British actor Ian McKellen has slammed the leaders of the Catholic Church for urging people not to read Dan Brown's controversial novel The Da Vinci Code.

While the book has proved hugely popular internationally, the Vatican's reaction to the way its religion is depicted by Brown has been far from positive.

But McKellen, who recently finished filming a movie version of the book with Tom Hanks, brands the church's stance against the novel "pathetic". He says: "People are always interested in mystery, but when it's a mystery that suggests that a major influence on all our lives - the Catholic Church - has perhaps been misleading us all this time, then it becomes spectacularly sensational.

I heard on the news this morning that the Christian faction is calling for a disclaimer at the front of this movie proclaiming it as fiction. What a crock, nobody required a disclaimer at the front of passion of the Christ and it was fiction.

those catholics should never say anything to defend their beliefs, if they do they are fascists! how dare they! for the love of all that is good and holy, shut the fuck up echo, I beg you!

Originally posted by Travh20
those catholics should never say anything to defend their beliefs, if they do they are fascists! how dare they! for the love of all that is good and holy, shut the fuck up echo, I beg you!

gawd I love seeing a man on his knees begging. Gets me all....well...wet!

He has a point, they are defending themselves just as you would if someone countered your views

No one knows the truth about these historical events. We don't really have any poof that the bible is right; we don't have any proof that the Di Vinci code is right. It is all fictional speculation.

Our legal system is built on precedence. If the church manages to get this forced by legal means, then every movie that has anything fictional at all in it will have to have a disclaimer. It is ridiculous.

The book 'The Da Vinci Code' has a disclaimer in it that it is a factual account.
The book has a disclaimer stating it is factual, and yet you admit it is fictitious. And when the Church wishes to defend itself by crying 'fiction' you do not raise the battle cry.

The people on the other side of the fence have no right to do this as well?
Do i detect bias or did you just not take the book disclaimer to consideration?

People say the bible is not fictional because they believe it. The problem is, when a movie or book is written about history, parts of it are going to be fictional. Hell, the dialog is fictional, the story line is all we have any idea about and it can't be proved. So I call all hisorical stuff written to entertain "historical fiction". Very different from a documentary which should stick only to the known facts. (unless michael moore produced it - lol).

Bible is full of alot of fiction. Mostly in the Old Testament, which is mainly just stories illustrating moral points. Although many of them have some historical backing (such as Moses, the Jews, and Ramses having political squabbles). The New testament follows Jesus around as he tells these moral fables to people around Judea/Palestine/Israel.
The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is not a textbook with all these answers, just moral values to teach. The protestant sects say that it can function as a history book.

History book or not, The Da Vinci Code attacked the central belief of all the sects of Christianity, which are historically recorded and are factual, yet Brown decided to refute it.
That is where this conflict comes from

Originally posted by Evakian
History book or not, The Da Vinci Code attacked the central belief of all the sects of Christianity, which are historically recorded and are factual, yet Brown decided to refute it.
That is where this conflict comes from

The central beliefs of all sects of christianity are not factual. Brown is refuting nothing, he is giving his take on it.

Brown is refuting the biggest, most important part of Christianity. Jesus, the Messiah- his life, death, teachings, followers, and family. These are historically recorded in ancient annals, which is why i used the term factual.

You used 'beliefs', i used belief, which was refering to Jesus as Christ.

Just clearing that up

Maybe they just don't like the idea that millions of impressionable people will watch the movie and think the church is EVIL!!!

McKellen has a point, though. vatican has no right telling people what not to read. if anything they've just gone and encouraged people to read da vinci code just to see what the church is so upset about. also shows how insecure the vatican is, thinking their followers will believe dan brown over the pope (or whoever's really in charge... it is a conspiracy book, after all)

I guess one has to believe in the whole christianity thing to consider any of that stuff factual. I don't, so to me the bible is just poorly written fiction. I give it no more historical weight than the Wizard of Oz or Lord of the Rings.

Originally posted by Echo2
I guess one has to believe in the whole christianity thing to consider any of that stuff factual. I don't, so to me the bible is just poorly written fiction. I give it no more historical weight than the Wizard of Oz or Lord of the Rings.

Those two stories were based out of material from the Bible :)

Originally posted by box19
Maybe they just don't like the idea that millions of impressionable people will watch the movie and think the church is EVIL!!!

McKellen has a point, though. vatican has no right telling people what not to read. if anything they've just gone and encouraged people to read da vinci code just to see what the church is so upset about. also shows how insecure the vatican is, thinking their followers will believe dan brown over the pope (or whoever's really in charge... it is a conspiracy book, after all)

The Vatican has full right to tell their followers what to read. They have done that for many books over the ages. They want to protect their followers from reading blasphemous texts that may damage their thinking patterns. They do this in full interests of keeping people from bad mouthing Christ.

"Believe Dan Brown over the Pope" Well, the Church well knows about people's impressionability and how they are sheep (shown by their book censorship). So they can expect that people would believe this, so they should scramble to stop the conspiracy theories.

Plus the disclaimer in the book proclaims it is factual. So people may be swayed based on that, however silly that sounds, it works on people.

Originally posted by Echo2
I guess one has to believe in the whole christianity thing to consider any of that stuff factual. I don't, so to me the bible is just poorly written fiction. I give it no more historical weight than the Wizard of Oz or Lord of the Rings.

So the fact that there are endless historical annals(i am not saying 'The Bible', i mean books, journals, scrolls, etc) discovered and placed in museums telling us of Jesus traveling through Judea preaching and his principles have been carried on for 2 milllenia still makes you say that it is all fantasy and Jesus never existed?

Originally posted by Evakian
So the fact that there are endless historical annals(i am not saying 'The Bible', i mean books, journals, scrolls, etc) discovered and placed in museums telling us of Jesus traveling through Judea preaching and his principles have been carried on for 2 milllenia still makes you say that it is all fantasy and Jesus never existed?

I do believe he was a real person, however his teachings as we recieve them today could have been from a collection of people and are probubly very different than when he spoke them. I do not believe he had magical powers and could cure the sick and such forth.

ahh ok, that makes more sense.

But pets, prayers, mysterious happenings, even people's faith in something have cured people.
Do you not think that people hearing the words of a soothing sage who wanted to help them and care for them wouldn't help the people?

Even if you do not believe there is 'magic' afoot (they usually are called miracles or works of God, not magic, thats like pulling rabbits out of hats) in Him, He could still have healing abilities over someone.

And the Incorruptibles,which are organs or whole bodies that do not deteriorate because of unknown causes such as Saint Vincent De Paul's corpse, are beyond scientific explanation. Or another thing involving Saint Peter was in roman prison before he died, the stone he laid his head upon softened to be soft like a pillow as he prayed to God.

Those things are concrete and still around today, so you cannot cry fictional at them.

The book 'The Da Vinci Code' has a disclaimer in it that it is a factual account.
It bloody hell does not!

"FACT:

The Priory of Sion -- a European secret society founded in 1099 -- is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.

The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as "corporal mortification." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."


Read the disclaimer before you make assumptions about what it says. It does not say that the account is factual, nor does it state that any of what occured in it is even based in truth unless that has to do with an actual document.
The only issue I have with it is that it claims the Priory of Sion to have existed, something that is certainly not verifiable.

'All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate'

Thus telling us it is truthful, through these documents they cause the problems, they are the cause of controversy. Saying that it is all accurate when millions of people have checked that out and shot it down.

So it did, not using the words as blunt as i did, but it did claim to be truthful.

anyway, we were busy discussing the existance of jesus, as you can see in my past few posts, any thoughts on that

Thus telling us it is truthful, through these documents they cause the problems, they are the cause of controversy. Saying that it is all accurate when millions of people have checked that out and shot it down.
No, regarding the documents he is wholly correct. They exist. The assumptions that Brown makes from those documents, however, cannot be considered correct in any way shape or form. He never claims them to be. The controversy is in the opinions Brown forms in his book, and yes, for many people it can be very very difficult(Brown is a crappy ass writer) to determine which is based off existing documents and which he is assuming.

anyway, we were busy discussing the existance of jesus, as you can see in my past few posts, any thoughts on that
It cannot be certain, however I think that there is a good chance that somebody claiming to be a prophet, named Jesus, once existed. Whether there is any more at all to this story, I do not know, but I think it's unlikely.

Originally posted by Blibblob
The book 'The Da Vinci Code' has a disclaimer in it that it is a factual account.
It bloody hell does not!

.....................................
Read the disclaimer before you make assumptions about what it says. It does not say that the account is factual, nor does it state that any of what occured in it is even based in truth unless that has to do with an actual document.
The only issue I have with it is that it claims the Priory of Sion to have existed, something that is certainly not verifiable.


Aaaaaaaaaaaahhh thank you Blibblob!!!!!

It is fiction... and why the Catholic church is having a hissy over it is precisely for this reason... people think it may be true and they do not have the mentality to research it themselves, and form their own opinion!!!

Originally posted by Evakian
So the fact that there are endless historical annals(i am not saying 'The Bible', i mean books, journals, scrolls, etc) discovered and placed in museums telling us of Jesus traveling through Judea preaching and his principles have been carried on for 2 milllenia still makes you say that it is all fantasy and Jesus never existed? Could you provide details and links to these book, journals, scrolls and the museums they are in?
[b]And the Incorruptibles,which are organs or whole bodies that do not deteriorate because of unknown causes such as Saint Vincent De Paul's corpse, are beyond scientific explanation. Or another thing involving Saint Peter was in roman prison before he died, the stone he laid his head upon softened to be soft like a pillow as he prayed to God.

Those things are concrete and still around today, so you cannot cry fictional at them.Again, some references would be appreciated.

In "The Da Vinci Code" it was the mysterious Priory of Sion and the religious order, Opus Dei.
In "Angels & Demons", it's the Illuminati and the Order of the Assassins. In both novels, most of these groups have connections, real or imagined, to the Freemasons.

These novels are the novelist Dan Brown's carefully constructed-though sometimes implausible-web of historical truths and fictions, attempting to sell books, and sell books only.

This is my opinion, in a nut-shell.

As long as one knows the book is fiction, I have no problem with anyone reading and enjoying it. Personally, I thought it was terrific.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
In "The Da Vinci Code" it was the mysterious Priory of Sion and the religious order, Opus Dei.
In "Angels & Assassins", it's the Illuminati and the Order of the Assassins. In both novels, most of these groups have connections, real or imagined, to the Freemasons.

These novels are the novelist Dan Brown's carefully constructed-though sometimes implausible-web of historical truths and fictions, attempting to sell books, and sell books only.

This is my opinion, in a nut-shell.

I think you mean 'Angels and Demons'

Yes jerejere 'Code' was very entertaining, try 'Angels & Demons' it has the same main character and is more suspenseful (about a bomb plot).

These novels are the novelist Dan Brown's carefully constructed-though sometimes implausible-web of historical truths and fictions, attempting to sell books, and sell books only.- Dan Fussell

Well put, i think so too.

Oh, I've read it too, Evakian.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Evakian
[B]I think you mean 'Angels and Demons'
----------------------------------------------------------
Yes thanks, I was in a hurry and did not proof read.
Correction has been made.

Having read, and re-read, the Da Vinci Code I've come to the conclusion that I well and truly just don't care. I don't care if the Catholic Church wants this movie gone. I don't care if people choose to make this into some major issue or something. I don't even care if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. I just want to watch the movie without having the Chruch, and I mean any of them, interfering in my enjoyment of what looks like it might be a good flick. So, my suggestion is that the clergy simply take some blood pressure medicine, sit down, shut up, and pass the popcorn.

ITS FUNNY BEACSUE WHEN MEL GIBSON MAD E A RELIGIOUS MOVE EVERYONE AND THEIR BROTHER "INTERFERED" WITH IT, CALLING IT ANTI SEMETIC AND TO VIOLENT AND BLAH BLAH BLAH.

yet now the catholics speak out agaisnt a moveie that basically puts down their entire belief system and they are interfering.

Originally posted by Travh20
ITS FUNNY BEACSUE WHEN MEL GIBSON MAD E A RELIGIOUS MOVE EVERYONE AND THEIR BROTHER "INTERFERED" WITH IT, CALLING IT ANTI SEMETIC AND TO VIOLENT AND BLAH BLAH BLAH.

yet now the catholics speak out agaisnt a moveie that basically puts down their entire belief system and they are interfering.
Nice typing...not that it matters, though...hahaha

Originally posted by Travh20
ITS FUNNY BEACSUE WHEN MEL GIBSON MAD E A RELIGIOUS MOVE EVERYONE AND THEIR BROTHER "INTERFERED" WITH IT, CALLING IT ANTI SEMETIC AND TO VIOLENT AND BLAH BLAH BLAH.

yet now the catholics speak out agaisnt a moveie that basically puts down their entire belief system and they are interfering.

I may be a little fuzzy on this point but I really don't remember a Catholic holocaust in the last century. Correct me if I am wrong.

I was just saying that a previous poster made a big deal about the catholics being upset about the Davinci Code movie, but when the passion of the christ came out, and all the "controversy" came up about it being anti semetic and to violent thsoe were perfectly legit and were not questioned. why is the catholic church geeting hell for speaking out agaisnt a movie concerning its belief system?

I'll give you that Trav. But I ask you - why didn't Catholics speak out against Passion when it clearly portrayed Jews in a negative light but get all upset if someone portrays them in a less than flattering manner? As a matter of fact, I seem to recall The Pope as saying "It is how it was" after screening the film. It strikes me as the same mentality that condemns affirmative action WHILE vigorously defending nepotism and cronyism as perfectly fine.

well, its kind of hard to gloss over the crucifixion of Jesus. It did happen in Jerusalem which was a Jewish city. even Jesus himself was Jewish. How tehy could have portyaed that in a different light and still be accurate is beyond me. As far as the davinci code, it is a novel. You can argue that the bible is a novel, but there are not billions of people who believe in the davinci code like there is in the bible. It just seems silly to have people so defensive about anyone speaking out agaisnt the davnci code lik eit was the bible and not the other way around.

and I do not protect nepotism and cronyism. I dont like them anyomre then I like affirmative action. instead of race prefrences you get some good old boy union jobs handed down from generation to generation.

Originally posted by Tapeworm
I'll give you that Trav. But I ask you - why didn't Catholics speak out against Passion when it clearly portrayed Jews in a negative light but get all upset if someone portrays them in a less than flattering manner? As a matter of fact, I seem to recall The Pope as saying "It is how it was" after screening the film. It strikes me as the same mentality that condemns affirmative action WHILE vigorously defending nepotism and cronyism as perfectly fine. "Clearly portraying Jews in a negative light is questionable. It did not portray Jews in a negative light. It portrayed "some" Jews in a negative light. Are we so politically correct now a movie could not be made about WW ll because it would portray Germans in a negative light, or Italians?

It is not merely Catholics that believe the events unfolded as such it is Christianity. The leader of the Catholic church supposedly was to have said he concurred with the production and presentation.

And it was not ever verified that the pope actually said that although it was used as endorsement for the movie. Gibson himself is not a papal Catholic anyway. He broke from the church long ago.

Regardless, that is how it supposedly happened and that is what Christianity is based on. Are they to rewrite their belief history because it is politically incorrect?

Originally posted by Travh20

and I do not protect nepotism and cronyism. I dont like them anyomre then I like affirmative action. instead of race prefrences you get some good old boy union jobs handed down from generation to generation.

Trav, you surprised me with this statement. I did not expect this from you at all. I am serious. There is hope for you after all. ;)

Originally posted by ~Sal~
"Clearly portraying Jews in a negative light is questionable. It did not portray Jews in a negative light. It portrayed "some" Jews in a negative light. Are we so politically correct now a movie could not be made about WW ll because it would portray Germans in a negative light, or Italians?

It is not merely Catholics that believe the events unfolded as such it is Christianity. The leader of the Catholic church supposedly was to have said he concurred with the production and presentation.

And it was not ever verified that the pope actually said that although it was used as endorsement for the movie. Gibson himself is not a papal Catholic anyway. He broke from the church long ago.

Regardless, that is how it supposedly happened and that is what Christianity is based on. Are they to rewrite their belief history because it is politically incorrect?

It does not help that historically Jew have been portrayed in a negative light for their entire history. It also does not help when Mel Gibson's father denied the holocaust and Mel, in all of his historically accurate ways, said nothing to the contrary. I loved my father but if he had said anything like that I would speak up. BTW - How do you know that Mel's account (or even the bible after being rewritten time and time again) is historically correct? After all, anti semitism has been around for a long, long time.

if you saw the movie you would see that there were also some people who went out of their way to help jesus along the way too.

Originally posted by Tapeworm
It does not help that historically Jew have been portrayed in a negative light for their entire history. It also does not help when Mel Gibson's father denied the holocaust and Mel, in all of his historically accurate ways, said nothing to the contrary. I loved my father but if he had said anything like that I would speak up. BTW - How do you know that Mel's account (or even the bible after being rewritten time and time again) is historically correct? After all, anti semitism has been around for a long, long time.

You are right about their historical portrayal and I know there are some people whose world is so small they actually think that "the Jews killed Christ". Part of the reason for that is their adaptability. Jews always adapt and they always do well and it pisses people off. They are a hearty people... always have been, and always will be.

I heard what his father said and it was pretty shocking. Perhaps he should have spoken up but perhaps to let it die was also wise. I don't know what I personally would have done. I hope I will always speak up for silence can be deafening.

Historically speaking we do not know if it even happened. It is merely a Christian belief that it happened. I personally think it did happen in this way. But then I have been indoctrinated since I was small to believe it. And even though I am not really a Christian in the traditional sense the belief is still there.

As for anti-semitism, I have worked for Jews for over 25 years. It is alive and well much to my shock and it flourishes even in this day and age. I think it always will.

But honestly tapeworm I do not think the movie promoted it.

One thing that was very inaccurate in The Passion was their portrayal of Pontius Pilate as a kind, warm-hearted man who simply had to yield to the demands of the mob. That effectively puts the entire blame on the Jews, since it absolves Pilate of any guilt.

Another thing I found interesting in The Passion was that it shows Mary Magdelene as the adulterer that Jesus saved from stoning. As far as I know, there's nothing in the Bible that suggests that they're the same person, so it seems that Mel Gibson made that assertion on his own. Could Gibson have been trying to attack or refute The Da Vinci Code by portraying Mary Magdelene as a sinner, not worthy of the high place that The Da Vinci code puts her in?

Originally posted by Jester
One thing that was very inaccurate in The Passion was their portrayal of Pontius Pilate as a kind, warm-hearted man who simply had to yield to the demands of the mob. That effectively puts the entire blame on the Jews, since it absolves Pilate of any guilt.

Another thing I found interesting in The Passion was that it shows Mary Magdelene as the adulterer that Jesus saved from stoning. As far as I know, there's nothing in the Bible that suggests that they're the same person, so it seems that Mel Gibson made that assertion on his own. Could Gibson have been trying to attack or refute The Da Vinci Code by portraying Mary Magdelene as a sinner, not worthy of the high place that The Da Vinci code puts her in?

Actually, that is a good point about Pilate. I was actually taught he was a coward who was too afraid to save Christ so he did the will of the San Hedron instead. Christ was a Jew. Many wished to save Him. It still does not place the entire blame on Jews but only an isolated faction who were afraid that Christ would seize their power because of the people's love for him.

As for Mary Magdelene I believe I read somewhere that fallacy of her whoredom came from a pope (sorry) can't remember which one... he was using it for some manipulation or another.

Originally posted by ~Sal~
Actually, that is a good point about Pilate. I was actually taught he was a coward who was too afraid to save Christ so he did the will of the San Hedron instead. Christ was a Jew. Many wished to save Him. It still does not place the entire blame on Jews but only an isolated faction who were afraid that Christ would seize their power because of the people's love for him.

As for Mary Magdelene I believe I read somewhere that fallacy of her whoredom came from a pope (sorry) can't remember which one... he was using it for some manipulation or another.

I find that the Muslim version of the story is a bit more believeable. Their version says that Jesus wasn't crucified. That someone else died in his place, and that God took him, body and soul, into heaven.

The reason I find it more believeable is, to start, Jesus was good for the Romans. More specifically, he was good for business. In one of the stories, there's mention of the Pharisees asking Jesus if they should pay their taxes, or some such. Jesus' response was, "Render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's." In other words, he told them to pay their taxes. Given Roman greed at the time, I'd imagine this made him very popular with them.

Also, one should consider another point. Pilate hated the Jews. He made no effort to hide it. So, given his contempt for them, and his superior military strength, what reason would he have to kill Jesus. It just doesn't make sense.

I'd think that maybe the whole affair was carried out by a small faction who were merely protecting the status quo because they saw no advantage for themselves in the changes Jesus represented. If you ask me, it was the pharisees, and/or their supporters, and not the Romans or the other Jews. Just my two cents worth.

In other words, he told them to pay their taxes

Actually, His disciples did not pay taxes as a result of their teachings

One thing that was very inaccurate in The Passion was their portrayal of Pontius Pilate as a kind, warm-hearted man who simply had to yield to the demands of the mob. That effectively puts the entire blame on the Jews, since it absolves Pilate of any guilt.

well jester, i wouldn't use the term "kind, warm-hearted". And his attempts at trying to have the trial within Herod's Court and the court of the Sanhedrin suggests he was trying to either keep jesus from death or absolve himself of the blame to avoid a jewish conflict. Gibson did a pretty well done and accurate (to an extent) presentation of this.

Another thing I found interesting in The Passion was that it shows Mary Magdelene as the adulterer that Jesus saved from stoning. As far as I know, there's nothing in the Bible that suggests that they're the same person, so it seems that Mel Gibson made that assertion on his own. Could Gibson have been trying to attack or refute The Da Vinci Code by portraying Mary Magdelene as a sinner, not worthy of the high place that The Da Vinci code puts her in?

That may not be clearly spelled out that the whore and magdalene are one in the same, but it is the general consensus interpretation, not mel's

I find that the Muslim version of the story is a bit more believeable. Their version says that Jesus wasn't crucified. That someone else died in his place, and that God took him, body and soul, into heaven.

Yea, alot more believable :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Txn8ive
I find that the Muslim version of the story is a bit more believeable. Their version says that Jesus wasn't crucified. That someone else died in his place, and that God took him, body and soul, into heaven.

I have heard this theory before and also find it interesting. According to Christian belief, Christ's body was to have decended into hell and then at some later point ascended into heaven. Why though would God have allowed another to have taken Christ's place? What would the advantage to that be? Why is it more believable?

Originally posted by Evakian
In other words, he told them to pay their taxes

Actually, His disciples did not pay taxes as a result of their teachings

What are you basing this on? Why do you say they did not pay taxes? I do not recall ever reading that in the bible.

And he did tell the crowds when asked, to render unto Caesar what was Caesar's.

Originally posted by ~Sal~
I have heard this theory before and also find it interesting. According to Christian belief, Christ's body was to have decended into hell and then at some later point ascended into heaven. Why though would God have allowed another to have taken Christ's place? What would the advantage to that be? Why is it more believable?

As it was explained to me, by a Muslim, the one who died in Christ's place did so due to mistaken identity. It wasn't an act of Martyrdom, it simply was a case of, "Hey, this guy looks like Yeshua, so he must he him. Let's get him!" Gotta love that mob mentality.

Originally posted by Evakian
[B]

Yea, alot more believable :rolleyes:

I meant comparatively. Being that I'm neither Christian, Muslim, nor Jew, the whole thing is academic for me. Evakain, sometimes seeing what isn't being said is as important as what's been said.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
As it was explained to me, by a Muslim, the one who died in Christ's place did so due to mistaken identity. It wasn't an act of Martyrdom, it simply was a case of, "Hey, this guy looks like Yeshua, so he must he him. Let's get him!" Gotta love that mob mentality.

Okay, and Christ the supposed "son" of God equal to "God" IS God would be coward enough to allow some poor fool to take His place...to suffer the agony of crucifixion all to save his own ass.... to me that is despicable. That is literally the worst scenario of a supposed savior that I could ever imagine. :confused:

I think I'll stick (somewhat)...in the loosest sense possible with the Christian version...at least there he had the balls to do His job...;)

Originally posted by ~Sal~
Okay, and Christ the supposed "son" of God equal to "God" IS God would be coward enough to allow some poor fool to take His place...to suffer the agony of crucifixion all to save his own ass.... to me that is despicable. That is literally the worst scenario of a supposed savior that I could ever imagine. :confused: The thing is that Muslims don't view Jesus as God or a savior but as a mortal human being. If that's the case then it's reasonable to say that he might do something like that.

Originally posted by Jester
The thing is that Muslims don't view Jesus as God or a savior but as a mortal human being. If that's the case then it's reasonable to say that he might do something like that.

aaaaaaaaaaahhhh...good point! :D

Originally posted by ~Sal~
Okay, and Christ the supposed "son" of God equal to "God" IS God would be coward enough to allow some poor fool to take His place...to suffer the agony of crucifixion all to save his own ass.... to me that is despicable. That is literally the worst scenario of a supposed savior that I could ever imagine. :confused:

I think I'll stick (somewhat)...in the loosest sense possible with the Christian version...at least there he had the balls to do His job...;)

If you'll look back a few posts, you'll see why Jesus wasn't there. Please pay attention. I really dislike repeating myself.

Originally posted by Jester
The thing is that Muslims don't view Jesus as God or a savior but as a mortal human being. If that's the case then it's reasonable to say that he might do something like that.

They view Jesus as having been a prophet sent by God.

Originally posted by Txn8ive
If you'll look back a few posts, you'll see why Jesus wasn't there. Please pay attention. I really dislike repeating myself. You don't like repeating yourself... well, boo hoo, here's a Kleenex snotty....:) YOU have only one other post in this thread and it says nothing about why Jesus wasn't there...

In the same thread I quoted from it says God sucked him up like a vacuum into heaven... Bissel will love him...

One??? Ummm...I know I've posted more than that.

Well, let's face it---the book is certainly misleading, and the History Channel ripped it a new one. From the art 'symbolism' to the 'secret' cults, the book *is* fiction. The problem is people who actually take it at face value. The church has every right to condemn it. Imagine if someone wrote a misleading book about the history of some minority group. Damn right groups would be flipping their lids about it. The book is candy and well written, but junk in terms of history.

Originally posted by pletorius238
From the art 'symbolism' to the 'secret' cults, the book *is* fiction. . . . The church has every right to condemn it.

Yeah, they certainly have the right to condemn it. But they need to realize that it makes them look stupid for acting as if the book is trying to be a serious work of scholarship. If the church knows the book is fiction then they don't need to say anything at all.

But they need to realize that it makes them look stupid for acting as if the book is trying to be a serious work of scholarship. If the church knows the book is fiction then they don't need to say anything at all.

You overestimate the intelligence of the general populace. If they did nothing, many would fall prey to the story. :D

Originally posted by Evakian
You overestimate the intelligence of the general populace. If they did nothing, many would fall prey to the story. :D

I remember, in an episode of the X-Files, a guy making a comment that pretty much rings true. "99% of the world is stupid, and the rest of us are in great danger of contagion."