View Full Version : Da Vinci Code.
porshiepoo
01-Mar-06, 10:32
Alot of you will have read the book now and perhaps even 'Holy blood Holy grail'. So what do you think?
Does any of Dan Browns theories have any basis to them? Do you think it's quite possible that Jesus has a blood line and that Mary Magdalene is in fact the Holy grail?
Finally, and most importantly, whats your thoughts on 'the sacred feminine'? lol
Ancient tribes probably treated the female as sacred before they sussed out how babies were made. The sacred female is still a major part of Catholicism.
Surely the whole jesus story is a bit suspect. I would question the validity of the bible before I questioned the fantasy of Dan Brown.
liked the dan brown books a cracking read. from what they say on the news they are similar but it sounds like dan brown used their research and turned it into a story. is it possible about jesus having a bloodline who knows but history is always written by lifes winners.
It's a pile of pants. IMHO :)
porshiepoo
01-Mar-06, 12:19
I personally believe that there is every possibility that Jesus fathered a child and that that blood line could be seen years ago as a threat to the church.
Mary Magdalene was always portrayed as a repentant sinner - prostitute in this case - and although perhaps the church has never verbally made that statement, they've used the intimation that she was, and have never tried to make anyone think otherwise.
The problem I have is the whole portrayal of who Jesus really was. I don't for one minute believe that he actually performed the miracles as they're said in the bible. I do believe though that he was a healer and a prophet and that over the years 'chinese whispers' came into effect up till the making of the bible.
The gnostic gospels tell a bit of a different story to the bible we read nowdays.
As for Dan Browns theory! Well, lets just say I have less trouble believing it than I thought I would. It makes more sense than perhaps it oughta if it's all just supposition.
Yes some of it is obviously pure fiction, but in the whole I'm happy to go along with the whole 'sacred feminine' bit. :o)
Incidentally, who remembers the part about the world today beng the sad state of affairs it is due to 'the sacred feminine' no longer being sacred?
How many women today say in jest that 'if mothers ruled the world, we'd have no wars'?
I've said it loads of times but I do actually believe it. If mothers had always ruled the world we wouldn't have the horrors we see today.
Whitewater
01-Mar-06, 13:23
I think the co authors of "Holy Blood Holy Grail" will have difficulty in suing Dan Brown. Many other books have been written by different authors tracing the history as portrayed in "Holy Blood Holy Grail". Lomas & Knight in several books tracing the origins of Freemasonary, Andrew Sinclair who has written several books on the Templar History and the Kirkwall Scroll are just a few, all touched on this subject, all had carried out many long months of painstaking research.
Since the discovery of the dead sea scrolls in 1947, a new light has been shed on the life of Christ, not the same story as portrayed by St Paul or the Roman Emperor Constantine in the the 3rd century, both of whom were guilty of hijacking the Christ history. The early Roman church attempted to destroy all the gospels which had not been adulterated to fit into the story they were selling, anybody who had any knowledge of the original story was murdered as a heritic.
You can look up on the internet and find what remains of the Gnostic Gospels.
Mary Magdelene (according to more recent research) was a high born aristocratic lady, not the supposed prostitute and sinner as portrayed in the bible, her portrayal was that of the church which wanted to portray her that way so as Jusus could be portrayed as a forgiving celibate holy man in the image of the Roman church. Remember Jusus was a Jew, not a Roman Catholic in which the church demands their priests to be celibate. There is nothing in the Jewish faith which demands celibacy, but Mary Magdelene was too big a part of his life and mentioned too often in the gospels, they did not know how too write her out so it was in there intrest to lower her social standing.
Sir William Sinclair, who built Roslyn Chapel, was threatened to be put on trial because he would not release certain documents he held. The Scottish Queen of the time, "Mary Of Guise" went along to Roslyn to examine the documents, they were subseqently hidden and William Sinclair never went on trial. It may be relevant that William Sinclair was a Knight Templar and was one of the few people who gave them shelter when they were falsley accused and murdered by the then Pope Clemence (forgotten the number) and king Philip of France, one wanted the documents they held, the other their money and lands.
The "Da Vinci Code" is perhaps not as far fetched as many people may think. Many authors and historians are now looking into the life if Christ, the Gnostic Gospels and making serious study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and they are doing it without the fear of being accused and prosecuted as Heritics by the church.
As they say in the newspaper "watch this space" but in this case it will not be newspapers, but the Historical researchers publishing, and the R. C. Church which will object to and deny everything which is published.
Me thinks the Roman Catholic Church doth protest too much;)
Porshiepoo, you say you believe in this, that and the other, but wouldn't it be just common sense to have a firm basis for your beliefs rather than a novel?
I've been into grail mythology for some years now. As an amusing diversion at first, but with less scepticism the more I read. Not sure what it's all about, but Dan Brown seems to have cherrypicked from a wide range of sources, and hung together what I must admit is a pretty compulsive read.
With only a passing nod to even the truths that have been proven.
Porshiepoo....... Check out Rennes le Chateau......
"whispers that somewhere in the country of the Aude lies proof that the story of Jesus Christ is not as it is written in the Bible. Mary Magdalene (http://www.rennes-le-chateau.co.uk/html/magdalene.htm), who has a cult following throughout France and to whom the church is dedicated at Rennes-le-Château, is thought to play a far more important part in Jesus’ life than the Church admits and proof to this effect is thought be hidden in the area."
http://www.rennes-le-chateau.co.uk/
....... and meet the 'real' Sauniere........ :-))
Whitewater
01-Mar-06, 17:16
Good source alZir, I've had a glance, will look into it more deeply when I have the time.
mostlyharmless
01-Mar-06, 17:37
Amazes me that so many are happy to jump on to the band wagon of a novel
that makes a guy who seemed quite amazing[ whether you believe he is the son of god or not]...makes him well something we are more comfortable with.
Something that makes all the other stuff probably untrue and therefore how comforting is that.... Those religious guys are nutters after all...
The factual basis is very tenuous and even the guy that hosts 'Time team' did an article to show it was flawed. Most religious historians and theologists must laugh at it.
.... Then why the protests?? Well the book is blasphemous to those that believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.. but fortunately there have been no bloodbaths or bomb threats.
Amazes me that so many are happy to jump on to the band wagon of a novel
that makes a guy who seemed quite amazing[ whether you believe he is the son of god or not]...makes him well something we are more comfortable with.
Something that makes all the other stuff probably untrue and therefore how comforting is that.... Those religious guys are nutters after all...
The factual basis is very tenuous and even the guy that hosts 'Time team' did an article to show it was flawed. Most religious historians and theologists must laugh at it.
.... Then why the protests?? Well the book is blasphemous to those that believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.. but fortunately there have been no bloodbaths or bomb threats.
I reckon it's more a case of Dan Brown jumping on the bandwagon of an an age old conspiracy theory MH.
There's loads of connections he didnt include, and the 'grail' is not a defined object.
You gotta check out the Templars, and their removal (allegedly) of the treasures of Solomon from Jerusalem, and their transportation (allegedly) to Southern France.
You just HAVE to check out The Merovingians........ ancient and mythical kings of France, and who claimed the Holy bloodline.
At anyrate..... part of this 'grail' conspiracy may indeed have it's roots in the various secret societies surrounding these rumours, with a purpose of bringing a new order to europe with the restoration of remaining members of the Merovingian bloodline at it's heart.
Now I thought a lot of this was highly fanciful. Until I read of Francois Mitterand's connection not only to the heart of the european union, but also to the Priory of Sion.
But what clinched my interest , was finding pictures of symbols above the doors in Rennes le Chateau....... The Merovingian symbol of a circle of bees.......then of Mitterand's insistence on his choice of EU symbol.....
......no bees, but a circle of stars...replicating, but not obviously the sign of a new order in europe.
I suggest just putting a few of the things I mentioned into Google......and get into it....
It's MUCH better than any Dan Brown novel......it just doesnt have an end is all.
porshiepoo
01-Mar-06, 18:54
Actually Rheghead, I've had theories similar to those expressed in many books akin to Dan Browns for many a year.
I haven't based my opinion on the readings of one book as you obviously think, I have merely bought the topic up as the controversy surrounding both the theory and the book has bought it to the attention of many more people. I'm merely asking for other peoples thoughts on the subject.
Mostlyharmless - I have trouble understanding why anyone would consider this type of theory as blasphemous. Jesus christ is still considered to be the son of god when all's said and done, these theories merely make him appear more human and less godlike.
At the end of the day Dan Browns novels and novels of its kind are merely another opinion, as is the bible. The bible wasn't written by god or by Jesus it was written by man, many years after the events. It has no more validity than any other 'novel' written by man.
The gnostic gospels portray a rather different image of the life of Jesus christ and that of Mary magdalene, among others. I just feel that there are alot of questions that need to be answered that probably can't be answered. However at the end of the day our outcome here on earth will always be the same - we are born, we live, we pass over, we're re-born.
If Jesus was indeed the Son of God.......was his brother James also the Son of God?
Dan Browns novels and novels of its kind are merely another opinion, as is the bible. The bible wasn't written by god or by Jesus it was written by man, many years after the events. It has no more validity than any other 'novel' written by man.
Dan Brown's novels are just novels without any shred of evidence to support them, it is just speculation that cannot be substantiated that forms the basis of his stories. The bible is something different, a lot of archaeological evidence does seem to back up the historical context of the Bible, something that is severely lacking with Dan Brown's stuff.
Pontius Pilate has a non-biblical reference, the exodus from Egypt is supported independently plus other battles etc. No independent evidence is provided for a son of Jesus or a blood line.
To ask 'Why not?' you must have a valid reason to ask in the first place.
If Jesus was indeed the Son of God.......was his brother James also the Son of God?
No James was the son of Joseph. So I suppose half-brother would be a more accurate statement.
porshiepoo
01-Mar-06, 19:46
To ask 'Why not?' you must have a valid reason to ask in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
Says who??????
If a person asks 'why' or 'why not?', that person obviously feels that they have a reason to ask in the first place, just because others feel it's a touchy question to ask does not mean it shouldn't be asked at all.
The human mind is naturally inquisitive, if people didn't stand up and ask 'why not' then the human race wouldn't be as advanced as it is today.
There may be alot of archeological evidence to back up the bible as we know it today, but thats just the evidence we have been privvy to and have accepted as right. What about evidence just as old that has been kept from us for whatever reason?
At the end of the day IMO the bible is nothing more or less than the interpretations of man of a time that we can never ever be 100% sure of the events. Even now one persons interpretation of the bible can be different from anothers. If the bible is open to such interpretation and we are not 100% sure, without a shadow of a doubt, of the events that happened all those years ago then I don't see why the question 'why not?' with reference to the likes of the Da vinci code shouldn't be asked.
Says who??????
Anybody with a shred of commonsense says who!!!
Asking 'Why not?' without good reason will only lead to ridiculous claims which the Sunday Sport and Daily Star are particularly fond of for example.
What about evidence just as old that has been kept from us for whatever reason?
Is there any specific examples which you want to draw our attention to?:eyes
Is there any specific examples which you want to draw our attention to?:eyes
The gospel according to Mary praps ??
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
Dead Sea scrolls huh.......... what are they like ??.......:)
weeboyagee
01-Mar-06, 21:15
Porshiepoo, you say you believe in this, that and the other, but wouldn't it be just common sense to have a firm basis for your beliefs rather than a novel?
Oh no!!!! Here we go again....... :eyes
The gospel according to Mary praps ??
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
One word: laughable.
Dead Sea scrolls huh.......... what are they like ??.......:)
They're like really good man.
Your point is?
Cedric Farthsbottom III
01-Mar-06, 21:32
In my eyes this book was a cracking mystery.For the first time ever,I read a book in two days where it usually takes me a week.The religious content was a part of the plot but when you read the first book about Professor Robert Langdon,'Angels and Demons',a lot of the 'Da Vinci Code'is not as controversial as it seems.
I raise my pint glass and nip glass to Dan Brown and J.K Rowling for making an auld man who had never really been into reading books....into a book junky!!!!:D
In my eyes this book was a cracking mystery.For the first time ever,I read a book in two days where it usually takes me a week.The religious content was a part of the plot but when you read the first book about Professor Robert Langdon,'Angels and Demons',a lot of the 'Da Vinci Code'is not as controversial as it seems.
I raise my pint glass and nip glass to Dan Brown and J.K Rowling for making an auld man who had never really been into reading books....into a book junky!!!!:D
If you like fiction, try Wilbur Smith.......you'll not regret it :)
porshiepoo
01-Mar-06, 21:35
Asking 'Why not?' without good reason will only lead to ridiculous claims which the Sunday Sport and Daily Star are particularly fond of for example.
Who decides whether the question has good reason though Rheghead?
I dare say there's been plenty of times in the past when men such as inventors have asked themselves that same question, only to be ridiculed by those as narrow minded as yourself.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
01-Mar-06, 22:49
If you like fiction, try Wilbur Smith.......you'll not regret it :)
Cheers Saveman.:grin:
only to be ridiculed by those as narrow minded as yourself.
Quite the contrary, as a scientist it goes against the grain of my objectivity to be narrow minded. Give me some evidence that independently supports Dan Brown's claims and I will consider it open mindedly.
If Jesus was indeed the Son of God.......was his brother James also the Son of God?
You might want to consider the immaculate conception as it applied to the first born in that well known family.
Im not sure whether Canuck is on a wind up here or he is seriously asking Scotsboy to consider this option. Although Im aware that the Virgin Birth is one of the fundamental tenets of christianity its also one of its weaknesses as far as I am concerned. The mystery known as the New testament starts there, with plenty of support from the crazed religious prophets of the Old testament prophesising the arrival of a Saviour for the world.
The Biblical story preys on the same hidden desires of human beings that has allowed Dan Brown to become a multi millionaire with his ability to form a reasonable thesis from the superstitious rantings and desires of a bygone age.
I am aware the only criteria for believing in God is belief itself, and mystery is one of the keys to keep people in suspense and wonder, when they try to make sense of the illogical thoughts buzzing through their electrically charged, chemically active thought processes. These mystery books, particularly anything to do with Knights Templars and Feemasons are always best sellers by virtue of the fact that people will readily accept there must be some mystery hidden in the corridors of such organisations.
Scientific research has shown that humans have a need for understanding their universe and once science took off with the evolution of the Greek philosophers, the writing was on the wall for religion and it tentacles of illogical and purely subjective belief.
Even hard nosed scientists like Rheghead are prone to narrow minded subjective nonsense from time to time but I doubt if he will believe that, but I do so its real.
Scientific research has shown that humans have a need for understanding their universe and once science took off with the evolution of the Greek philosophers, the writing was on the wall for religion and it tentacles of illogical and purely subjective belief.
With the help of the TV evangelist religion is making a huge comeback in America and with the power to influence a lot of voters the TV evangelist has considerable influence.
It is looking increasingly likely that soon illogical and purely subjective belief will be taught in school science classes.
There is no textual evidence to be found that supports the idea that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. The leading theory is that her identity was intentionally changed by by Pope Gregory the Great, perhaps reflecting what was already popular opinion. The person of Mary was conflated with those of Mary of Bethany and the anonymous sinner of Luke who anointed Jesus' feet. With that in mind, it is often assumed that the "sinner" who anointed Jesus' feet was a prostitute, and the connection is made.
There are, however, people who adopt the prostitute view regardless of her actual status as such because of the centuries invested in that particular legend. She has come to be a symbol for not only penitence and redemption, but also of sexuality and female strength. Recently it has been theorized that Mary was a sacred prostitute in the temple of a goddess such as Isis or Innana, though there is no evidence to support that speculation. In addition, it has been suggested that Mary Magdalene was given the identity of a "fallen woman" to reflect the Neoplatonic notion of the soul in exile from God, as she is frequently associated with the Bride of Christ, his church.
Bingobabe
02-Mar-06, 10:28
Although dan brown novel is interesting i still cant get my head around jesus,s mother being a virgin for her to conceive without having intercourse thats the one that baffles me
Did they have IVF in those days?:lol:
With the help of the TV evangelist religion is making a huge comeback in America and with the power to influence a lot of voters the TV evangelist has considerable influence.
It is looking increasingly likely that soon illogical and purely subjective belief will be taught in school science classes.
Evolution has been taught in schools for years. :p
Although dan brown novel is interesting i still cant get my head around jesus,s mother being a virgin for her to conceive without having intercourse thats the one that baffles me
I think the reasoning is that God transferred the life of his son into the womb of Mary. IVF has been mentioned and it's a good analogy. If man can do such a thing in a very crude way, why not the Almighty Creator?
I think the reasoning is that God transferred the life of his son into the womb of Mary. IVF has been mentioned and it's a good analogy. If man can do such a thing in a very crude way, why not the Almighty Creator?
The virgin birth was a sign of God. There have been cases of virgins having received IVF treatment and given birth. Are humans now the new Gods?:eyes
I think the reasoning is that God transferred the life of his son into the womb of Mary. IVF has been mentioned and it's a good analogy. If man can do such a thing in a very crude way, why not the Almighty Creator?
Well said - while I was thinking about it, you said it. The book is fiction - well written fiction no doubt and mixed up with fact to make it sound convincing, but still fiction.
The virgin birth was a sign of God. There have been cases of virgins having received IVF treatment and given birth. Are humans now the new Gods?:eyes
They would like to think they are. :roll:
With the technologies we have nowadays would we be seen as gods by a more primitive race?
Although dan brown novel is interesting i still cant get my head around jesus,s mother being a virgin for her to conceive without having intercourse thats the one that baffles me
Jesus was conceived in a virgin's womb by the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit.
God the Son became man by taking upon himself human nature, although Jesus became man, he reamined fully God
Jesus was conceived in a virgin's womb by the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit.
God the Son became man by taking upon himself human nature, although Jesus became man, he reamined fully God
Hmmm....Well that makes no sense to me.
God was a baby?
God prayed to himself?
God died?
Whitewater
02-Mar-06, 12:48
The new testiment as it stands is a great story, it has given faith and hope to countless millions of Christians throughout the ages and continues to do so today.
If the truth, or what is purported to be the truth through recent research, ever comes out and is proved to be different to what has been believed in for centuries, I think that the majority of people will have great difficulty in ever accepting the new finding and will go on believing the devine teachings as laid down and passed on through the centuries.
I'm sure that the authorities would have great difficulty in accepting and releasing anything contrary to the present day teachings.
Evolution has been taught in schools for years. :p
Yes evolution, for which there is a vast amount of indisputable scientific evidence, has been taught in school science classes for years. Creationism, in which many people have a belief, has been taught in school religious studies classes for years. Nothing wrong with either of those.
What is wrong is when creationists use political preasure to try and force children to be taught the belief of creationism as scientific fact in school science classes.
Yes evolution, for which there is a vast amount of indisputable scientific evidence, <snip>
Really? :) I disagree but I think I'll just bite my lip....
<snip>
What is wrong is when creationists use political preasure to try and force children to be taught the belief of creationism as scientific fact in school science classes.
I agree with that.
Hmmm....Well that makes no sense to me.
God was a baby?
God prayed to himself?
God died?
Now you're getting into deep water with the doctrine of the Trinity - which I don't believe anyone fully understands but then how can man fully understand God? God sent his Son to save mankind, knowing that He would be killed, and then sent his Holy Spirit. Father, Son and Holy Spirit - three persons in one God. Some things we just have to take on trust. If we understood God we would be God.
At least the Dan Brown novel got people talking and thinking, which is great so long as they don't accept his assertion that it's historically accurate, any more than the story of Adam & Eve or the Creation according to Genesis - they are just stories to make you think. Don't believe the latter should be taught in schools, at least not as history or science.
Now you're getting into deep water with the doctrine of the Trinity - which I don't believe anyone fully understands but then how can man fully understand God? God sent his Son to save mankind, knowing that He would be killed, and then sent his Holy Spirit. Father, Son and Holy Spirit - three persons in one God. Some things we just have to take on trust. If we understood God we would be God. <snip>
Hmmmmmm.........I'm biting my lip very hard indeed [smirk]
I can't.
The Trinity doctrine was introduced to "Christianity" in the 4th century C.E. at the Council of Nicea. A Council presided over by Emperor Constantine, which interestingly is another example of religion and politics mixing. A "heretic" called Arian was ridiciuled because he had the audacity to suggest that if Jesus is described as "only begotten" he must therefore have had a beginning, a creation.
Many Scriptures in various Bible versions which seem to support the Trinity doctrine are spurious at best.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180."
A.D. 180 about 80 years after what is now accepted as the Bible canon was completed.
Prepare hornets nest...... :)
So the Holy Trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible? If not then the Holy Trinity isn't the word of God.
Now you're getting into deep water with the doctrine of the Trinity - which I don't believe anyone fully understands but then how can man fully understand God? God sent his Son to save mankind, knowing that He would be killed, and then sent his Holy Spirit. Father, Son and Holy Spirit - three persons in one God. Some things we just have to take on trust. If we understood God we would be God.
At least the Dan Brown novel got people talking and thinking, which is great so long as they don't accept his assertion that it's historically accurate, any more than the story of Adam & Eve or the Creation according to Genesis - they are just stories to make you think. Don't believe the latter should be taught in schools, at least not as history or science.
I was brought up in the church of scotland and always believed that the trinity was three seperate beings, which made sense. when i found out that Jesus was meant to be god AND the holy spirit, it made no sense at all. If he was the son of god, how could he BE god? And when he prayed to God, how could he be praying to himself? When he was baptised, the holy spirit came in the form of a dove and landed on his shoulder. How could that be himself?
On the cross he said 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do,' Who was he speaking to if he was God?
And it also makes more sense that Jesus was married and if he was, then he most probably produced children. I think there is a lot we do not know about the historic facts.
That he was actually the son of the superior being known as god, is a matter of faith.
So the Holy Trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible? If not then the Holy Trinity isn't the word of God.
The nail, head, hit, you've, on the.....rearrange to make a common phrase.
Quite the contrary, as a scientist it goes against the grain of my objectivity to be narrow minded. Give me some evidence that independently supports Dan Brown's claims and I will consider it open mindedly.
Albert Einstein was probably the most famous scientist ever, and he believed in god, i thought that the book made the point that Faith is exactly what it says on the tin, you don't need the proof to believe. Faith in humankind basically being good is not really something we can prove, this is tested everyday just by watching the news, i am not religous but i do have faith in people and i dont go asking for proof of my faith in them.
Dad Browns book is a work of fiction, a novel, it was a really good read, just as Shakespears MacBeth, about a real historical person but his play bears no real truth to the real Macbeth. Still both are good stories, i love a good conspiracy. Dan Brown made the point that Jesus was a real person who lead and influenced people to do better things with their lives.
Science is almost totally incompatible with religion. I say 'almost', but I do not wish that weasel word to be construed as weakness. The only point of compatibility is that there are well-meaning, honest people on both sides who are genuinely and deeply concerned with discovering the truth about this wonderful world. That having been said, there is no actual compatibility between science and religion.
So the Holy Trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible? If not then the Holy Trinity isn't the word of God.
I always have a problem with this "word of God" concept - as if the Bible was written personally by an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud :roll: . I'm Anglican (or Episcopalian up here) and I recently learnt a much better expression - that the Bible is "God breathed" (inspired). After all it was man that assembled a collection of different writings and called it the Bible and there have been many things written since that are similarly inspired. The fact that they were too late to be included in the Bible does not make them any less valid.
I suppose Dan Brown's novel was inspired but not by God. Good story.
I always have a problem with this "word of God" concept - as if the Bible was written personally by an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud :roll: . I'm Anglican (or Episcopalian up here) and I recently learnt a much better expression - that the Bible is "God breathed" (inspired). After all it was man that assembled a collection of different writings and called it the Bible and there have been many things written since that are similarly inspired. The fact that they were too late to be included in the Bible does not make them any less valid.
I suppose Dan Brown's novel was inspired but not by God. Good story.
Inspired by the desire to make a lot of money! cracking read. Can't wait to see the film.
Inspired by the desire to make a lot of money! cracking read. Can't wait to see the film.
I know this will say more about me than it does about the rest of you religious nuts and conspiracy theorists, but I read about 3 quarters of the davinci code last year over a couple of days. It was a lightweight and easy to read story that gripped me for those 2 days until I suddenly wised up. Now dont ask me what I wised up to, but I trust that little bit of me more than the big bit that grew up fed on mysteries.
I still never finished it but I will go and see the movie.
I know this will say more about me than it does about the rest of you religious nuts and conspiracy theorists, but I read about 3 quarters of the davinci code last year over a couple of days. It was a lightweight and easy to read story that gripped me for those 2 days until I suddenly wised up. Now dont ask me what I wised up to, but I trust that little bit of me more than the big bit that grew up fed on mysteries.
I still never finished it but I will go and see the movie.
Wised up to what? (i know you siad don't ask you that) but you imply that it was a factual account of something that might corrupt your mind - or do you mean that you already sussed out the ending? it's just a story for goodness sake!
Albert Einstein was probably the most famous scientist ever, and he believed in god, i thought that the book made the point that Faith is exactly what it says on the tin, you don't need the proof to believe. Faith in humankind basically being good is not really something we can prove, this is tested everyday just by watching the news, i am not religous but i do have faith in people and i dont go asking for proof of my faith in them. Hey weefee, your first sentence is a gross oversimplication. Einstein talked about "God" a lot, but he didn't believe in the personal Judeo-Christian God. Much has been written about Einstein's use of the word God; most of it is ignorant and awful. It's probably best to read what the man actually said (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html). The first quote is rather representative:
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Gleeber might prefer:
“The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously.”
or
“During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes. [...]
One or two others might be drawn to:
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”
Perhaps his most famous statement is:
“I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos.”
Contrary to what most people might believe based on "common sense" arguments, empirical evidence indicates that he was wrong on that one.
Go read the webpage and make up your own minds. IMHO the final quotes from Abraham Pais
“His [Einstein] was not a life of prayer and worship. Yet he lived by a deep faith — a faith not capabIe of rational foundation — that there are laws of Nature to be discovered. His lifelong pursuit was to discover them. His realism and his optimism are illuminated by his remark: ‘Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not’ (‘Raffiniert ist der Herrgott aber boshaft ist er nicht.’). When asked by a colleague what he meant by that, he replied: ‘Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse’ (‘Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List.’)”
and Ronald Clark provide rather nice summaries. Pais' book on Einstein is a tour de force. I haven't read Clark's.
Stephen Hawking likes to talk about God too. He's way smarter than me, he's revered by some, but imho he ain't no Einstein...
Cedric Farthsbottom III
02-Mar-06, 22:16
I read the book and enjoyed it,but all the religious stuff was just a sub-plot in the book.I have also read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,but can't say I looked up information concerning the abominable abuse of Oompah-Loompahs.
The one piece of information that fascinated me from the book was when Brown 'suggests' that the disciple next to Jesus in the picture 'The Last Supper' is not actually a man,but is Mary Magdalene herself.Curiousity might get the better of me one day and might have a look to see.Might even look up on Oompah-Loompahs while I'm at it.:D
It did make me want to go and have a closer look at his paintings especially the last supper.
Oh by the way, I enjoy Harry Potter too.
Then God created Einstein
And everything was relative
And fast things became short
And straight things became curved
And the universe was filled with inertial frames
And God saw that it was relatively general
but some of it was especially relative.:o)
"God not only plays dice, but sometimes throws them where they cannot be
seen." -- Hawking
Cedric Farthsbottom III
02-Mar-06, 22:33
It did make me want to go and have a closer look at his paintings especially the last supper.
Oh by the way, I enjoy Harry Potter too.
Aye totally agree katarina.Might even have to start a thread on the boy wizard.Then again like most books negative points such as witchcraft will be brought up.
Recently started reading books over the past few years.I spent all my childhood sparetime fitbawing,drawing,painting and games o' knuckles:roll: So the books I have read are the one's I missed in my childhood.Don't worry in thirty years or so I will have caught up.:lol:
mostlyharmless
02-Mar-06, 23:28
The story ends with the answer the ultimate answer to life the universe and everything....but your not going to like it......the answer is.....the answer is...
42 more messages until this thread finishes.
Considering how much people like to keep religion personal its amazing how much personal religion there is out there.
And how enlightened we all are that we can still discuss it over a trashy novel .
Now Harry Potter of course well we don't know how that ends yet do we? and it is a far better series of books.
But then again it doesn't try and dramatise and misrepresent a story that has given people peace the world over.Even now those who have read the book and are less read than the fortunate few here decry whatever religious hopes they had in a pool of rich paganism touched with whatever other principles catch the eye.
Everyone should have the right to choose no-one should be forced into any religion but if we offer them less than the peace they have now what have we done. Given them truth? Whose? Mans? In a world that changes its mind so often and frames all miracles with a convenient placebo effect I wonder.A world that gets a theory and does everything it possibly can to keep proving it to be true until it no longers says its a theory; ie evolution. Even our theories about space if they don't work are conveniently manipulated by super particles that work..well we don't quite know how.
Harry Potter offers magic and we lap it up not because we are evil but because we hope there is magic out there somewhere even if it is god...or fairys,or father christmas....and who would take that away from our children?
porshiepoo
03-Mar-06, 00:14
It amazes me how mankind has advanced in so many areas of life yet still clings to an age old belief that there once walked a man that carried out miracles, healed the sick etc etc.
I understand people of that era being in awe of a man that was said to perform the numerous miracles that they thought he did but we know now that Jesus was nothing more than a normal human being, a teacher and perhaps had the gift of healing hands.
The church had the power many many years ago to instill a fear in people that the church was the only place to go to reach god, to be forgiven of sins etc. Absolute rubbish!
We don't need churches, synagogues or any other 'religious' buildings to be heard by god or to be forgiven our sins, the back garden works just as well. Forgiveness of our sins comes from ourselves, in our ability to right what we do wrong and to learn by it. Whats the point in confessing to someone in a small dark box every other day just to keep going back out and repeating those sins???
IMO Jesus was no more or less of a human being than anyone of us is today. He carried out acts that would not seem overly extraordinary to us today, he spoke to god - as many people do today and died for his belief and for his people just as many people do today. That doesn't make him any better than the rest of us.
If the holy grail turned out to be the cup of christ - whoopdy doo!! - it's essentially a chalice that once caught the blood of a human being crucified on a cross for his beliefs.
If the holy grail is Mary Magdalene - again whoopdy doo!! - she was just another human being who may have carried the child of another human being.
Lets get real here - Jesus existed, but as a teacher and not much else. Immaculate conception? poppycock! Thats just a basis to make everyone think that this guy was more spiritual than he ever was - besides it's kinda impossible guys!
As for god? Well, I believe there is a god of sorts but whether this god can be claimed to be male, female or either is anyones guess. Whatever it is, it's all around us, it makes us what we are, it gives us purpose for being here. It doesn't need to be worshipped in this life because we'll ascend to it in the next life.
Then God created Einstein
And everything was relative
And fast things became short
And straight things became curved
And the universe was filled with inertial frames
And God saw that it was relatively general
but some of it was especially relative.:o) You forgot to say that this was written by Tim Joseph (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/28/3/28-3-joseph.pdf).
Lets get real here - Jesus existed, but as a teacher and not much else. Immaculate conception? poppycock! Thats just a basis to make everyone think that this guy was more spiritual than he ever was - besides it's kinda impossible guys!
As for god? Well, I believe there is a god of sorts but whether this god can be claimed to be male, female or either is anyones guess. Whatever it is, it's all around us, it makes us what we are, it gives us purpose for being here. It doesn't need to be worshipped in this life because we'll ascend to it in the next life. Wowee porshiepoo, you're on a roll tonight. While you're demolishing irrational beliefs, could you give the same treatment to reincarnation? :)
A world that gets a theory and does everything it possibly can to keep proving it to be true until it no longers says its a theory; ie evolution.Absolutely. That's how science works. Start with a hypothesis. Test it. If it works, then test it some more. If it still works, then test it to death. If it still works, then you start to believe it. Evolution is a hypothesis that works.
There is no doubt that evolution occurs. Just think of virus evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_evolution) as a trivial example. The interesting question is whether anything else occurs, whether a Hand of God started the whole process, or whether it (still) guides evolution today.
Even our theories about space if they don't work are conveniently manipulated by super particles that work..well we don't quite know how.You may not know how, but I do. Well, I know what the hypothesis is. Supersymmetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry) is a neat idea that hasn't yet been tested directly. But some aspects of it will be tested in a few years. We need bigger accelerators to do the tests, and one should start running in a year or so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider).
Sorry DrSzin, an oversight on my part, I'd hate to be accused of Plagiarism.
have you found the missing link yet szin?
Sorry DrSzin, an oversight on my part, I'd hate to be accused of Plagiarism.Well, it was so good that I thought I'd look it up. I have no idea who Tim Joseph is, but I'm sure you'll agree that he deserves some credit for his writing.
My knowledge about it is limited, but there are a few things I’d like to know, such as how all the races of mankind evolved from the original humans who appeared in Africa. I think it was about 2 million years ago when the first ape men appeared, then later they started to walk in the upright position.
Here are my questions:
1 when did ape men get rid of body hair?
2 what did the first humans that left Africa look like? were they black?
3 why is there greater variation in skin colour among Caucasians than Mongoloids? They both live in extremes of climate. The northern Chinese, Koreans and northern Japanese have sallow yellow, almost white skins, yet the Eskimos are about as dark the mongoloids on the equator, which is a light brown.
4 why do Negros have thick lips and curly hair?
5 why do Mongoloids have straight black hair, slant eyes and yellow skins?
6 why do Caucasians and Negros have similar body size and shape, while Mongoloids are smaller?
Too much theory in the Susie symmetry to get me motivated Doc, but parallel universes less than a millimeter away will get my attention.
My own hypothesis is that we actually live on a quark or maybe a lepton which makes up part of an atom of material which is present on the surface of another planet (not sure if it is inhabited or not), which is actually another quark or lepton……………….
mostlyharmless
03-Mar-06, 18:14
[QUOTE=DrSzin]Absolutely. That's how science works. Start with a hypothesis. Test it. If it works, then test it some more. If it still works, then test it to death. If it still works, then you start to believe it. Evolution is a hypothesis that works.
In the words of Karl Popper, "Science is a history of corrected mistakes",
and then Well what happens is we get wonderful programmes that not only show the evidence of dinosaurs which is brilliant stuff but they sadly go on to say 'and this is exactly what they looked like and exactly how they lived ..and how exactly did they test that ? We're in so much of a hurry to show how right are hypothesis is we lose track of reality.
Quote Dr Szin =The interesting question is whether anything else occurs, whether a Hand of God started the whole process, or whether it (still) guides evolution today.
It is an interesting question but not one that is taught regularly! Why is that?
If we fail to continue to question a theory then how can we progress? Are you for a god,evolution or a bit of both?
Quote Dr Szin:You may not know how, but I do. Well, I know what the hypothesis is.
Spoken by a true scientist or at least an avid reader of the 'new scientist' if you read that over the last 10 years you'd see just how much has been tested and accepted then later refuted. 'Some scientists become sufficiently ego-involved that they refuse to accept new evidence and new ideas. In that case, in the words of one pundit, "science advances funeral by funeral". However, most scientists realize that today's theories are probably the future's outmoded ideas, and the best we can hope is that our theories will survive with some tinkering and fine-tuning by future generations.'
My argument is not with how one comes to an answer in science but that ignorance can be obtained in its name just as easily as with some religions.Until the answer of ...how did you put it
Quote Dr Szin; whether a Hand of God started the whole process, or whether it (still) guides evolution today'
I prefer to keep an open mind to future tinkering too.
And.......I still think the book is weak and Harry Potter is good...
I prefer to keep an open mind!!About what? :confused:
Very occasionally I see a post that I don't know how to respond to. That was one of them. I see lots of words but I don't know what point you're trying to make. So now I'm even more :confused:
mostlyharmless
03-Mar-06, 20:09
Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you by badly inserting your quotes into my message.
I understand quite well how science works my argument is that it may in the wrong hands be as dangerous misleading and controlling as religion has been.
I question evolution in some aspects.[As there may be a supreme being that could create everything in a nano second]
I question religion in some aspects[As science discredits it to some degree]
I question tv programmes on dinosaurs that give an absolute to how they lived and died rather than saying it is a theory based on some facts.
Sciences nice warm comfortable blanket said herbal medicine was rubbish and yet another scientist said recently that it was the medicine of the 21st century.
A hypothesis is an idea not a fact .
I like to keep an open mind to new theories, ideas, etc but I do agree I am sitting on a chair.
:confused :confused :confused quote scotsboy
My own hypothesis is that we actually live on a quark or maybe a lepton which makes up part of an atom of material which is present on the surface of another planet (not sure if it is inhabited or not), which is actually another quark or lepton……………….[/quote]
eh?????
mostlyharmless
03-Mar-06, 20:56
My own hypothesis is that we actually live on a quark or maybe a lepton which makes up part of an atom of material which is present on the surface of another planet (not sure if it is inhabited or not), which is actually another quark or lepton……………….[/quote]
Strange the more I see that the more I'M BEGINNING TO BELIEVE IT!
maybe if I prove black is white and get killed on a zebra crossing , douglas adams will appear to me and tell me God really does exist but not as we know it?
You might want to consider the immaculate conception as it applied to the first born in that well known family.
Aren't all first births virgin births.
Aren't all first births virgin births.
Not usually no. Usually the....er.......lady giving birth is no longer a virgin.
Not usually no. Usually the....er.......lady giving birth is no longer a virgin.
I used the word virgin in the context of being a first birth.Even someone who is not a virgin has a first birth.
I used the word virgin in the context of being a first birth.Even someone who is not a virgin has a first birth.
Yes that's is true. I won't argue with that.
In the context of this thread it wouldn't be called a "virgin birth" however.
porshiepoo
04-Mar-06, 00:48
Does it really matter though eh? Let's face it, it never happened anyway.
But maybe Abalone has hit the nail on the head, maybe that's what was meant by Virgin birth all those years ago! Perhaps it is since then that it has been turned into meaning something more ......erm...ridiculous!
I only read extracts of The Da Vinci code from my newspaper.I didn't bother reading the book because it sounded so like The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail which I read some years ago.
If Mary Magdalene was a "fallen woman" then why would my parish church be called St.Mary Magdalene?
Does it really matter though eh? Let's face it, it never happened anyway.
But maybe Abalone has hit the nail on the head, maybe that's what was meant by Virgin birth all those years ago! Perhaps it is since then that it has been turned into meaning something more ......erm...ridiculous!
I disagree but you would dismiss my beliefs as "poppycock" so there's no point discussing it eh?
porshiepoo
04-Mar-06, 00:56
I disagree but you would dismiss my beliefs as "poppycock" so there's no point discussing it eh?
Why don't you try me?
Your beliefs are your beliefs, mine are no more valid or invaid as your own.
Why don't you try me?
Your beliefs are your beliefs, mine are no more valid or invaid as your own.
Mainly because debates about personal beliefs and faith, in such a forum, are more often than not unconstructive and unproductive for both parties.
You believe it's ridiculous, I believe it's true. That about sums it up.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
04-Mar-06, 01:28
I only read extracts of The Da Vinci code from my newspaper.I didn't bother reading the book because it sounded so like The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail which I read some years ago.
If Mary Magdalene was a "fallen woman" then why would my parish church be called St.Mary Magdalene?
From my reading the Daily Mail this week.....which is a big thing for me as its usually the Record.The writings from Dan Brown actually boosted the sales of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail by about £20 million.So for many fans who read 'The Da Vinci Code'first,actually went back to read this book.
Reminds me of 'The Lord of the Rings'by J.R.R.Tolkein when it first came out was described as a book for hippies.Look at it now,voted the best book ever written, and three of the best films,in my opinion,ever made.:grin:
Personally I have never read it but now I think I may just have to buy it to find out what its like!!
porshiepoo
04-Mar-06, 01:34
I take it we're talking about the virgin birth here?
Just because I don't believe it doesn't make me right.
I respect the fact that some people believe it, maybe I'm not as choice with my words as I could be.
I believe that one of the reasons people believe in alot of what the bible says is because they have a need to believe - conscious belief or not. I think alot of people find comfort in going to a church and praying to god or 'knowing' their sins are forgiven because they've attended confessional....again.
Thats all well and good, but what I'm saying is that 'god' didn't create these concepts, man did. And why did man create the concepts? For his own selfish need to control.
As I said before, we can pray to god in our back garden, in the bath, even on the loo (eek), he'll still hear us just as much as he would in a church. Churches etc bring us no closer to him, we just believe it does because thats what we're led to believe.
The bible (IMO) is a very dangerous piece of fiction. It's amazing how literally people can interpret whats in it.
I don't think you're beliefs are poppycock saveman, far from it, they're your beliefs and you have a right to them.
It did make me want to go and have a closer look at his paintings especially the last supper.
http://www.atstracts.org/images/store/davinci_corner/Da_Vinci_Corner.jpg (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/epages/atsdirect.storefront/4408df9d00155929271d45579e7c062d/Product/View/31684?AD=Davinci_Corner_31684)
Cedric Farthsbottom III
04-Mar-06, 01:41
I take it we're talking about the virgin birth here?
Just because I don't believe it doesn't make me right.
I respect the fact that some people believe it, maybe I'm not as choice with my words as I could be.
I believe that one of the reasons people believe in alot of what the bible says is because they have a need to believe - conscious belief or not. I think alot of people find comfort in going to a church and praying to god or 'knowing' their sins are forgiven because they've attended confessional....again.
Thats all well and good, but what I'm saying is that 'god' didn't create these concepts, man did. And why did man create the concepts? For his own selfish need to control.
As I said before, we can pray to god in our back garden, in the bath, even on the loo (eek), he'll still hear us just as much as he would in a church. Churches etc bring us no closer to him, we just believe it does because thats what we're led to believe.
The bible (IMO) is a very dangerous piece of fiction. It's amazing how literally people can interpret whats in it.
I don't think you're beliefs are poppycock saveman, far from it, they're your beliefs and you have a right to them.
Loved this post porshiepoo,because I always like to keep an open mind.I've always plondered with the power of fiction in books,that in 2000 years time(always like to look to the future)will folk believe that there really was a school called Hogwarts.:D
It's amazing how literally people can interpret whats in it.
There is a good case for the literal belief in the word of God but it has less to do with the litergy but more to do with belief.
porshiepoo
04-Mar-06, 01:49
There is a good case for the literal belief in the word of God but it has less to do with the litergy but more to do with belief.
Theres no proof that it is the word of god though.
It was written by mortal men not by god.
Ok, lets assume Jesus really was the son of god from a virgin birth (hmmm!)
What was the whole point to it? Why did god send him down for 30 odd years just to let him die on a cross???
Surely, if he spoke the word of god as the bible claims, then wouldn't god want the man to live long enough to actually speak his word? Not go off on ramblings that were so obviously gonna get him crucified at that time. And wouldn't it then make more sense that Jesus would father offspring to carry on speaking this word from god??
Why do we so need to believe that the bible is true of fact? The way people thought and interpreted at those times is very different to the way we think now. A miracle then is nothing more than a doctor now.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
04-Mar-06, 01:49
http://www.atstracts.org/images/store/davinci_corner/Da_Vinci_Corner.jpg (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/epages/atsdirect.storefront/4408df9d00155929271d45579e7c062d/Product/View/31684?AD=Davinci_Corner_31684)
Cheers Angela5,saves me going to Wick Library.Now that does look like a lady and the V shape is there too,to present the female.Mmmmmm......either Da Vinci really was in the know,or Dan Brown has got a cracking imagination for writing books.:grin:
porshiepoo
04-Mar-06, 01:50
Loved this post porshiepoo,because I always like to keep an open mind.I've always plondered with the power of fiction in books,that in 2000 years time(always like to look to the future)will folk believe that there really was a school called Hogwarts.:D
You mean there really isn't???????????? :( :(
What was the whole point to it? Why did god send him down for 30 odd years just to let him die on a cross???.
That is the $64,000 question, in fact monetary gain does not even get a look in.
Personally, I try to look into the mind of the man Jesus, and I only come up with one conclusion. He made us all aware that there ARE things worth dying for irrespective of pain, and there are things that are worth more than one's own life. Whether he was the Son of God is immaterial, but one thing is for certain, he inspired a lot of people to lay down their lives for their cause which they believed in. No wonder his religion did catch on.
His legacy will live on.
porshiepoo
04-Mar-06, 02:14
There are alot of people who lay down their life for their country and I have nothing but respect and admiration for those brave souls, however, if they were asked I'm not quite sure how many of them would say 'If Jesus can do it, then I can do it'.
The film 'passion of the christ' was said to have evoked alot of humanitarianism in alot of people, and from the way it was portrayed in the film I'm not suprised, but it doesn't make the history of it factually right.
Mel Gibson decided to make a film based on his interpretation of what the bible says and threw in a load of effects for good measure, the effect that that film had on people just because they were visually seeing what they've been bought up to believe are true events, was astonishing.
I have to admit to being affected by that film, it wasn't an easy film to watch and I think most poeple who watched it were affected by it in some way. But for me it wasn't because Jesus died in that way, it was the horror that anyone could die that way (including the soul on the cross next to him).
Jesus supposedly died for what he believed in, yes, I have no reason to question that, but so do a million an one people in countries all over the world today. But we don't worship them and base a religion on them.
IMO it's an age old tradition more than a religion and I hope that in the future more people see it for what it really is and then perhaps the church and organisations like it will start to relinquish the control they have on people today.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
04-Mar-06, 02:24
There are alot of people who lay down their life for their country and I have nothing but respect and admiration for those brave souls, however, if they were asked I'm not quite sure how many of them would say 'If Jesus can do it, then I can do it'.
The film 'passion of the christ' was said to have evoked alot of humanitarianism in alot of people, and from the way it was portrayed in the film I'm not suprised, but it doesn't make the history of it factually right.
Mel Gibson decided to make a film based on his interpretation of what the bible says and threw in a load of effects for good measure, the effect that that film had on people just because they were visually seeing what they've been bought up to believe are true events, was astonishing.
I have to admit to being affected by that film, it wasn't an easy film to watch and I think most poeple who watched it were affected by it in some way. But for me it wasn't because Jesus died in that way, it was the horror that anyone could die that way (including the soul on the cross next to him).
Jesus supposedly died for what he believed in, yes, I have no reason to question that, but so do a million an one people in countries all over the world today. But we don't worship them and base a religion on them.
IMO it's an age old tradition more than a religion and I hope that in the future more people see it for what it really is and then perhaps the church and organisations like it will start to relinquish the control they have on people today.
I was moved by this film.To see in a directors view of his 'personal' ideals of what the last days of Jesus's life was like was very harrowing.
My personal ideals of life,from a person,who has never read read the bible,have been through my mother who brought three kids up as a single mother.I have turned out the person I have today,respecting others and looking after my own family.Not through religion but from my own 'personal' Jesus,my Mum.:grin:
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotsboy
If Jesus was indeed the Son of God.......was his brother James also the Son of God?
You might want to consider the immaculate conception as it applied to the first born in that well known family.
************************
In response to my original quote abalone wrote:
Aren't all first births virgin births.
I know that I am breaking up the flow here, but I need to wade back in for a bit. Back several pages in my response to scotsboy I used the words "immaculate conception". It can coincide with a virgin birth, but they aren't the same thing, although in reference to the "birth of Jesus story" society tends to use them interchangeably. Scotsboy was trying to suggest that if Jesus was the son of God then so must his brother James. I was trying to say that because of immaculate conception they were not of the same biological stock and so James wasn't by default also a son of God.
And now I really must get the Da Vinci Code book off the shelf and read it. I have a sense that I have wandered onto the stage of a well rehearsed play and that you all know your parts well. I vaguely remember a similar discussion 2 years ago when The Passion came to the big screen. Perhaps you do this every year on Ash Wednesday and then into Lent.
Okay, back to the flow of the thread.
I take it we're talking about the virgin birth here?
Just because I don't believe it doesn't make me right..
that's the most sensible thing I've heard all morning
I believe that one of the reasons people believe in alot of what the bible says is because they have a need to believe .
??? Can't quite get my head round that one - WHY would they
And why did man create the concepts? For his own selfish need to control..
Now that doesn't really make sense. How can man control any one by passing that control over to a mythical god? Dictators have the need to control, they do it by force, not by passing that same control on.
Churches etc bring us no closer to him, we just believe it does because thats what we're led to believe..
could it not be that when all like minded people are gathered together and there is the peace without interruption to get on with the worshipping that it's easier?
The bible (IMO) is a very dangerous piece of fiction. It's amazing how literally people can interpret whats in it..
I believe there are some people saying the same about the holocost.
I don't think you're beliefs are poppycock saveman, far from it, they're your beliefs and you have a right to them.
Wow, two peices of common sense in one morning - how much more can I take?
porshiepoo
04-Mar-06, 10:17
??? Can't quite get my head round that one - WHY would they
Alot of people have a need to believe that there is something more after death, that they can have their sins forgiven before they leave this life, that there is somewhere that they believe will bring them closer to god. If religion had bought us up to believe that place was the local park then thats where it would be.
Now that doesn't really make sense. How can man control any one by passing that control over to a mythical god? Dictators have the need to control, they do it by force, not by passing that same control on.
They control the way we feel as though we have to be in a church to feel close to god. They'll have us believe that we can only be forgiven our sins in the eyes of god by going to confessional, marraige is only legal and proper done in the eyes of the church. Yet these people weren't chosen by god to do his work, he never made this happen and let us know that this was his will.
could it not be that when all like minded people are gathered together and there is the peace without interruption to get on with the worshipping that it's easier?
Exactly! But it's only religion that has led us to believe that that has to happen in a place of 'worship'. Again, control!
Wow, two peices of common sense in one morning - how much more can I take?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps if you spoke more of it yourself, you'd get used to it. ;)
I believe there are some people saying the same about the holocost.
Oh your one of those that has to turn religious debate into that are you!
wow, what a font of all knowledge you are porchie. How wonderful it must be to KNOW what others have strived from the beginnings of time to fathom out!
What a marvelous thing enlightenment is!
So excuse me if I don't go along with your whittle, and continue to swim around in the depths of my own open mind.
Plenty of people on the org have read The Da Vinci Code. I wonder how many people posting about this topic have actually read the Bible?
rockchick
04-Mar-06, 10:58
Interesting point about the Bible#1:
Jesus himself never claimed to be the Son of God, this claim was only made by others. If you read John1:49-51 you'll see where Jesus did claim to be the Son of Man.
Interesting point about the Bible#2:
"Virgin" meant unmarried, not untouched as we take the word today.
Now that doesn't really make sense. How can man control any one by passing that control over to a mythical god? Dictators have the need to control, they do it by force, not by passing that same control on.
By convincing enough people that they are God's representative on earth. Any order they give then is an order from God and must be obeyed and any criticism is a criticism of God. Religion has been a form of crowd control from the beginning though in the beginning I believe it was with the best of intentions, to bring humane laws like "Thou shalt not kill" and to spread peace and love. Unfortunately it soon got hijacked by those greedy for power and has been used to spread hate, fear and misery ever since.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4773124.stm
Plenty of people on the org have read The Da Vinci Code. I wonder how many people posting about this topic have actually read the Bible?
i have - all the way through - missing out all the begats. Very intersting book. I have also read 'Chariot of the gods' and 'return to the stars' both which challenged age old beliefs, yet never raised as much controvesy as the Da Vinci code.
I've also read 'The book of Mormon,' and Darwin's theory, and the brahn seer(if that's the spelling) among others
Also 'Jesus the Christ' which was a proven historical account of the man known as Jesus of Nazereth.
I also have spoken and argued at depth with Jehovah witnesses, Catholics wee frees, spiritualists and others who have held unshakable religious views. but that was when I was back in my 'I want to know the truth' period.
And I have come to the conclusion - THE MORE I LEARN THE LESS I KNOW. So i just gave up and decided to enjoy life as I know it. but it does annoy me when people claim to KNOW that it's all a lot of rubbish.
there are more things in heaven and earth etc. etc.
The DaVinci Code:
(wish I had got this in before the thread turned to the debate it has)
It's just a novel that has captured the imagination of a lot of readers (which is probably what most novelists seek to attain).
Personally - I thought it was a bit cheesy (and as mentioned by another poster - a bit like Clive Cussler's works) - and one of those books that you keep reading to the end but are glad to have finished.
What is easy to understand is the timing of the law suit. Far better to kick off when there is a multi-million dollar movie involved than when it is just a book?
Katarina - do you really live on Stroma?
Plenty of people on the org have read The Da Vinci Code. I wonder how many people posting about this topic have actually read the Bible?
Answers on a postcard, please.
We don't understand how a TV works, but we still watch it. Please don't start all this - "You're not a scientist/priest/churchgoer/Christian, so your opinion isn't valid" routine.
As I said - Dan Brown has captured the imagination of a lot of readers, who may just investigate more on their own. Can't be a bad thing, can it?
Oh - almost forgot> I've read bits of the bible but found that the "message" in the text was open to interpretation, and I didn't generally get it.
porshiepoo
04-Mar-06, 12:41
Get what you're saying Mareng, and I quite agree. Any belief based purely on the stories and interpretations of a book is ridiculous!
What books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the Da Vinci Code - and many others - do is give people a reason to question.
Why do we believe in the ramblings of an age old document (that we've interpreted ourselves - in many different ways) such as the bible but find the likes of Dan Browns ramblings so ludicrous?
Surely we should be asking questions, especially as we know that the events that the bible claim to have taken place, just can't have done. And if people still find it so easy to believe that those 'miraculous' events really did take place then why can't they find it just as easy to accept the similarly 'ridiculous' suggestions in the Da Vinci Code??
mostlyharmless
04-Mar-06, 14:16
Is this a royal we?
porshiepoo
04-Mar-06, 14:24
You know whats meant by the word we, don't turn this into one of those topics where everything everyone says is turned into meaning something else - Oops sorry, this topic is about the bible after all! lol.
You know what I mean though.
excuse me while i go and have a good laugh. We're discussing a BOOK here - why is everyone taking it so seriously? And why are aethiests so afraid of the bible that they have to knock it every chance they get?
Methinks the lady dost protest too much......
porshiepoo
04-Mar-06, 14:45
excuse me while i go and have a good laugh. We're discussing a BOOK here - why is everyone taking it so seriously? And why are aethiests so afraid of the bible that they have to knock it every chance they get?
Methinks the lady dost protest too much......
Been called many things but a lady?....never! lol.
I think it's amusing though how someone can be accused of being afraid of the bible just because they stand against it.
When you joked about people being so serious about a BOOK, was that the Da vinci code? Or the bible?
At the end of the day many people from now until doomsday will stand by the writings of the bible, that'll never change. However, it doesn't make it right.
All I'm saying is that the way it's worded is open to much interpretation because the way we talk nowadays is different to how they spoke then, yet when passages are read to us they are put into the context of life today and I think thats just wrong. Why do we base our religious beliefs on the writings of so many years ago? We have managed to develop and ask questions in every other aspect of life (we used to know the world was flat, we used to know we'd never go into space) yet we don't like to question the bible. why?? Because religion has done such a good job on us that we think to openly question the reliability of the bible nowadays is sinful and likely to prevent us going to heaven. To me, thats such a joke.
We can believe in a god, pray to a god even carry out what we think are gods wishes, if thats what we choose. But we don't have to do it in a 'place of worship' or by extracting verses from the bible.
Been called many things but a lady?....never! lol.
I think it's amusing though how someone can be accused of being afraid of the bible just because they stand against it.
When you joked about people being so serious about a BOOK, was that the Da vinci code? Or the bible?
At the end of the day many people from now until doomsday will stand by the writings of the bible, that'll never change. However, it doesn't make it right.
All I'm saying is that the way it's worded is open to much interpretation because the way we talk nowadays is different to how they spoke then, yet when passages are read to us they are put into the context of life today and I think thats just wrong. Why do we base our religious beliefs on the writings of so many years ago? We have managed to develop and ask questions in every other aspect of life (we used to know the world was flat, we used to know we'd never go into space) yet we don't like to question the bible. why?? Because religion has done such a good job on us that we think to openly question the reliability of the bible nowadays is sinful and likely to prevent us going to heaven. To me, thats such a joke.
We can believe in a god, pray to a god even carry out what we think are gods wishes, if thats what we choose. But we don't have to do it in a 'place of worship' or by extracting verses from the bible.
Religion aside, the Bible provides guidance for life. Guidance which is viewed by some as essential for making a success of your life in todays world. Many view it as outdated information, others view it as more appropriate now than at any time in history. It tells you how to make a success of family life, how to avoid conflict with your fellowman, how to live a happy and fulfilling life and how to get to know your Creator. It also offers an explaination for the condition that mankind now finds itself in, what happens to us when we die, why God permits suffering, why we're here and where we're going.
What a lot of people find difficult is that the Bible provides standards of morality. Many would rather decide for themselves or let society decide for them what is right and what is wrong (much like the Genesis account of Adam and Eve) rather than submit themselves to their Creators standards that he provided for their benefit.
The reason I say all this is not to convince anyone that it's right, but just that it's worth your time and attention rather than dismissing it out of hand.
porshiepoo
04-Mar-06, 16:33
Religion aside, the Bible provides guidance for life. Guidance which is viewed by some as essential for making a success of your life in todays world. Many view it as outdated information, others view it as more appropriate now than at any time in history. It tells you how to make a success of family life, how to avoid conflict with your fellowman, how to live a happy and fulfilling life and how to get to know your Creator. It also offers an explaination for the condition that mankind now finds itself in, what happens to us when we die, why God permits suffering, why we're here and where we're going.
What a lot of people find difficult is that the Bible provides standards of morality. Many would rather decide for themselves or let society decide for them what is right and what is wrong (much like the Genesis account of Adam and Eve) rather than submit themselves to their Creators standards that he provided for their benefit.
The reason I say all this is not to convince anyone that it's right, but just that it's worth your time and attention rather than dismissing it out of hand.
I haven't dismissed it out of hand Saveman.
My thoughts on the subject haven't just been dredged up from some pit in the hope that I'll cause an argument on the subject.
I've read the bible - many times actually - and can see it for what it is, a fiction novel much the same as the other books some people on here are quick to condemn.
Personally, I don't think the bible does any of those things that you say but religion is the cause of many many atrocities in the world.
If people read the bible and decide to live by it as a code of conduct then thats up to them. Does that mean an eye for an eye should be morally right?
Me, I prefer to live by my own beliefs. I don't need to live by the bible in order to submit myself to any creator, we all do that in death anyway.
mostlyharmless
04-Mar-06, 16:36
i have - all the way through - missing out all the begats. Very intersting book. I have also read 'Chariot of the gods' and 'return to the stars' both which challenged age old beliefs, yet never raised as much controvesy as the Da Vinci code.
I've also read 'The book of Mormon,' and Darwin's theory, and the brahn seer(if that's the spelling) among others
Also 'Jesus the Christ' which was a proven historical account of the man known as Jesus of Nazereth.
I also have spoken and argued at depth with Jehovah witnesses, Catholics wee frees, spiritualists and others who have held unshakable religious views. but that was when I was back in my 'I want to know the truth' period.
And I have come to the conclusion - THE MORE I LEARN THE LESS I KNOW. So i just gave up and decided to enjoy life as I know it. but it does annoy me when people claim to KNOW that it's all a lot of rubbish.
there are more things in heaven and earth etc. etc.
Yep I've done most of that too apart from the chariot of the gods and I agree with your final point.
Maybe I should start a thread beginning with rowan atkinsons comments about incitement to religious hatred
He has a good point but I fear the thread would travel several times around the world until it finished
I haven't dismissed it out of hand Saveman.
My thoughts on the subject haven't just been dredged up from some pit in the hope that I'll cause an argument on the subject.
I've read the bible - many times actually - and can see it for what it is, a fiction novel much the same as the other books some people on here are quick to condemn.
Porshiepoo
That is your opinion. Your opinion may influence others. I just wanted to provide a balancing view.
Personally, I don't think the bible does any of those things that you say but religion is the cause of many many atrocities in the world.
The Bible does provide these things, it's just whether you accept them or not.
I can't argue with you about religion.
If people read the bible and decide to live by it as a code of conduct then thats up to them. Does that mean an eye for an eye should be morally right?
I've heard worse things threatened on this forum against various types of offenders.
Me, I prefer to live by my own beliefs. I don't need to live by the bible in order to submit myself to any creator, we all do that in death anyway.
Again that's a matter of opinion and if you have a faith in Bible then it makes clear that, in general, living by our own beliefs and standards is what has caused the world to be in the state it's in now.
porshiepoo
04-Mar-06, 18:52
Again that's a matter of opinion and if you have a faith in Bible then it makes clear that, in general, living by our own beliefs and standards is what has caused the world to be in the state it's in now.[/quote
]
So what? We should live by the standards as set out in the bible and the world would be a better place?
And who is the person that gets the responsibility of interpretting the bible to a code of conduct that we can all follow? After all every one will have a different interpretation of it so we'd have to have one standard to follow.
The world is in the state it's in now because of religion. It really does have a lot to answer for.
]
So what? We should live by the standards as set out in the bible and the world would be a better place?
And who is the person that gets the responsibility of interpretting the bible to a code of conduct that we can all follow? After all every one will have a different interpretation of it so we'd have to have one standard to follow.
The world is in the state it's in now because of religion. It really does have a lot to answer for.
Yes religion has got a lot to answer for the Bible however needs no interpretation, it explains itself.
I said I didn't want a debate, how did you manage to drag me into one? [smirk]
rockchick
04-Mar-06, 19:28
Yes religion has got a lot to answer for the Bible however needs no interpretation, it explains itself.
????
Oh really???
Okay, well, to borrow an old internet goodie...how do you answer the following:
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know
it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev. 1:9. The
problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not
pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you
think would be a fair price for her?
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both
male and female, provided they are purchased from
neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this
applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.
Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I
morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish
is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination
than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of
God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I
wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or
is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though this
is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead
pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I
wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting
two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by
wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread
(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and
blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all
the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone
them? - Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death
at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
????
Oh really???
Okay, well, to borrow an old internet goodie...how do you answer the following:
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know
it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev. 1:9. The
problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not
pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you
think would be a fair price for her?
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both
male and female, provided they are purchased from
neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this
applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.
Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I
morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish
is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination
than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of
God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I
wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or
is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though this
is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead
pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I
wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting
two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by
wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread
(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and
blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all
the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone
them? - Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death
at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Very briefly these were all laws given specifically to the Israelites. Jesus did away with that law. Rom 10:4
Very briefly these were all laws given specifically to the Israelites. Jesus did away with that law. Rom 10:4
How convenient
some of this stuff would bring a tear to a glass eye.
How convenient
some of this stuff would bring a tear to a glass eye.
An explaination was requested. I gave one.
This is why debates don't work.
The reason given to questions aren't excepted because they're rationalised away.....and I'm unwilling to accept the rationalisation.
But hey I'm delighted with what I believe! I hope you're just as pleased with what you believe.
I'll be debating no more... :)
An Irish priest and a Mullah found themselves sharing a compartment in a railway carriage.
After a while, the priest opened the conversation by saying, 'I know that in your religion,you're not supposed to eat pork, have you actually tasted it?'
The Mullah said, 'I must tell the truth, yes I have, on the odd occasion.'
Then the Mullah asked the Priest 'In your religion you priests are supposed to be celibate, but have you ever had a sexual relationship with a female?'
The Priest replied, 'Yes, I knew you would ask that, I have succumbed once or twice.'
There was dead silence for a while.
Then the Mullah peeped over his newspaper and said...'Better than pork, isn't it?'
Oh dear - been away for a night and the world has gone mad. I've missed too much of this to jump in at all the places I'd like to so, briefly, I agree with Katarine and Saveman. Porshie - you seem to have some very odd ideas about modern Christianity and I wonder how much you know about the great discussions and questions that take place where people of faith gather together. I'm not R.C. so I don't believe you have to confess in a box; I'm not Fundamentalist so don't believe every word of the Bible is literal historical fact. I do believe that God sent his Son to show people a better way of living and finally to die for them in one of the most agonizing ways imaginable. Have you read John Robinson's Honest to God? It was written many years ago now but caused a sensation at the time and is just one illustration of the fact that Christians have questioned many aspects of the church's teaching for years but still retain their basic faith.
rockchick
04-Mar-06, 20:30
Very briefly these were all laws given specifically to the Israelites. Jesus did away with that law. Rom 10:4
So, what you're saying is...the Bible evolved?
Very briefly these were all laws given specifically to the Israelites. Jesus did away with that law. Rom 10:4
You could be right, if you interpret "telos" as meaning "termination", however if you use the usual interpretation of "purpose" then it has a completely different meaning.
There is a lot to take in here.
A few ramblings of my own...
Somewhere I remember reading that the word that work in the origional Bible texts ment young woman rather than virgin.
I always found it interesting that it was the women who witnessed Christ’s death at the end. At the time they were not considered great witnesses but they saw it all to the end: makes them very important in Christ’s eyes not matter how much their role has been played down.
porshiepoo
04-Mar-06, 23:25
An explaination was requested. I gave one.
This is why debates don't work.
The reason given to questions aren't excepted because they're rationalised away.....and I'm unwilling to accept the rationalisation.
But hey I'm delighted with what I believe! I hope you're just as pleased with what you believe.
I'll be debating no more... :)
You don't have to accept the rationalisation, just keep on stating what you believe.
These 'debates' only strengthen with people like yourself who are not afraid to stand up and say what they believe.
Yay for you!!:)
mostlyharmless
12-Apr-06, 13:52
Oh No not this again!!!
porshiepoo
12-Apr-06, 17:16
Yep! Hahahahahahaha
Is there any specific examples which you want to draw our attention to?:eyes
It would seem the newly translated gospel of Judas may come under his category.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.