of their hard earned money.
The topic that scares the Catholic church more than any other in The Da Vinci Code has to deal with Jesus Christ. More specifically, the topic of Jesus Christ not being born of a virgin, and more important than that, that he wasn't a virgin himself.
First of all, anyone who believes Virgin Mary was a Virgin might as well believe in the tooth fairy, because in that time, women were married off by the time they were of child bearing age. So to think that she was not married off and deflowered is just absurd.
Second, Jesus was Jewish, and it was mandatory for people of the Jewish faith to be married when they came of age, it was the Jewish way, and every body knows what happens on peoples wedding night...
THEY GET LAID!!!
So the point of my article is this, the Catholics shouldn't be pissed off about The Da Vinci Code, because any person that's naive enough to think Jesus was a virgin deserves to get their money taken from them... And anyone that is a Catholic/Christian that understands that women can't become pregnant without getting semen injected into them but still are of Catholic/Christian faith are still going to believe after they see the movie.
Anyway, I just hope that movie does move a few naive individuals to be more critical in their thinking, and that will be one step in the right direction of having a more educated civilization... and God bless the Da Vinci Code for that.
God Bless The Da Vinci Code
|
Posted By: Normalized Vector Posted on: May. 9, 2006 at 1:22 PM  7 Comments
|
2.4 / 5
Based on 14 ratings.
|
Comments:
|
May. 10, 2006 at 02:54:24 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and religion. Personally, everyone in my family is Catholic or a similar religion. I think I'm the only one in my entire family that hasn't gotten my first holy communion (mainly because I was baptized episcopalian and it doesn't require it to accept communion). As I got older though, I started to think it was very disgusting to drink from the chalice and eat bread from the priests hands, but anyway, that's another story. The point is, I'm fairly well versed in Christianity and the different variations of it. I have read the much of the bible when I was younger, I may not remember everything in it, or read all of it, but I have had numerous discussions about it. I have had conversations with many people from different religions, such as Mormons, muslims and Buddhists. So I'm not just a guy rambling because I have Scientologists for parents and don't know a thing about it, although my studies have lead me more towards the way of mathematics and science (thus the name) more than spirituality. Anyway, I'm more agnostic than an atheist, but again, that's for another article somewhere down the line. I know I ramble sometimes, but the true point of the article was that I wish the Catholic church wouldn't piss and moan so much when media doesn't quite get it right (or gets a little too close?). I don't think the movie is going to convert Catholics to heathens anymore than the book did. I have yet to meet anyone who has read the book and decided to change their faith because of it. Which was the point of the article. About the Gospel of Judas, I think more hidden gospels should be uncovered or released by the church so we can see the whole truth of what life was like back then, and maybe get a better sense of biblical history as it was written by the men of the time. I think the Vatican is holding out on some powerful knowledge that would keep modern scholars busy for decades, but they won't release them because they may contain a little too much truth in them. Anyway, I'm not a big fan of information hiding. As far as why I'm not a Catholic? I refuse to be a part of a religion that's based on a lie. The whole religion is based off Jesus and his mother being virgins, and I refuse to believe it. I'm sure he was a good man (as good as man could be in his time), but I'm sure he was a sinner just like all of us... after all, he was a man. So the way I figure it is... as long as I be the best person I can be, I think I'll be alright in the end, and if the Evangelical Christians are right, I guess I'll burn in hell with Satan if I don't accept Jesus as my lord and savior some time before I die... But seeing how I don't believe in heaven or hell, I'm not too worried about it. *note: I once had an Evangelical tell me that alien beings with superior technology all go to heaven because they are innocent like children because they haven't heard the word of Christ, I laughed my ass off. |
||
|
May. 10, 2006 at 07:43:58 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Normalized, It is not so much the having to get married at a certain age that indicates his married status. It is the fact that under Jewish law you could not teach (be a Rabbi) unless you were married. This is one of the most strict rules they had. You had to have taken a wife and preferrably had children to teach inside or outside of the synigog. (that might be mis-spelt, sorry) More to the fact, if Jesus was married how would this affect his divinity? As I see it, not a bit. Did he rise from the dead, go to heaven, sure, why not. Does being married have anything to do with that being possible or not? Not that I can see. There can be no doubt that the victors write the history, and the New Testament is certainly a historic document or rather set of documents. Each one Canonized by the Catholic Church for it's inclusion in the New Testament. At the time, the Catholic Church was the victor. They have thousands of other documents that they choose not to include. Many of these tell of womens prominent role in both society and the church, but they skipped those. Some speak of Jesus' wedding and children, passed on that one to they did. And yet others speak to the knowledge Christ must certainly have had of what the Messianic figure of the day would have to accomplish to be taken seriously. Yes folks, Jesus would have been well familiar with what the Old Testament said after all, he was teaching it as a Rabbi. There is a reason the dark ages happened, it is because all knowledge was basically under the Catholic Churches control for a thousand years. These were the dark ages. It is when the mistakenly came to believe in the perfection of the Pope, the Virgin Mary as an intermediary between you and God, which is not in the Bible, they came up with Purgatory, also not in the Bible, and when they stamped out marriage for clergy, not in the Bible. There is no reason to believe that even today we have all the facts on Jesus. Just last month it was reveiled that the Gospel of Judas was found, what else are they keeping in the belly of the big ass Vatican? The big questions are about Jesus himself? Did he frame his "miracles" and entry on the "back of an ass" and finally his exit from the scene just as scripted in the Old Testament of the Jews? That's the real question. And if he did, does it make him any less a God? I don't know. |
||
|
May. 10, 2006 at 08:36:57 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Norm, as you've noted here, you've documented your personal rejection of religion several times in what are effectively the same, rather tiresome, articles. We understand that you consider anyone to be nuts if they believe in the Hereafter and follow the tenets of an organized religion. Sobeit. We understand! However, you chronically fail to recognize that your freedom to harp about your iconoclasticism has boundaries. Your freedom is bounded by others' freedom to believe otherwise. As an unknowledgeable outsider, your attacks on believers'views is most odd, particularly in the context of the Da Vinci Code. Brown published his tome as fiction, yet, as a rigorous reinterpretation of Scripture, it's all too predictable that believers would have strong reactions. Your superficial reaction to those reactions serves no purpose that I can see. It certainly adds nothing to the discussion or our understanding and, in no way, affects our beliefs. |
||
|
|
May. 10, 2006 at 11:57:29 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| If they're so tiresome, why read them? You in cahoots with akman or something? You seem to not mind reading bush bashing articles which are in a sense the same article... Example: Bush is an ________ because he did __________. I think if we did this __________ maybe we could accomplish ________. Both Average American and AZ Moderate had good valid points on the issues. I know I'm a minority on this site and in most places as far as my religious beliefs go, but that's the beauty of America... because I can be. Personally, I like discussing religion because I'm always interested in what other people have to say about it and I'm always interested in spewing my 2 cents in on the subject. Anyway, what AA elaborated on, I agree with fully in his point, and I even mentioned it in my original article when saying that believers even if they don't believe in the whole dogmatic views of Catholicism will still believe because they choose to, even if some form of media puts thought processes in their mind to the contrary. In no way was I attacking any body's freedom to believe what they want. I'm aware that when I talk about the subject, it probably drives Christians insane because any non-believer in your faith will come across sounding like a a****** that's just bashing your beliefs, and in my case probably even more so because I am... and I admit, sometimes I do... But it's always to get a point across, and it's always fun to get flamed for it, I wouldn't expect any less. Now, to comment on your comment mr marvel. ------------------------ Norm, as you've noted here, you've documented your personal rejection of religion several times in what are effectively the same, rather tiresome, articles. ------------------------ Don't read them if they bother and bore you so much. ------------------------ We understand that you consider anyone to be nuts if they believe in the Hereafter and follow the tenets of an organized religion. Sobeit. We understand! ------------------------ I don't consider people to be nuts that are religious or believe in an after life (like I said, I'm not a complete atheist). I just consider them to be non-critical in their thought if blindly follow all of the dogmatic views implemented by the best sales force of all time. ------------------------ However, you chronically fail to recognize that your freedom to harp about your iconoclasticism has boundaries. Your freedom is bounded by others' freedom to believe otherwise. ------------------------ My freedom to believe what I want is not bound by anybody. More importantly, my freedom of speech is not bound by those who represent the views of the majority. People that think like you are a danger to free speech. I would even go as far to say that the comment you made was very un-American. ------------------------ As an unknowledgeable outsider, your attacks on believers'views is most odd, particularly in the context of the Da Vinci Code. Brown published his tome as fiction, yet, as a rigorous reinterpretation of Scripture, it's all too predictable that believers would have strong reactions. ------------------------ That's where you are wrong, I am most likely more knowledgeable and more educated than you are on this subject. I have studied scripture, alternate histories (by professional historians), and archeology. I don't blindly accept one story, I prefer to hear all sides. As far as The Da Vinci Code being fiction, I think I stated that very early in the article... And I don't think it's the average believers that are angry about the novel/movie, It's the high priests, bishops and pope who are getting angry. If you are angry about it, then you should probably get a hobby because it isn't affecting your pocket book now is it? I think a better solution to their problem would be to get more creative in their recruiting tactics. When a new version of Gnome or KDE comes out, Microsoft don't publicly get angry and try to get their users to boycott them (well, not usually), they add more features to Windoze. ------------------------ Your superficial reaction to those reactions serves no purpose that I can see. It certainly adds nothing to the discussion or our understanding and, in no way, affects our beliefs. ------------------------ Well, you are commenting on a thread that I started, so apparently I did add much to be discussed, otherwise you wouldn't be on here flaming me now. |
||
|
|
Sep. 12, 2006 at 06:26:11 PM
|
|
| its just an adventure book with half truths mixed in with fiction.......why must everything be somekind of conspiracy.....man lighten up!
|
||
|
Sep. 13, 2006 at 05:06:03 PM
|
|
| Good article
|
||
I found that out the hard way. I am your quintessential Prodigal Son.
I listen for that still small voice, and look for sign posts to show me the direction. I don’t hear and see all that well, but it is better than the blind leading the blind. No man-made organization is going to intercede between me and Jesus Christ. That is not to say I can’t learn from such organizations, but I reserve my God given right to commune with my savior directly.
You are right to be skeptical. I am too. Critical thinking is required of us – it is a gift from on high and it is ungrateful to reject it. And the atrocities that have been done in the name of the Prince of Peace and our gift of Love from God are abominations on our heads. But I try not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I suspect that Jesus was married, and consummated that marriage as a human being. So what? All the better to understand humanity, I say. He was very much human while he lived among us, as was God's plan. Whether his was a virgin birth or not is to me not an issue – the Spirit of God was and is in him to such an extent that he is one with our Father, and as for me the miracle of that undeniably shines through in his teachings. I accept him as God’s gift of love without being able to understand or explain all the details. Or deserve the gift.
The Da Vinci Code is a good yarn. The author claims nothing more. There are an increasing number of interesting “revelations” surfacing concerning early Christianity and the Bible. Such things as the questioning of Judas’ true role in Christ’s sacrifice. Personally I suspected even before current “revelations” that he got a raw deal from the early Bible scholars and the early church, who misinterpreted the situation.
If you look closely at what Jesus said (“go now and do what you must do.”) at the last supper, and Judas’ behavior (he had to accept the gold coins by Judaic law, but he threw them into the street), It could well be that he was doing Jesus’ bidding to facilitate the fulfillment of scriptural prophecy. It was a dirty job, but someone had to do it. It was his part to play. Jesus chose him, and Judas stepped up to the plate, and that action has perhaps been badly misinterpreted ever since. He was the original Judas goat.
I think there is much we do not know about the life of Jesus and his disciples. What has been handed down to us is selected and varnished. But Jesus’ teachings shine through for all of that. It is the world that his teachings paint that I aspire to.
Report Abuse