Da Vinci Code.

[Saveman]

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]

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.

[fred]

Evolution has been taught in schools for years.

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.

[Saveman]

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....

[Saveman]

<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.

[badger]

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.

[Saveman]

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

[Tymey]

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......

[Rheghead]

So the Holy Trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible? If not then the Holy Trinity isn't the word of God.

[katarina]

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.

[Saveman]

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.

[weefee]

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.

[Abdullah]

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.

[badger]

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 . 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.

[katarina]

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 . 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.

[gleeber]

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.

[katarina]

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!

[DrSzin]

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. 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]

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.

[katarina]

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.