The Da Vinci Code: Truth Behind the Lies
By Paul Strand
CBN News


CBN News -- HOLLYWOOD, California - Now that The Da Vinci Code has opened, millions of people around you may suddenly be wondering if everything the church has told them is based on a lie.

CBN News talked to some of Christianity's leading scholars about the answers you can give on why your faith is built on solid facts.

"Seek the Truth" is the movie's motto. And the book starts out saying, “FACT: All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”

But then it goes on to make the most outrageous claims about Christianity based on these supposed facts.

"It goes right to the core of Christianity: was Jesus Christ the Son of God or not?" said Christian author Lee Strobel.

The clever presentation of twisted facts makes many people doubt the faith. Strobel saw this up-close and quite painfully after he had been wooing a famous Muslim-American towards accepting Christ.

"He's read this book called The Da Vinci Code, and he said, 'This has confirmed all my worst suspicions about Christianity,' Strobel said, “And all of a sudden he wasn't interested anymore in investigating the claims of Christianity."

The story's boldest charge -- that for two millennia now the church has conspired to hide the fact that, for the first three centuries of Christianity, Jesus' followers just considered him a mortal prophet – and that it wasn't until 325 A.D. that the emperor Constantine called together the Council of Nicea with the express purpose of suddenly declaring Jesus divine.

But Gregory Koukl of the organization 'Stand to Reason' says all the evidence shows that Christians considered Jesus the divine Son of God from the beginning.

"The early Christians, from Ignatius at the beginning of the second century on, all defended the divinity of Christ,” Koukl said. “Now, if this idea was introduced at the Council of Nicea, how is it that early Christians in their extant writings that we possess now -- you can Google them up and find them on the Internet -- how is it that, to a person, they all defended the divinity of Christ, if they didn't hold this view?"

Da Vinci Code creator Dan Brown also claims that Constantine tossed out some 80 gospels about Jesus, and then handpicked the other books of the present-day Bible because they deified Jesus.

But that's far from the truth.

William Edgar is a professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary. Edgar said, "The gospels that were rivals had long been dismissed as having no light to shine whatsoever on the New Testament events. They were rival gospels because they had a very different theology, so the church never really recognized them."

The book and movie claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and their descendants formed one line of the kings of France.
New Testament studies professor Darrell Bock has written Breaking the Da Vinci Code. He said Brown depends on two murky passages from two rejected gospels to come up with Jesus' marriage.

“[According to these rejected gospels], ‘Jesus loved Mary more than He loved the 12,' and out of that, the inference comes that He was married to Mary Magdalene. One of them has a reference to her being His companion, but that term can mean everything from a spouse to a spiritual sister," Bock said.

Josh McDowell is one of Christendom's leading apologists and author of The Da Vinci Code: A Quest for Answers.

"There is not a wisp of evidence anywhere that Jesus Christ was married,” McDowell said, “but there's an abundance of evidence that he wasn't."

The Da Vinci Code states that Jesus intended to make Mary the leader of his new religion, but a sexist church hid that truth and then slaughtered anyone who tried to uncover it.

Brown and the film claim that a secret group created in 1099, called the Priory of Sion protected Jesus' descendants from a wrathful Catholic Church, and secret members of Priory, like Leonardo Da Vinci, hid clues in their art to lead people to the supposed truth about Jesus, Mary, and their descendants.

Strobel went to France with a film crew to investigate these claims. "I have in my hand the actual filing with the French government to create this organization the Priory of Sion, and it is dated May 7, 1956 -- not 1099,” Strobel explained. “And it's signed by a guy named Pierre Plantard as the secretary general of this organization. And Pierre Plantard was a convicted con man, who did time for counterfeiting and fraud."

So Jesus wasn't divine, he was married, he had children, and the church has been lying about and killing people to cover this up for the last 2,000 years? Well, what else did The Da Vinci Code get wrong?

Brown couldn't even get the little details right.

Strobel said, "To call the book The Da Vinci Code -- nobody would call Leonardo 'da Vinci.' You don't call him 'da Vinci' -- that means 'from the town of Vinci.' His name is Leonardo. Art historians refer to him as 'Leonardo,' not 'da Vinci.'"

In his book, Brown said the Council of Nicea’s vote to make Christ divine was a perilously close vote. Koukl points out the vote was not to suddenly make Christ divine, but to affirm the centuries-old belief in his divinity, and it wasn't a close vote at all.

"The fact is, we know what the vote was,” Koukl said. “It was 316 to two."

Brown also claims that Mary Magdalene's bones are buried beneath the Louvre pyramid. "And he adds this bit of conspiracy by saying that if you count up the number of panes of glass on this pyramid, there are 666,” Strobel said. “Like, 'ooh, Satan's number, this is a big conspiracy.' Well, if you go over there and you investigate it, what you find out is there are 673 panes of glass."

But Brown and the movie sound so confident in their claims, it can rock the faith of those who aren't educated in the facts.

Edgar said, "We have a gullible culture and a gullible church. One of the reasons is that we are simply biblically illiterate."
"Why would you want to reward Hollywood for producing anti-Christian propaganda?" Strobel questioned.

He thinks that few believers should lay their money down to see The Da Vinci Code.

"I think frankly, the only Christians who should go this movie are Christians who have, number one, done their homework so they cannot be susceptible to the lies of the movie,” Strobel said, “number two, their motivation is to reach out evangelistically to neighbors and family members who are going to go to the movie anyway."

Still, if you're armed with the truth- the real truth- Strobel and others say, engage in this fight that the film and book have begun.

McDowell said, "We better be ready to give an answer for those who ask you for the hope that you have in you: 'Why do you believe the Bible is true, why do you believe Christ was the son of God, why do you believe Christ wasn't married?'...we better be ready."

"'Because it's going to be very easy to talk about Jesus as a result of this book and this movie, it's good to be familiar with that which you're criticizing," Bock said.

"We have history on our side,” Strobel said. “There's nothing for us to be afraid of with The Da Vinci Code. So, let's seize this opportunity, take advantage of the people's spiritual curiosity, and help bring them the real gospel about Jesus."

Some say that Sony Pictures' The Da Vinci Code is Satan's answer to The Passion of the Christ. But others see this as a divine opportunity to talk about Jesus and set the record straight.

People love a conspiracy and they love to bash the Catholic church, which has gotten lots of bad press lately---it's a fictional work, nothing to get worked up about, and pretty fake plot-wise. I enjoyed it but would hardly call it a masterpiece.

I thought this article was a load of crap. The Da Vinci Code may have gotten a lot wrong, but the author of this article did a horrible job of trying to point that out.


CBN News -- HOLLYWOOD, California - Now that The Da Vinci Code has opened, millions of people around you may suddenly be wondering if everything the church has told them is based on a lie.

As opposed to The Passion of the Christ which made millions of people wonder if it could actually have been true. No problem with presenting another side of the story.

"He's read this book called The Da Vinci Code, and he said, 'This has confirmed all my worst suspicions about Christianity,' Strobel said, “And all of a sudden he wasn't interested anymore in investigating the claims of Christianity."

The mistakes and errors in the Bible should have clued him in first to the fallacies of the faith, but this works too.

Gregory Koukl of the organization 'Stand to Reason' says all the evidence shows that Christians considered Jesus the divine Son of God from the beginning.

"The early Christians, from Ignatius at the beginning of the second century on, all defended the divinity of Christ,” Koukl said. “Now, if this idea was introduced at the Council of Nicea, how is it that early Christians in their extant writings that we possess now -- you can Google them up and find them on the Internet -- how is it that, to a person, they all defended the divinity of Christ, if they didn't hold this view?"

Far more people did not believe that he was the son of God at the time. I'm sure a couple people believed it, and wrote about it.

Regardless, how would those people know that he was divine?
We've got people who claimed to have see UFOs, who claimed that hundreds of women were witches, and we've also got people who claim that Jesus was the son of God. Without evidence, I don't believe any of them.

Da Vinci Code creator Dan Brown also claims that Constantine tossed out some 80 gospels about Jesus, and then handpicked the other books of the present-day Bible because they deified Jesus.

But that's far from the truth.

William Edgar is a professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary. Edgar said, "The gospels that were rivals had long been dismissed as having no light to shine whatsoever on the New Testament events. They were rival gospels because they had a very different theology, so the church never really recognized them."

This doesn't deny that Constantine tossed out some 80 gospels; in fact he states that the gospels were dismissed because they had nothing to add to the New Testiment events, though he fails to mention that they contradicted the events of the New Testiment.

Strobel went to France with a film crew to investigate these claims. "I have in my hand the actual filing with the French government to create this organization the Priory of Sion, and it is dated May 7, 1956 -- not 1099,” Strobel explained. “And it's signed by a guy named Pierre Plantard as the secretary general of this organization. And Pierre Plantard was a convicted con man, who did time for counterfeiting and fraud."

Being wrong about the date does not invalidate the other information.

Having the organization signed to a con man does not mean that the events that are credited to the organization did not occur.

These are pathetic arguments, they do not respond to the issue at hand.

So Jesus wasn't divine, he was married, he had children, and the church has been lying about and killing people to cover this up for the last 2,000 years? Well, what else did The Da Vinci Code get wrong?

This article doesn't prove that the movie got it wrong. It doesn't even present a substantiated argument.

Brown couldn't even get the little details right.

Strobel said, "To call the book The Da Vinci Code -- nobody would call Leonardo 'da Vinci.' You don't call him 'da Vinci' -- that means 'from the town of Vinci.' His name is Leonardo. Art historians refer to him as 'Leonardo,' not 'da Vinci.'"

I'm sure that the title was well thought out. To be absolutely proper one would write, "The Code of Leonardo da Vinci" or something like that, but that's a mouthfull and doesn't sound as good. This is just nitpicking.

In his book, Brown said the Council of Nicea’s vote to make Christ divine was a perilously close vote. Koukl points out the vote was not to suddenly make Christ divine, but to affirm the centuries-old belief in his divinity, and it wasn't a close vote at all.

"The fact is, we know what the vote was,” Koukl said. “It was 316 to two."

His word against the Browns word here. I'd like to see sources.

Brown also claims that Mary Magdalene's bones are buried beneath the Louvre pyramid. "And he adds this bit of conspiracy by saying that if you count up the number of panes of glass on this pyramid, there are 666,” Strobel said. “Like, 'ooh, Satan's number, this is a big conspiracy.' Well, if you go over there and you investigate it, what you find out is there are 673 panes of glass."
um.... This guy is retarded. There are 4 sides to the pyramid - its impossible for there to be an odd number. The actual number is 684.
18 on the bottom row, next row is 17 etc... goes down to 1, so 18! = 171 * 4 = 684

Btw if you haven't noticed I'm not simply trying to defend The Da Vinci Code. If they said that there were 666 panes, they're wrong too. That would mean there would be 166.5 panes per side.

But Brown and the movie sound so confident in their claims, it can rock the faith of those who aren't educated in the facts.
facts? :lolhit:

Edgar said, "We have a gullible culture and a gullible church. One of the reasons is that we are simply biblically illiterate."
Gullibility is one of the reasons that the Church exists too...

It's only a fucking movie it's a way of entertainment for all us, if people choose to take it for more than it is, that's their fucking business. I can't believe how many fucks have protested against this movie. Hey, guess what, don't fucking see it.

I think its great to see the church (in particular the Roman Catholic church) squirm over this movie. All their ranting will do is make money for hollywood. It's the best publicity money can't buy.

And why are they so upset over a story made into a movie? Because it's a cool story and it muscles in to their story. If people are willing to buy into their story then moving on to the story in a movie on a closely related subject is an easy step.

It's all a battle of stories - which will win? The RC has nothing to worry about - their network is too strong to be defeated by one movie. What we need is a "da vinci code" type movie once a month to really blur the lines.

I see it this way, even though everything about religion is just a believe issue, not a fact that can be proved... so this is are my thoughts, they are not the holly truth, just as yours or anyone else's is, I say this especially to those who think they own the truth (religious fanatics). But anyway, I believe that Jesus Christ (Emmanuel) is the son of God, but as the son of himself, when he/she (a god has no sex, so is believed) decided to come down to the human world, to try to deliver a message or to fix the misunderstandings of the previous messages sent by him/her ... I also believe that God has come down more than once as it is written in many other religions, and nothing tells us that he hasn't come down again and again after he came down as Christ. Certainly I'd love if he/she could come down and tell Bush that he is no messenger of his. God is love, God is not a warmonger, neither are his messengers ...

Christianity some how has been divided into three groups: Catholics, Orthodoxes (eastern churches), and the Protestants. Catholics and Orthodoxes don't really have the kind of issues that are just an embarrassment, like the ones the Protestants always bring about. And to my understanding not one single Catholic gives any attention or credibility to what any Protestant has to say. Their faith has always been strong ... And this trength has been the envy of the Protestants, that by the way, are not united, they have so many sects, that only keep on growing every time a little unimportant argument starts among any congregation, then some of them leave and start a new one where all of them have the same narrow thought on any religious issue.

And of course Protestants use a lot of money finding anything, to get some attention. Maybe, by hammering their ideas somebody will finally believe what they think is the truth, their truth anyway...

This is just another money making movie ...

Well done Drew,said like a true Anglican,theres just some things you cant leave behind when you move to the new world.I dont think a movie a day would shift the RCs,oh by the way theres nearly a billion of them,from the worst catholic in Ireland...

I think its great to see the church (in particular the Roman Catholic church) squirm over this movie. All their ranting will do is make money for hollywood. and seemingly add credence to the movies claims.

There is an amusingly scathing radio review of the Da Vinci Code movie here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/entertainment/kermode.shtml). (starts 26:30 mins in)

Well I have to say,the intention of the movie is to make money,nothing else.Its based on one mans theory,which is fair enough,everyone should be intitled to believe what they like,as long as it dosent hurt anyone,some of the churches around the world are bitching about something that came out of Hollywood,and as 500lb has stated,add credence to a movie.

If you can't distinquish between fiction and no fiction, and if you allow a movie to dictate personal beliefs then you are pathetic.

Oh, The Passion where they beat JC, that's pretty accurate. We know from other crucifixions that they beat you badly before hangin you ona cross

Lets just be thankful the movie wasn't about Islam. The world would be on fire by now and death threats would be getting handed out like candy and Tom Hanks would be in the witness protection program. The RC's aversion to this movie might be a hollywood dream, but it isn't keeping any hollywood execs from their summer houses.

Lets just be thankful the movie wasn't about Islam.
*lightbulb goes off*

I'll get on that right away.

Wip - I TOTALLY loved your post above. ::applause::

Lets just be thankful the movie wasn't about Islam. The world would be on fire by now and death threats would be getting handed out like candy and Tom Hanks would be in the witness protection program. The RC's aversion to this movie might be a hollywood dream, but it isn't keeping any hollywood execs from their summer houses.

I think you're right since The Da Vinco Code is a work of fiction. Telling lies about a religon to appease your satisfaction would cause any uproar. However, the Muslim uproar would be louder and more violent than that of Christians. You are of course refering to the Anti-Muhammad Cartoons. Although you do not believe that Islam is a peaceful religon, I'm going to tell you that it is anyways. Islam is a peaceful religon, the few of the many people that practice it are not.

"In principle, public and peaceful protests against the anti-Prophet cartoons are absolutely permissible and legitimate, for they are an expression of the viewpoint of the demonstrators against the provocative insults to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). However, these protests and demonstrations do not warrant riots or destructive acts against public or private property. They also do not warrant burning or destroying others' properties. Such acts are wrongdoings that cannot be justified by the mistakes of some individuals, communities, or even countries.

Muslim scholars and institutions should educate and spread awareness among Muslims regarding Islamic ethics and morals that protect and safeguard people's rights and properties with no discrimination on the basis of religion, race, culture, etc. Islam, as a religion of mercy and justice, safeguards people's life, property, and honor. It is in this light that Islam prohibits aggression against innocent people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The Qur'an and the Sunnah are abundant with provisions that crystallize and emphasize this principle."

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1139318348431

Oh, The Passion where they beat JC, that's pretty accurate. We know from other crucifixions that they beat you badly before hangin you ona crossyeah and jesus was white and spoke aramaic too...
:banana:

Muslim scholars and institutions should educate and spread awareness among Muslims regarding Islamic ethics and morals that protect and safeguard people's rights and properties with no discrimination on the basis of religion, race, culture, etc. Islam, as a religion of mercy and justice, safeguards people's life, property, and honor.
======================================

Never happen, this could cause a loss of control of the masses, influenced to further the agenda of fanatical tyrants.

yeah and jesus was white and spoke aramaic too... Jesus was Hebrew, a Semitic people. So in the Passion of the Christ they have black haired, tan desert-living people. Not to mention that most historians cite Jesus as speaking Aramaic and Hebrew based on what we know about the time and place in which is is supposed to have lived. Not accurate enough for you? Perhaps if we get a black guy who speaks swahili you would be more appeased?

someone brought up a good point.. what would happen if someone made a movie completely undermining islam? Would the same "Oh its nothing" talk go on? Would terrorists kill the guy who made the movie? Who knows.. but i'd like to see the movie made just to see what would happen.

Simple answer,Yes.The guy would be on a hit list.I remember a British Author,Salman Rusdie,wrote a book,'The Satanic Verses',he was ordered to be killed by Ayotollah Khemeni,I think he had to flee,and live in the US ever since......

Clearly "The Da Islama Code" would not go down to well. It would be like feeding day at the crazy house.

That was entirely the point i was trying to make over in the political forum and got blasted for it... Christianity followers are MORE TOLERANT nowadays than islamic... and this isn't a knock on the religion, because both ARE tolerant, but there are WAY more violent islamic "cults" who kill people on a day-to-day basis. You never hear Pat Robertson putting out a hit list.

You never hear Pat Robertson putting out a hit list.

Is this a statement about Robertson's morality, or the morality of his religion, or does it reflect the level of lawlessness in our society? If I'm not mistaken, Robertson advocated the assassination of Hugo Chavez, and to be frank, I'm not so sure he wouldn't have a hit list if he lived in a society where he could put that list to use.

Drew, why the anti-Catholicism? I notice quite a bit of that in Allforums and not just from you.

Drew is anti-religon not just anit-catholicism.

Drew has specifically mentioned the Roman Catholic Church in his postings. He may be anti-religion but he seems to have a particular antipathy for the Roman Catholic Church.

I am against all religion that claims to hold universal truth.

The RC church as an institution holds a special place in my heart for it's centuries old history of gold leaf, corruption, bigotry and crazy ideas.

I am against all religion that claims to hold universal truth.

The RC church as an institution holds a special place in my heart for it's centuries old history of gold leaf, corruption, bigotry and crazy ideas.
=============================================
I'll second that.

it will depend now on the moviegoers on what they think about the movie.. the catholic church is just anticipating on the negative effect of the movie for other people who have a little understanding between the truth and fiction.

You mean

"between fiction and fiction" right ?

=============================================
I'll second that.
Do we have another WASP in the making,

Do we have another WASP in the making,

Is that the best you can come up with? Apparently you must agree with everything I write because it seems you have no ability to dispute any of it.

I don't know about paul, but I have no problem with you or anyone else not believing as I do. I do have a problem with the childish way you and Freethinger express your disagreement with organized religion in general and the Roman Catholic Church in particular. Calling The Pope an asshole is the act of a spoiled child, not a thoughtful adult.

Why does it make me a spoiled child? The issue is you hold the idea of the pope in high esteem so you are shocked that somebody would call him an asshole, but I truly believe with all my heart that the pope IS an asshole. To me the pope is nothing & I find the whole notion of the pope sickening.

Now if he sold all his gold and jewels and gave the money to the poor, if he wasn't shopping for countries to visit based on which will give him the most grandious state celebration, if he didn't pronounce idiotic things like condoms are a sin, then perhaps I would have an ounce of respect. But, I don't have any respect. To the contrary - I think the pope is a total fraud.

It shocks you that somebody would call the pope an asshole, not because you have thoughtfully determined that he isn't an asshole, but because the idea of the pope being a "christian rock star" is ingrained in you.

To the contrary Frogger - my views seem to have a basis in some rational decision making, your awe for the pope is not based in much apart from centuries of conditioning. Even intelligent people as yourself go weak at the knees when it comes to notions such as the pope. I don't buy it.

Is that the best you can come up with? Apparently you must agree with everything I write because it seems you have no ability to dispute any of it.
Dont flatter yourself Drew,I was interested in your reasons for 'relishing' in the anti catholic statements you came out with,and being from an anti catholic country,I was curious to see if this was your thinking,or your culture....

It has zero to do with being from a non catholic country. It has everything to do with common sense.

Saying condoms are a sin - simply holds no water. It's an dangerous and cruel statement given the aids problems in countries like Africa. Aids is a real problem, it's not an intellectual fairy tale to be discussed in Vatican city while polishing the diamonds and silverware.

Yes have to say Aids is a major problem,especially in Africa,prehaps the RC should have focused on 'sex outside marriage' more than 'dont use a rubber',as for it being I believe 'the richest private company' on the planet,there was an incident here at the weekend,which you may find interesting..........http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5019012.stm
I give up,you win.....

I don't know, paul. He is a Roman Catholic priest so he must be evil. He probably has a stable of young boys stashed behind the altar. You know how all those Popish clergy are.

To be honest Frogger,I was struggling with this issue from the start,being brought up in the faith,Drew got up my nose a bit,because,well,I just thought at the time,he was enjoying himself tooo much,sorry Drew,tho I did have to agree with certain elements of his argument,ie,the aids issue,the churches wealth,I thought some of the threads were offensive,which is something you dont have to do,to make,or win,your point,sure the RC church aint perfect,id be the first to say that,I no longer practise,myself,us Irish can be very contrary,its part of are makeup,and I felt I was starting to argue,for arguing sake,you get a lot of anti catholic sentiment in this part of the world,as im sure your aware,the fact that a lot of the dirt was covered up,only gave ammunition to RC knockers,it should have been dealt with properly at the time,every religion has its faults,I personally dont go round knocking them,each to their own I guess,but a billion people are willing to go along with it.

What I find interesting is the inconsistency of people when it comes to religion. People here can call it as it is with Islam no problem but when the issue is close to home then it's all a different story the hands go over the ears. The person raising the issues is biased at best, a bigot at worst.

Of course, as with any religion - the people are mostly good, well intended people, but people are mostly sheep - the shephard is solely where they were born. It's the framework that is faulty not the people.

Islam has it's death threats, the RC church has it's flagrant disregard for life by condeming condom use in Africa. These are only examples - the list of examples in any religion is longer than can be ever counted.

And as for the news story about the Priest condeming stealing from a cash machine. You don't have to be a priest or part of any religion to know stealing is wrong. I can say without even the slightest doubt that if I withdrew 100 bucks from the ATM and it gave me 200 bucks - I would walk right into the bank & hand over the extra 100 bucks. Some people would, some people wouldn't - it's not an issue of religion, its an issue of how you live your life.

All religions (organized or not) teach what they believe is the "TRUTH". So how many truths do we have? The problem has always started when one of them try to impose on others theirs as being the only truth... And we have had lots of wars because of that.

The existence of any religion lays on the mystery of death. And as far as I know unless it is a personal experience no one can tell me anything of what is beyond that line, that I would agree with what they have said.

Religion is a "personal" experience, something you can try to pass on to others, but no one has to believe you. The "doubts" will always be there, because it is in human nature to doubt, but in a religious argument the final words a religious person will always tell his opponent are, "you have no FAITH", when you have your doubts.

What is FAITH?... According to Merriam-Webster: a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust.

So we can see that basically religions tell you things that are BELIEVED to be the truth, but there is no proof to ascertain them without a doubt, the only way that I personally think can leave me without doubts is through personal experience, but again, the experiences of this nature can't be transmitted to other persons without them having "DOUBTS".

So "RELIGION" should stay as something personal, I don't have to believe what you believe, neither you what I believe. And the intolerance towards any religion with posts loaded with insults shouldn't be there, if we are as civilized as we pretend to be.

You are right that any faith in something beyond what we see (which is fundamentally what religious beliefs attest to) is a personal event.

What unfortuanately happens is people use a personal "experience" to solidify that their beliefs are indeed a sole truth. So you end up with people across many religions all having a personal experience they can attest to and never the twain can meet. Add to the social condition based on a countries majority religious belief and you have a lot of barriers created.

Given that all people in all religions attest to some kind of personal experience, this does not prove that any one personal experience a sole proof of a sole truth. In fact human experience in this area firmly proves the exact opposite.

My personal conclusion is that personal experience is simply that - personal experience, perhaps experiences of some basic universal notions that cross almost all religions, but do not rely on any religion.

For example - I have a faith in the following, based on my own personal experience

"You reap what you sow"
"You can get anything you truly believe in"
"Nothing is certain & uncertainty is potential"
"Nothing is free"
"Do no harm to others"
"boundaries are an illusion"
...

and so on. Fundamentally such annectodes are nothing new, and are things that everybody has heard before, but they are also common to practically every religion on earth when you dig deep & extremely well explored in myth & legend archetypes.

To me, these basic tenants are where faith lies.

The rest, the dogma, the theology and politics in Rome, the intolerance of not believing the story of one religion over another, the guilt trips, the fear, the edicts on sin, the fancy hats & robes, the outrageous stories, all the things that spawn from religion. All these things serve no purpose other than to close the mind and take people away from the basic ideas those religions were once based upon.

Pedophile priest are not being defended nor are all the strictures and practices of the Roman Catholic Church or any other religion. There are bad people in any organization as large as a church body just as there are bad people in any organization as large as a corporation.

Attacking the perceived errors of a religious group is one thing. Calling the head of that religious group a crooked asshole is quite another thing. It goes beyond arguing the merits of the religion and enters the territory of bigotry. The fact that you dislike the Roman Catholic faith and its heirarchy does not make you any less biased it just makes it impossible for you to see your bias.

So "RELIGION" should stay as something personal, I don't have to believe what you believe, neither you what I believe. And the intolerance towards any religion with posts loaded with insults shouldn't be there, if we are as civilized as we pretend to be.
================================================== ===

Man's organized religion is so ingrained in some, that any criticism of a particular religion, or it's leaders is considered an insult. It is true, some may speak harsher than others.

I have my beliefs, through personal experience, as many people do. But, unfortunately, many have unquestioning beliefs that have been handed down from others. Beliefs that are accepted as fact, while turning a blind and uncriticizing eye, to the actions of the general organization that may make them uncomfortable.

If man were truly civilized, as you speak of, organized religion would probably be a thing of the past. No longer would man need the comfort of like-minded, like-thinking, others, nor the useless rituals and regulations of any organization. Rituals and regulations first established to set it apart from other organizations.

Until that day arrives, man will hold steadfast to the organizations that cause division and prejudices.

To those that fear the anti-Christ, Satan, or whatever demons that have been conjured by organizations to instill fear in followers, I would say to fear all the organizations that have proven over the centuries that they are anti-peace. These are the enemies of man and his quest to seek true understanding.

Most modern religions are but sleeping giants that could be awakened, to once again, kill and plunder in the name of some transgression. The potential is there as long as people blindly accept the doctrines of self-serving organizations greedily operating under the cloak of a fictitious license from God.

Man's organized religion is so ingrained in some, that any criticism of a particular religion, or it's leaders is considered an insult. It is true, some may speak harsher than others.

There is a diference between criticising a particular religion and/or its leaders and calling them crooked assholes. True criticism does not need to resort to name calling.

I called him a crooked asshole to see who would bite.

You have bitten pretty hard & it's a great excuse for you to avoid the issue.

ps - he is a crooked asshole

I am not avoiding the issue.

I disagree with the RC position on condoms. I think it should be rethought in light of the spread of HIV/AIDS.

I think the coverup of the pedophile priest problem was horrid and those responsible should be prosecuted.

I don't like the idea of the RC church being so wealthy while there are hungry people in the world.

I don't like the idea that certain followers of the Hindu religion used to strangle strangers.

I don't like the fact that certain Muslems stone homosexuals to death.

I don't like the fact that Martin Luther said some pretty anti-Semetic things or supported the nobility against the peasantry during the Bundschu
War.

I don't like the fact that Jewish men have a prayer that thanks God for not having them born a woman.

There are lots of things I don't like about organized religions, my own included.

I just think there are ways to express yourself that foster discussion and ways that expose bigotry. In my opinion you way of expressing yourself exposes you as a bigot.

Yet you think the Pope is great.

Go figure.

By personal experience, I meant that since there is no point in sharing our personal experiences with others, we should keep them to ourselves, by these experiences we find strength in what before were just "believes", now they could become the truth we were looking for. Everyone will have their own experiences when the time is right, not before not after. If it is the Pope or any other of whatever religion doing what they could believe is their mission, well I have no problem, I have my own way, have some things in common with them, and I am tolerant with what they have to say, I don't have to hurt any body's feeling by telling them that their believes are "CRAP". I don't see the point in entering into an argument with anybody about something that maybe, and just maybe, we may or may not find out after we die, and how, if there is something beyond death, are we going to tell the ones still alive in a human body not to worry. Anyway, we could all be wrong and their is no hell or heaven, just an endless nothing, maybe our personal experiences were just mind games we played to ourselves.
If I feel that there are so many "fools" following these or that other religion, I think we should let them do it, not everybody needs to be in a temple, but there is a great number of people who do feel that need. Now if by doing so they become better persons, true or not, religion is a good thing for lots of people. Religion is after all a "moral code".

I learned that the meaning of religion is: road, way, bridge, link to GOD, so if there are many religions, but all of them lead to a common place, who cares what name it has. I am sure that several of us who are participating in AllForums believe in something God like. I would like to extend this talk further, but I guess there will be another thread to follow later on about religions and we could discuss further our believes, if we have any ... My personal approach is to get the best of what all religions have to say and then make my own mind about it all, ... till today I keep on learning .....

Yet you think the Pope is great.
When did he say that, or suggest that?

Drew is grasping at straws. He also said he posted that The Pope is a crooked asshole as part of some sort of fishing expedition. It took him pages before he came up with that one.

Drew might be a great administrator but in this thread at least, he is simply bloviating.

Drew is grasping at straws. He also said he posted that The Pope is a crooked asshole as part of some sort of fishing expedition. It took him pages before he came up with that one.
.

What a joke!

In this thread I've posted a lot of explanation of my views.

All you have done is basically get offended because somebody dared to call the Pope an asshole. I love it. Here ya go again - He's an asshole.

The pope is just a person, he's no different than anybody else. He isn't God's envoy on earth, he isn't infallable and his office is a corrupt hypocricy mainly interested in collecting money, gold and silver. To believe anything different is to place fantasy before reality.