| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
15 May 2006 07:58:50 PM |
| Object: |
Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous |
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/othercott.html
Let's "Othercott" Da Vinci
Many Christians see The Da Vinci Code as an opportunity for evangelism;
others say it's a chance to engage the culture. Rubbish. Da Vinci is
dangerous, so I'd like to suggest a better alternative.
By Barbara Nicolosi | posted 05/03/06
I've read and heard a lot lately from Christians who suggest that we
should be willing to "engage" The Da Vinci Code, so that we can be a
part of the "cultural conversation." Believers are touting the upcoming
movie as an "opportunity for evangelism" and even an incentive to
bolster our own faith.
Baloney.
This film is based on a book that wears its heresy and blasphemy as a
badge of honor, and I intend to stay far away from it.
I get lots of calls to do interviews about The Da Vinci Code, but I
duck as many of them as I can. Basically, I hate talking about DVC
because I have a personal relationship with Jesus-and he isn't a
proto-feminist goddess-cultic with a weak personality that could have
been simply co-opted by power-hungry misogynists.
I love Jesus. It makes me physically sick to entertain discussion about
the ways in which the defining acts of his life-his Passion,
Resurrection and establishment of the Church-could be a diabolical
scam that he never anticipated nor experienced. It would make me sick
to hear salacious lies about anyone I love; how much more my Savior?
Besides that, I don't think we should encourage people in the terrible
sin against the Holy Spirit of speculating that things that are holy
are evil, and that things that are evil are holy. Isn't that what is
going on here? How is that not painful for anyone who knows the Lord?
Don't debate the Devil
DVC as great opportunity for evangelism? Hmmm. The climate of
evangelism is not consistent with a posture of defiance and cynicism.
Is slander an opportunity? Is angry superiority an opportunity? DVC
represents all the "opportunity" that the Roman persecutions offered
the early Church. Rah.
And here's another thing that troubles me about the "opportunity for
dialogue" stance. The debate is all on hell's terms. I am somebody who
reads about exorcisms. I don't know why. I just do. And one of the
first rules of exorcism is that you never answer the Devil's questions.
You don't debate the Devil. You do not give evil the authority to
question God.
DVC represents a debate in which the questions start with Satan's
presumptions. I find it beyond naive to convince myself that the folks
who are lapping up DVC are on a "search for truth." They're not. They
are on a crusade to validate their own rejection of the authority of
Christ and the Church.
Here's a typical DVC-inspired dialogue. See if you can find a search
for truth in it.
It usually starts with something like this: "Everybody knows that the
Church Fathers were liars. Can you prove the compilation of the Bible
wasn't pure politics?"
And just when you start saying, "Well, I don't agree that the Church
Fathers were--", the questioner moves on with eyes flashing
unnaturally, "Why is the Church so afraid of women, huh? Why has it
suppressed them since the beginning? Answer THAT!"
You clear your throat and say, "Well, I wouldn't say that the Church is
afr--"
But they've moved on: "The fact is, there is no evidence for the
Resurrection. Have you ever read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene?"
"Well, no, but--"
"See you people are all brain-washed." [Exhalation of disgust.] "How so
many people could be so stupid is amazing to me."
When you debate with Satan, there is no opportunity for anything but
people digging their heels into the sludge of chaos and confusion.
Scandalizing the sheep
I also hate the idea that some of the sheep would be scandalized away
from Jesus by this idiotic story. And they will.
The sheep have been bred as teeming little narcissist lambs who
stubbornly consider themselves "special," no matter how mediocre their
understanding and living out of their life of discipleship. We have a
global pasture full of sheep pasturing themselves, with coats
shamefully besmirched by loving their sins.
They bleat defiance and pride of their filth, and insist that Jesus is
indifferent to their degradation and shame: "Who knows, Jesus is
probably just like us!" They don't know, and don't know that they don't
know, or don't know, and don't care that they don't know.
And now The Da Vinci Code comes along to sheepish ears that are primed
and ready to be told that holiness is impossible. And that is why this
book is a success. It says to people, "If Jesus was a sham, then
anything is permissible." (Ref. "You shall be like gods!")
I thought of this when I read a recent DVC rant from Mark Shea, who
wrote that "the most maddening thing about this book is the thought of
somebody losing their faith over this-this!-stupid piece of
dimestore erudition. If you are going to risk your eternal soul, it
should at least be over something noble and romantic and big. If you
are bound to damn yourself, then at least let it be over a torrid and
star-crossed love affair, or out of tragic hubris that sought to know
What Man Was Not Meant to Know .... But to lose your soul over this
cartoonish, illiterate, dishonest piece of hack drivel?"
I recently attended a DVC event at a local evangelical church. Several
panelists gave long speeches about how Christians should welcome DVC as
an opportunity for dialogue, then opened the floor for questions. A
woman began her question by saying, "I don't have any problem with the
fact that Jesus had sex ...."
Unbelievable! Yeah, let's all march our troops into "dialogue." The
fact that our troops are completely disarmed for a fight seems to be
irrelevant!
Many of our Christian sheep will be ripe for slaughter from DVC. All
they will have to go to battle with is the Bible. But DVC undermines
biblical authority by saying that the Bible was the product of a purely
political process. This debate will shake the faith of many who are not
prepared for it.
An alternative "boycott"
So, what can we as Christians do in response to the release of this
movie?
Some are suggesting a protest. But the problem with this option is that
it doesn't work. Any publicity is good publicity. Protests not only
fuel the box office, they make all Christians look like idiots. And
protests and boycotts do nothing to help shape the decisions being made
right now about what movies Hollywood will make in the next few years.
(Or they convince Hollywood to make *more* movies that will provoke
Christians to protest, which will drive the box office up.)
Some suggest that we simply ignore the movie. But the problem with this
option is that the box office is a ballot box. The only people whose
votes are counted are those who buy tickets; if you stay home, you have
thrown your vote away, and you do nothing to shape the Hollywood
decision-making process regarding what movies will make it to the big
screen.
Some suggest that we go see the movie so we can be better prepared to
discuss it, to "engage the culture," so to speak. But if you've read
this far, you already know how I feel about this. The problem with this
option: No one's listening. They think they know what we're going to
say already.
But I'd like to offer another option.
On DVC's opening weekend-May 19-21-you should go to the movies.
Just go to another movie. That's your way of casting your vote, the
only vote Hollywood recognizes: The power of cold hard cash laid down
on a box office window on opening weekend.
Use your vote. Don't throw it away. Vote for a movie other than DVC. If
enough people do it, the powers that be will notice.
The major studio movie scheduled for release against DVC is the
DreamWorks animated feature Over the Hedge. The trailers look fun, and
you can take your kids. And your friends. And their friends. In fact,
let's all go see it.
Let's rock the box office in a way no one expects-without protests,
without boycotts, without arguments, without rancor. Let's show up at
the box office ballot box and cast our votes. And buy some popcorn,
too.
As for The Da Vinci Code, don't go see this stupid movie. Don't pay
money to have the insidious lies of the enemy introduced into your
heart and mind.
Let's "othercott" DVC on May 19 by going to see Over the Hedge instead.
This commentary was adapted by permission from Nicolosi's online blog,
Church of the Masses.
Barbara Nicolosi is the founder and director of Act One, an
organization whose mission is to train committed Christian writers to
work in the Hollywood film industry.
.
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous |
17 May 2006 09:12:25 PM |
|
|
Dr Zen <longhornster@gmail.com> wrote in
news:vbcl6295tr6u2a4j93pm4jqb63ct44moco@4ax.com:
GIGO, innit. Llanzlan Klazmon <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> fed this in:
Dr Zen <longhornster@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d46l6299himfgg9c7ncanuqdgrqc3kbqlf@4ax.com:
GIGO, innit. Llanzlan Klazmon <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> fed this in:
Dr Zen <longhornster@gmail.com> wrote in
news:j61l62l3jbckj4m6k62gjbkctr6l4dv7t5@4ax.com:
GIGO, innit. Llanzlan Klazmon <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> fed this
in:
Dr Zen <longhornster@gmail.com> wrote in
news:p8nk62pk9549pgv3fsepi8blf3tqemhsp1@4ax.com:
GIGO, innit. John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> fed this in:
On 16 May 2006 09:58:18 -0700, "Selur" <selurs@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2006 10:56:39 -0400, "George"
<nospam@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:lunj62pvqai5fp42e7a4okd256th15v437@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:46:28 -0400, "George"
<nospam@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <UIkag.6098$z97.80171@news20.bellglobal.com>
Let's make sure people know that Brown is a total phoney
when he says or hints that his novel is based on real
research. Let's let people know what the lies are. But
beyond that, let's no overreact. The Catholic Faith is
timeless. It can't really be shaken by a novel or a movie.
George
Horoscopes are timeless.
The belief cannot be shaken by a movie or evidence or
reality. And like Christianity, it is juvenile wishful
*****.
--
Michael Gray.
Are you trying to convince me or yourself? Most anti-theists
(as opposed to intelligent atheists) aren't too sure
themselves.
Well, do you have any objective, verifiable evidence that
religion is anything other than wishful thinking?
George
If that's your criteria, even on a secular level, then you must
live inside a sealed jar.
Translation: I believe all sorts of things without any evidence at
all, and I simply can't comprehend why some people don't.
I don't live in a jar, son
Are you sure?
Most of the things we believe, even the rational among us, we
believe on little or no evidence.
This is an equivocation fallacy.
No, it's not, but that was a misuse of big words you only think you
know what they mean.
Yes it is. You are using more than one meaning of the word believe.
No, I am not.
Yes you are. The term belief as applied to everyday things means a
conclusion based on prior experience and knowledge of the world.
Sometimes.
The exceptions being the insane?
Belief as
applied to the supernatural is acceptance of assertion from authority
with no supporting evidence, or wishful thinking.
I don't have the patience to show you where you're wrong. Suffice it
to say that believers in Gahd often base their belief on their
experience and knowledge of the world. They may interpret that
experience and knowledge wrongly but scientists are not immune to
doing that.
You are missing the point. Beliefs about the ordinary goings on of the
world are provisional (at least to any sane person) i.e accepted as being
subject to empircial falsification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Credibility, meet toilet.
Ignorance is curable but stupidity is permanent as demonstrated by your
case.
Dude, a guy who cites Wikipedia in a Uselessnet debate is well advised
not to start waving around the stupid stick. You are liable to clobber
yourself with it.
Wikipedia is perfectly adequate for the purpose above. The article also
cites other sources. If you have any complaints about the actual content
of the cited article then feel free.
The everyday beliefs that everyone has
about the ordinary working of the world are not the same category as
belief in supernatural beings and events for which no objective
evidence at all has never been presented.
You are wrong. The mechanism is entirely the same. You just don't
think there's anything wrong with most beliefs, but consider this
particular one harmful.
Incorrect. Everyday beliefs such as "I will fall if I jump out the
window" are backed up by knowledge, experience and reasoning about the
way the world works.
You picked a belief that is backed up by knowledge, experience etc,
rather than one of the many that we routinely hold that is not.
Then it should be easy for you to produce an example right?
Most men wash their hands after touching their penis in the belief
that the penis is dirty. Knowledge, if they had it, would dictate
washing them before.
There are good reasons for doing both. Particularly for workers in the
food industry. The example you give may be something that many people
don't specifically think about the actual knowledge experience etc is
applicable. It doesn't mean that people always question such things.
I
can't remember the name of the fallacy that represents.
Senility will do that.
Are you taking lames class or something?
Supersition is held in spite of such knowledge experience and
reason.
No, usually, it isn't. We have no reason to believe that God might not
appear to us as a burning bush.
Just like we have no reason to to believe leprechauns wont take us to a
pot of gold.
Now you're getting it.
Yes. It is necessary to establish the existence of an entity before making
statements about what it might or might not do.
I have about as much reason to believe in leprechauns as I do to
believe there is a place called Vladivostok.
I have a bridge for sale.
If you were better versed in epistemology, you'd take more care not to
make your pronouncements on belief on the basis of your prejudice.
Because it is only the latter that is leading you to consider one
witness more reliable than the other.
Experience, reason, logical deduction and the words that theists shudder
in fear over allows you to determine reliability. I'll even tell you what
those words are: Verifiable evidence.
You need to revisit your Hume, old bean, if you are struggling to see
that experience and reason cut both ways.
You could try visiting Hume's works to begin with.
Jeezus. I see you haven't yet passed IKYABWAI class. I am fully
expecting a "you're not really a Buddhist" lame in the next post.
I see that you suffer from both ignorance and stupidity.
Klazmon.
--
Dr Zen
I hold their faces in my hands
and I think what a cruel thing
that they should even exist;
what a cruel thing that they should grow
to hope, to burn, to live, and lose it all,
sooner or later, in their own dark sun of pain.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Zen" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous |
17 May 2006 10:11:03 PM |
|
|
GIGO, innit. Llanzlan Klazmon <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> fed this in:
Dr Zen <longhornster@gmail.com> wrote in
news:vbcl6295tr6u2a4j93pm4jqb63ct44moco@4ax.com:
GIGO, innit. Llanzlan Klazmon <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> fed this in:
Dr Zen <longhornster@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d46l6299himfgg9c7ncanuqdgrqc3kbqlf@4ax.com:
GIGO, innit. Llanzlan Klazmon <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> fed this in:
Dr Zen <longhornster@gmail.com> wrote in
news:j61l62l3jbckj4m6k62gjbkctr6l4dv7t5@4ax.com:
GIGO, innit. Llanzlan Klazmon <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> fed this
in:
Dr Zen <longhornster@gmail.com> wrote in
news:p8nk62pk9549pgv3fsepi8blf3tqemhsp1@4ax.com:
GIGO, innit. John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> fed this in:
On 16 May 2006 09:58:18 -0700, "Selur" <selurs@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2006 10:56:39 -0400, "George"
<nospam@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:lunj62pvqai5fp42e7a4okd256th15v437@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:46:28 -0400, "George"
<nospam@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <UIkag.6098$z97.80171@news20.bellglobal.com>
Let's make sure people know that Brown is a total phoney
when he says or hints that his novel is based on real
research. Let's let people know what the lies are. But
beyond that, let's no overreact. The Catholic Faith is
timeless. It can't really be shaken by a novel or a movie.
George
Horoscopes are timeless.
The belief cannot be shaken by a movie or evidence or
reality. And like Christianity, it is juvenile wishful
*****.
--
Michael Gray.
Are you trying to convince me or yourself? Most anti-theists
(as opposed to intelligent atheists) aren't too sure
themselves.
Well, do you have any objective, verifiable evidence that
religion is anything other than wishful thinking?
George
If that's your criteria, even on a secular level, then you must
live inside a sealed jar.
Translation: I believe all sorts of things without any evidence at
all, and I simply can't comprehend why some people don't.
I don't live in a jar, son
Are you sure?
Most of the things we believe, even the rational among us, we
believe on little or no evidence.
This is an equivocation fallacy.
No, it's not, but that was a misuse of big words you only think you
know what they mean.
Yes it is. You are using more than one meaning of the word believe.
No, I am not.
Yes you are. The term belief as applied to everyday things means a
conclusion based on prior experience and knowledge of the world.
Sometimes.
The exceptions being the insane?
The exceptions being those beliefs we hold without any prior
experience or knowledge. I gave an example below.
Belief as
applied to the supernatural is acceptance of assertion from authority
with no supporting evidence, or wishful thinking.
I don't have the patience to show you where you're wrong. Suffice it
to say that believers in Gahd often base their belief on their
experience and knowledge of the world. They may interpret that
experience and knowledge wrongly but scientists are not immune to
doing that.
You are missing the point.
I would only be missing one if you were actually making one.
Beliefs about the ordinary goings on of the
world are provisional (at least to any sane person) i.e accepted as being
subject to empircial falsification.
No, that is not the point. It is a clear difference between beliefs in
ordinary things and beliefs in supernatural things, yes, but that is
not what we were discussing.
Again, you have taken a tilt at a strawman. I said we hold beliefs
without prior experience and knowledge, not that we hold beliefs that
had we that experience and knowledge we wouldn't surrender. The latter
is what you are tilting at, but I haven't claimed it and wouldn't
claim it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Credibility, meet toilet.
Ignorance is curable but stupidity is permanent as demonstrated by your
case.
Dude, a guy who cites Wikipedia in a Uselessnet debate is well advised
not to start waving around the stupid stick. You are liable to clobber
yourself with it.
Wikipedia is perfectly adequate for the purpose above. The article also
cites other sources. If you have any complaints about the actual content
of the cited article then feel free.
Like I said, credibility, meet toilet.
The everyday beliefs that everyone has
about the ordinary working of the world are not the same category as
belief in supernatural beings and events for which no objective
evidence at all has never been presented.
You are wrong. The mechanism is entirely the same. You just don't
think there's anything wrong with most beliefs, but consider this
particular one harmful.
Incorrect. Everyday beliefs such as "I will fall if I jump out the
window" are backed up by knowledge, experience and reasoning about the
way the world works.
You picked a belief that is backed up by knowledge, experience etc,
rather than one of the many that we routinely hold that is not.
Then it should be easy for you to produce an example right?
Most men wash their hands after touching their penis in the belief
that the penis is dirty. Knowledge, if they had it, would dictate
washing them before.
There are good reasons for doing both.
No, you are wrong.
Particularly for workers in the
food industry.
No, you are wrong. Sorry, you are. This is a clear example of a belief
you hold that is wrong. It does not matter what industry you work in.
We wash our hands after we take a ***** because our mothers told us to.
But unless you ***** over your hands, you need not. Your ***** is
cleaner than your hands are.
The example you give may be something that many people
don't specifically think about the actual knowledge experience etc is
applicable. It doesn't mean that people always question such things.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. It may be "logical" but
it doesn't make any sense in English.
Naturally, people don't question it. My point was precisely that we
hold beliefs that we do not question.
I
can't remember the name of the fallacy that represents.
Senility will do that.
Are you taking lames class or something?
Supersition is held in spite of such knowledge experience and
reason.
No, usually, it isn't. We have no reason to believe that God might not
appear to us as a burning bush.
Just like we have no reason to to believe leprechauns wont take us to a
pot of gold.
Now you're getting it.
Yes. It is necessary to establish the existence of an entity before making
statements about what it might or might not do.
No, of course it isn't. What a stupid thing to say! Scientists posit
the existence of things that they will establish exist because they do
the things they suggest they will.
A scientist might posit a zenon, a particle that will decay into a
muon, a positron, a proton and a partridge in a pear tree. If the
scientist sees those things after a collision, he or she will then say
"there was a zenon". But he or she has clearly made statements about
the zenon before establishing its existence.
That was logic. I hope you liked it.
I have about as much reason to believe in leprechauns as I do to
believe there is a place called Vladivostok.
I have a bridge for sale.
I'm afraid you've been whooshed. You're not really keeping up, are
you?
If you were better versed in epistemology, you'd take more care not to
make your pronouncements on belief on the basis of your prejudice.
Because it is only the latter that is leading you to consider one
witness more reliable than the other.
Experience, reason, logical deduction and the words that theists shudder
in fear over allows you to determine reliability.
What the ***** are you babbling about now?
I'll even tell you what
those words are: Verifiable evidence.
No really, what the ***** are you babbling about? You are way, way out
of the race here, son. If you had any sense, you'd give it away
because you're making a fool of yourself.
I could verify that there were leprechauns if I saw a leprechaun. I
could verify that there was a Vladivostok if I went to Vladivostok. I
could verify that God takes the form of burning bushes if he appeared
to me as a burning bush. Until I do any of those things, I am taking
it on faith that the thing in question exists. I may or may not have
better cause to take one or other on faith, but that is as much a
question of my prejudice as of any other thing.
There, I explained it so you can catch up. We on the same page now?
You need to revisit your Hume, old bean, if you are struggling to see
that experience and reason cut both ways.
You could try visiting Hume's works to begin with.
Jeezus. I see you haven't yet passed IKYABWAI class. I am fully
expecting a "you're not really a Buddhist" lame in the next post.
I see that you suffer from both ignorance and stupidity.
Says a man who cannot grasp the most elementary proposition of Hume
and needs it explained to him as though he was a small child.
--
Dr Zen
I hold their faces in my hands
and I think what a cruel thing
that they should even exist;
what a cruel thing that they should grow
to hope, to burn, to live, and lose it all,
sooner or later, in their own dark sun of pain.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous |
18 May 2006 12:00:33 AM |
|
|
Dr Zen <longhornster@gmail.com> wrote in
<BIG SNIP>
No, that is not the point. It is a clear difference between beliefs in
ordinary things and beliefs in supernatural things, yes, but that is
not what we were discussing.
I see you are trying to weasel out again. Try reading what you originally
responded to:
==========================================================================
Are you trying to convince me or yourself? Most anti-theists (as
opposed to intelligent atheists) aren't too sure themselves.
Well, do you have any objective, verifiable evidence that religion is
anything other than wishful thinking?
George
If that's your criteria, even on a secular level, then you must live
inside a sealed jar.
Translation: I believe all sorts of things without any evidence at
all, and I simply can't comprehend why some people don't.
==========================================================================
Looks like ordinary vs supernatural was exactly what was being discussed.
Again, you have taken a tilt at a strawman. I said we hold beliefs
without prior experience and knowledge, not that we hold beliefs that
had we that experience and knowledge we wouldn't surrender. The latter
is what you are tilting at, but I haven't claimed it and wouldn't
claim it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Credibility, meet toilet.
Ignorance is curable but stupidity is permanent as demonstrated by
your case.
Dude, a guy who cites Wikipedia in a Uselessnet debate is well advised
not to start waving around the stupid stick. You are liable to clobber
yourself with it.
Wikipedia is perfectly adequate for the purpose above. The article also
cites other sources. If you have any complaints about the actual content
of the cited article then feel free.
Like I said, credibility, meet toilet.
Like I said. You failed refute anything in the cited article.
The everyday beliefs that everyone has
about the ordinary working of the world are not the same category
as belief in supernatural beings and events for which no objective
evidence at all has never been presented.
You are wrong. The mechanism is entirely the same. You just don't
think there's anything wrong with most beliefs, but consider this
particular one harmful.
Incorrect. Everyday beliefs such as "I will fall if I jump out the
window" are backed up by knowledge, experience and reasoning about
the way the world works.
You picked a belief that is backed up by knowledge, experience etc,
rather than one of the many that we routinely hold that is not.
Then it should be easy for you to produce an example right?
Most men wash their hands after touching their penis in the belief
that the penis is dirty. Knowledge, if they had it, would dictate
washing them before.
There are good reasons for doing both.
No, you are wrong.
Particularly for workers in the
food industry.
No, you are wrong. Sorry, you are. This is a clear example of a belief
you hold that is wrong. It does not matter what industry you work in.
Wrong. Read any article on personal hygeine written by health
professionals. For example:
http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/sick/hand_washing.html
We wash our hands after we take a ***** because our mothers told us to.
Guess what. You should have listenned to your mother. The fact that you
don't explains a lot.
<SNIP>
Yes. It is necessary to establish the existence of an entity before
making
statements about what it might or might not do.
No, of course it isn't. What a stupid thing to say! Scientists posit
the existence of things that they will establish exist because they do
the things they suggest they will.
Actually scientists posit the existance of things because such is
supported by empirical evidence.
<SNIP>
I have about as much reason to believe in leprechauns as I do to
believe there is a place called Vladivostok.
I have a bridge for sale.
I'm afraid you've been whooshed. You're not really keeping up, are
you?
Hello Mr Pot. Things getting too hot for you?
If you were better versed in epistemology, you'd take more care not to
make your pronouncements on belief on the basis of your prejudice.
Because it is only the latter that is leading you to consider one
witness more reliable than the other.
Experience, reason, logical deduction and the words that theists shudder
in fear over allows you to determine reliability.
What the ***** are you babbling about now?
I'll even tell you what
those words are: Verifiable evidence.
No really, what the ***** are you babbling about? You are way, way out
of the race here, son. If you had any sense, you'd give it away
because you're making a fool of yourself.
Yep, see them sqwark at the mere mention of the word evidence!
I could verify that there were leprechauns if I saw a leprechaun. I
could verify that there was a Vladivostok if I went to Vladivostok. I
could verify that God takes the form of burning bushes if he appeared
to me as a burning bush. Until I do any of those things, I am taking
it on faith that the thing in question exists.
Now you are equivocating on the meaning of the word faith. Do you have any
line of argument at all that doesn't rely on equivocation. And BTW when
your arguments are shown to be wrong, I suggest its' a good idea just to
accept it. Your attempts at weaseling just show yourself in a bad light,
even if it is a low form of entertainment for us.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Zen" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous |
18 May 2006 07:33:25 PM |
|
|
GIGO, innit. Llanzlan Klazmon <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> fed this in:
Dr Zen <longhornster@gmail.com> wrote in
<BIG SNIP>
No, that is not the point. It is a clear difference between beliefs in
ordinary things and beliefs in supernatural things, yes, but that is
not what we were discussing.
I see you are trying to weasel out again. Try reading what you originally
responded to:
==========================================================================
Are you trying to convince me or yourself? Most anti-theists (as
opposed to intelligent atheists) aren't too sure themselves.
Well, do you have any objective, verifiable evidence that religion is
anything other than wishful thinking?
George
If that's your criteria, even on a secular level, then you must live
inside a sealed jar.
Translation: I believe all sorts of things without any evidence at
all, and I simply can't comprehend why some people don't.
==========================================================================
Looks like ordinary vs supernatural was exactly what was being discussed.
Look, son, you're boring me now. "I believe all sorts of things..."
does not distinguish things or kinds of belief. You've just
*logically* disproved your own *****, so why should I bother any
further?
--
Dr Zen
I hold their faces in my hands
and I think what a cruel thing
that they should even exist;
what a cruel thing that they should grow
to hope, to burn, to live, and lose it all,
sooner or later, in their own dark sun of pain.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Selur" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous |
16 May 2006 01:12:04 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
Well, do you have any objective, verifiable evidence that religion is
anything other than wishful thinking?
George
If that's your criteria, even on a secular level, then you must live
inside a sealed jar.
Translation: I believe all sorts of things without any evidence at
all, and I simply can't comprehend why some people don't.
I don't live in a jar, son, but I *do* live in the real world.
I don't really see how I could have used fewer words to be more clear.
Read for comprehension, dope.
It wasn't about me. It wasn't about ethereal matters. Move your lips
less and think more.
Selur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous |
16 May 2006 06:49:58 PM |
|
|
On 16 May 2006 11:12:04 -0700, "Selur" <selurs@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
- Refer: <1147803124.711894.114590@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
John Baker wrote:
Well, do you have any objective, verifiable evidence that religion is
anything other than wishful thinking?
George
If that's your criteria, even on a secular level, then you must live
inside a sealed jar.
Translation: I believe all sorts of things without any evidence at
all, and I simply can't comprehend why some people don't.
I don't live in a jar, son, but I *do* live in the real world.
I don't really see how I could have used fewer words to be more clear.
Read for comprehension, dope.
It wasn't about me. It wasn't about ethereal matters. Move your lips
less and think more.
Selur
Please define "ethereal matters".
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Trainee Inquisitor of the month (2nd runner up: April)
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous |
21 May 2006 07:45:51 PM |
|
|
On 16 May 2006 11:12:04 -0700, "Selur" <selurs@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Well, do you have any objective, verifiable evidence that religion is
anything other than wishful thinking?
George
If that's your criteria, even on a secular level, then you must live
inside a sealed jar.
Translation: I believe all sorts of things without any evidence at
all, and I simply can't comprehend why some people don't.
I don't live in a jar, son, but I *do* live in the real world.
I don't really see how I could have used fewer words to be more clear.
Read for comprehension, dope.
It wasn't about me. It wasn't about ethereal matters. Move your lips
less and think more.
In other words, you have no adequate response.
Selur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Zen" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous |
22 May 2006 02:25:22 AM |
|
|
GIGO, innit. John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> fed this in:
On 16 May 2006 11:12:04 -0700, "Selur" <selurs@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Well, do you have any objective, verifiable evidence that religion is
anything other than wishful thinking?
George
If that's your criteria, even on a secular level, then you must live
inside a sealed jar.
Translation: I believe all sorts of things without any evidence at
all, and I simply can't comprehend why some people don't.
I don't live in a jar, son, but I *do* live in the real world.
I don't really see how I could have used fewer words to be more clear.
Read for comprehension, dope.
It wasn't about me. It wasn't about ethereal matters. Move your lips
less and think more.
In other words, you have no adequate response.
I hope this guy is trying out irony.
--
Dr Zen
I hold their faces in my hands
and I think what a cruel thing
that they should even exist;
what a cruel thing that they should grow
to hope, to burn, to live, and lose it all,
sooner or later, in their own dark sun of pain.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Selur" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous |
22 May 2006 04:29:20 PM |
|
|
Dr Zen wrote:
GIGO, innit. John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> fed this in:
On 16 May 2006 11:12:04 -0700, "Selur" <selurs@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Well, do you have any objective, verifiable evidence that religion is
anything other than wishful thinking?
George
If that's your criteria, even on a secular level, then you must live
inside a sealed jar.
Translation: I believe all sorts of things without any evidence at
all, and I simply can't comprehend why some people don't.
I don't live in a jar, son, but I *do* live in the real world.
I don't really see how I could have used fewer words to be more clear.
Read for comprehension, dope.
It wasn't about me. It wasn't about ethereal matters. Move your lips
less and think more.
In other words, you have no adequate response.
I hope this guy is trying out irony.
--
Dr Zen
One would hope. If not, are you going to draw a diagram for him?
Selur
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous |
22 May 2006 08:43:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:25:22 +1000, Dr Zen <longhornster@gmail.com>
wrote:
GIGO, innit. John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> fed this in:
On 16 May 2006 11:12:04 -0700, "Selur" <selurs@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
John Baker wrote:
Well, do you have any objective, verifiable evidence that religion is
anything other than wishful thinking?
George
If that's your criteria, even on a secular level, then you must live
inside a sealed jar.
Translation: I believe all sorts of things without any evidence at
all, and I simply can't comprehend why some people don't.
I don't live in a jar, son, but I *do* live in the real world.
I don't really see how I could have used fewer words to be more clear.
Read for comprehension, dope.
It wasn't about me. It wasn't about ethereal matters. Move your lips
less and think more.
In other words, you have no adequate response.
I hope this guy is trying out irony.
You and me both.
Why is it that whenever some Usenet "philosopher" fails to make his
point clear, it's always the reader's fault? <G>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "puzzled01" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous |
21 May 2006 12:50:54 AM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On 15 May 2006 17:58:50 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Many Christians see The Da Vinci Code as an opportunity for evangelism;
others say it's a chance to engage the culture. Rubbish. Da Vinci is
dangerous
If Christians are threatened by a work of fiction that barely anyone
will remember ten years from now, what does that say about
Christianity?
It says that the church sucks as an avenue for real education. It is
seriously dumbed down to the masses for the sake of filling pews.
If our Christian teachers have any sense, they will bone up on this
material and provide intelligent answers for their students who will
ultimately leave as a result of serious disillusionment. But I doubt
they will take up the challenge, as it is much easier to mock serious
inquiry with condescension and nebulous answers.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous |
16 May 2006 06:16:45 AM |
|
|
On 15 May 2006 17:58:50 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Many Christians see The Da Vinci Code as an opportunity for evangelism;
others say it's a chance to engage the culture. Rubbish. Da Vinci is
dangerous, so I'd like to suggest a better alternative.
Buy the book and burn it!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous |
16 May 2006 06:36:02 AM |
|
|
On 15 May 2006 17:58:50 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/othercott.html
Let's "Othercott" Da Vinci
Many Christians see The Da Vinci Code as an opportunity for evangelism;
others say it's a chance to engage the culture. Rubbish. Da Vinci is
dangerous, so I'd like to suggest a better alternative.
All you need to know about the Da Vinci fraud:
The Da Vinci Fraud
by Robert M. Price
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591023483/qid=1116357940
Book Description
Was Leonardo Da Vinci a member of the "Priory of Sion," a secret
society reaching all the way back to the Crusades? Does his famous
painting, "The Last Supper," contain a hidden code about this
society’s most precious secret? Did Jesus father children by Mary
Magdalene? What was the Holy Grail?
The best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown has stirred the
popular imagination by cleverly interweaving theories about such
questions with a fast-paced fictional narrative. Many readers have
been so swept away by the drama of this murder mystery that they have
accepted Brown’s fictional reconstruction of Christian origins and
medieval history as established fact.
New Testament scholar Robert M. Price, a member of the Jesus Seminar,
examines the creative uses of history in Brown’s novel, showing that,
however intriguing Brown’s fictional speculations may be, the real
facts behind the novel are even more fascinating. What does the best
historical evidence say about the possibility that Jesus might have
survived the crucifixion? How did the Gospels come to be accepted as
the established accounts of Jesus’ life and why were other Gnostic
traditions suppressed? How did the Roman Emperor Constantine figure in
the development of Christian dogma? What was Mary Magdalene’s role in
early Christianity and how was it adapted in later attempts to develop
a "sacred feminine" element in Christianity? These are some of the
important questions about Christianity that Dr. Price pursues in this
engrossing discussion of Christian history. Price combines
sophisticated historical analysis with completely accessible and witty
prose in this enlightening, factually based sequel to Brown’s
speculative bestseller.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous |
16 May 2006 09:26:20 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and LP
<whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> posting the following on 16 May 2006
06:36:02 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
All you need to know about the Da Vinci fraud:
The BOOK is a FUCKING WORK OF FICTION!!!!!
Holy flaming crap, do you morons not get the concept of "work of
fiction?" Doers the author going around stating that he made the thing
up based on some odd theories not get through your skulls? NOBODY in
their right minds see this book as anything more than a generic
thriller with an interesting hook!
I must admit, I find it endlessly amusing that Christianity is so weak
that a pot-boiler beach book can shake it to its very foundations.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous |
17 May 2006 06:22:03 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 May 2006 02:26:20 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and LP
<whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> posting the following on 16 May 2006
06:36:02 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
All you need to know about the Da Vinci fraud:
The BOOK is a FUCKING WORK OF FICTION!!!!!
Holy flaming crap, do you morons not get the concept of "work of
fiction?" Doers the author going around stating that he made the thing
up based on some odd theories not get through your skulls? NOBODY in
their right minds see this book as anything more than a generic
thriller with an interesting hook!
I must admit, I find it endlessly amusing that Christianity is so weak
that a pot-boiler beach book can shake it to its very foundations.
Did you read the summary of the book I recommended?
It acknowledges the fact that the book is fictitious, even when it is
making historical references. It goes on to say that the true story is
far stranger than what Dan Brown's imagination conjured up.
Collection of essays by the author.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: To Christ-o-Morons, an Oreo Cookie is Dangerous (Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous) |
16 May 2006 01:05:00 AM |
|
|
On 15 May 2006 17:58:50 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/othercott.html
Let's "Othercott" Da Vinci
Great strategy! What better way to ignore a movie than to devote an
entire article publicizing its existence? Don't watch this movies!
It's coming out this weekend!
Besides, I'm sure one of those Over-the-Hedge animals is gay. Just
like Tinky Winky.
Many Christians see The Da Vinci Code as an opportunity for evangelism;
others say it's a chance to engage the culture. Rubbish. Da Vinci is
dangerous, so I'd like to suggest a better alternative.
By Barbara Nicolosi | posted 05/03/06
I've read and heard a lot lately from Christians who suggest that we
should be willing to "engage" The Da Vinci Code, so that we can be a
part of the "cultural conversation." Believers are touting the upcoming
movie as an "opportunity for evangelism" and even an incentive to
bolster our own faith.
Baloney.
This film is based on a book that wears its heresy and blasphemy as a
badge of honor, and I intend to stay far away from it.
I get lots of calls to do interviews about The Da Vinci Code, but I
duck as many of them as I can. Basically, I hate talking about DVC
because I have a personal relationship with Jesus-and he isn't a
proto-feminist goddess-cultic with a weak personality that could have
been simply co-opted by power-hungry misogynists.
I love Jesus. It makes me physically sick to entertain discussion about
the ways in which the defining acts of his life-his Passion,
Resurrection and establishment of the Church-could be a diabolical
scam that he never anticipated nor experienced. It would make me sick
to hear salacious lies about anyone I love; how much more my Savior?
Besides that, I don't think we should encourage people in the terrible
sin against the Holy Spirit of speculating that things that are holy
are evil, and that things that are evil are holy. Isn't that what is
going on here? How is that not painful for anyone who knows the Lord?
Don't debate the Devil
DVC as great opportunity for evangelism? Hmmm. The climate of
evangelism is not consistent with a posture of defiance and cynicism.
Is slander an opportunity? Is angry superiority an opportunity? DVC
represents all the "opportunity" that the Roman persecutions offered
the early Church. Rah.
And here's another thing that troubles me about the "opportunity for
dialogue" stance. The debate is all on hell's terms. I am somebody who
reads about exorcisms. I don't know why. I just do. And one of the
first rules of exorcism is that you never answer the Devil's questions.
You don't debate the Devil. You do not give evil the authority to
question God.
DVC represents a debate in which the questions start with Satan's
presumptions. I find it beyond naive to convince myself that the folks
who are lapping up DVC are on a "search for truth." They're not. They
are on a crusade to validate their own rejection of the authority of
Christ and the Church.
Here's a typical DVC-inspired dialogue. See if you can find a search
for truth in it.
It usually starts with something like this: "Everybody knows that the
Church Fathers were liars. Can you prove the compilation of the Bible
wasn't pure politics?"
And just when you start saying, "Well, I don't agree that the Church
Fathers were--", the questioner moves on with eyes flashing
unnaturally, "Why is the Church so afraid of women, huh? Why has it
suppressed them since the beginning? Answer THAT!"
You clear your throat and say, "Well, I wouldn't say that the Church is
afr--"
But they've moved on: "The fact is, there is no evidence for the
Resurrection. Have you ever read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene?"
"Well, no, but--"
"See you people are all brain-washed." [Exhalation of disgust.] "How so
many people could be so stupid is amazing to me."
When you debate with Satan, there is no opportunity for anything but
people digging their heels into the sludge of chaos and confusion.
Scandalizing the sheep
I also hate the idea that some of the sheep would be scandalized away
from Jesus by this idiotic story. And they will.
The sheep have been bred as teeming little narcissist lambs who
stubbornly consider themselves "special," no matter how mediocre their
understanding and living out of their life of discipleship. We have a
global pasture full of sheep pasturing themselves, with coats
shamefully besmirched by loving their sins.
They bleat defiance and pride of their filth, and insist that Jesus is
indifferent to their degradation and shame: "Who knows, Jesus is
probably just like us!" They don't know, and don't know that they don't
know, or don't know, and don't care that they don't know.
And now The Da Vinci Code comes along to sheepish ears that are primed
and ready to be told that holiness is impossible. And that is why this
book is a success. It says to people, "If Jesus was a sham, then
anything is permissible." (Ref. "You shall be like gods!")
I thought of this when I read a recent DVC rant from Mark Shea, who
wrote that "the most maddening thing about this book is the thought of
somebody losing their faith over this-this!-stupid piece of
dimestore erudition. If you are going to risk your eternal soul, it
should at least be over something noble and romantic and big. If you
are bound to damn yourself, then at least let it be over a torrid and
star-crossed love affair, or out of tragic hubris that sought to know
What Man Was Not Meant to Know .... But to lose your soul over this
cartoonish, illiterate, dishonest piece of hack drivel?"
I recently attended a DVC event at a local evangelical church. Several
panelists gave long speeches about how Christians should welcome DVC as
an opportunity for dialogue, then opened the floor for questions. A
woman began her question by saying, "I don't have any problem with the
fact that Jesus had sex ...."
Unbelievable! Yeah, let's all march our troops into "dialogue." The
fact that our troops are completely disarmed for a fight seems to be
irrelevant!
Many of our Christian sheep will be ripe for slaughter from DVC. All
they will have to go to battle with is the Bible. But DVC undermines
biblical authority by saying that the Bible was the product of a purely
political process. This debate will shake the faith of many who are not
prepared for it.
An alternative "boycott"
So, what can we as Christians do in response to the release of this
movie?
Some are suggesting a protest. But the problem with this option is that
it doesn't work. Any publicity is good publicity. Protests not only
fuel the box office, they make all Christians look like idiots. And
protests and boycotts do nothing to help shape the decisions being made
right now about what movies Hollywood will make in the next few years.
(Or they convince Hollywood to make *more* movies that will provoke
Christians to protest, which will drive the box office up.)
Some suggest that we simply ignore the movie. But the problem with this
option is that the box office is a ballot box. The only people whose
votes are counted are those who buy tickets; if you stay home, you have
thrown your vote away, and you do nothing to shape the Hollywood
decision-making process regarding what movies will make it to the big
screen.
Some suggest that we go see the movie so we can be better prepared to
discuss it, to "engage the culture," so to speak. But if you've read
this far, you already know how I feel about this. The problem with this
option: No one's listening. They think they know what we're going to
say already.
But I'd like to offer another option.
On DVC's opening weekend-May 19-21-you should go to the movies.
Just go to another movie. That's your way of casting your vote, the
only vote Hollywood recognizes: The power of cold hard cash laid down
on a box office window on opening weekend.
Use your vote. Don't throw it away. Vote for a movie other than DVC. If
enough people do it, the powers that be will notice.
The major studio movie scheduled for release against DVC is the
DreamWorks animated feature Over the Hedge. The trailers look fun, and
you can take your kids. And your friends. And their friends. In fact,
let's all go see it.
Let's rock the box office in a way no one expects-without protests,
without boycotts, without arguments, without rancor. Let's show up at
the box office ballot box and cast our votes. And buy some popcorn,
too.
As for The Da Vinci Code, don't go see this stupid movie. Don't pay
money to have the insidious lies of the enemy introduced into your
heart and mind.
Let's "othercott" DVC on May 19 by going to see Over the Hedge instead.
This commentary was adapted by permission from Nicolosi's online blog,
Church of the Masses.
Barbara Nicolosi is the founder and director of Act One, an
organization whose mission is to train committed Christian writers to
work in the Hollywood film industry.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2444 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Ahhhhhh, yessssssss, ummmmmmm - Alito, Alito, Alito"
-duke (duckgumbo@cox.net), aka PedophilEarl J Weber, 59
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge,who pussied
out of the Vietnam draft, showing his gay side
despite his avowed anti-gay bigotry
Contact duke's priest and ask
him why duke is such a racist:
http://www.stpatrickbr.org/
Father Gerard "Jerry" Martin
stpatrickbr<AT>bellsouth<DOT>net
Saint Patrick Catholic Church
12424 Brogdon Lane
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Zen" |
|
| Title: Re: To Christ-o-Morons, an Oreo Cookie is Dangerous (Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous) |
16 May 2006 04:26:21 AM |
|
|
GIGO, innit. "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> fed this in:
On 15 May 2006 17:58:50 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/othercott.html
Let's "Othercott" Da Vinci
Great strategy! What better way to ignore a movie than to devote an
entire article publicizing its existence? Don't watch this movies!
It's coming out this weekend!
Besides, I'm sure one of those Over-the-Hedge animals is gay. Just
like Tinky Winky.
Many Christians see The Da Vinci Code as an opportunity for evangelism;
others say it's a chance to engage the culture. Rubbish. Da Vinci is
dangerous, so I'd like to suggest a better alternative.
By Barbara Nicolosi | posted 05/03/06
I've read and heard a lot lately from Christians who suggest that we
should be willing to "engage" The Da Vinci Code, so that we can be a
part of the "cultural conversation." Believers are touting the upcoming
movie as an "opportunity for evangelism" and even an incentive to
bolster our own faith.
Baloney.
This film is based on a book that wears its heresy and blasphemy as a
badge of honor, and I intend to stay far away from it.
I get lots of calls to do interviews about The Da Vinci Code, but I
duck as many of them as I can. Basically, I hate talking about DVC
because I have a personal relationship with Jesus-and he isn't a
proto-feminist goddess-cultic with a weak personality that could have
been simply co-opted by power-hungry misogynists.
I love Jesus.
How hard do you think he has to restrain himself from adding "but not
in a sexual way".
--
Dr Zen
I hold their faces in my hands
and I think what a cruel thing
that they should even exist;
what a cruel thing that they should grow
to hope, to burn, to live, and lose it all,
sooner or later, in their own dark sun of pain.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: To Christ-o-Morons, an Oreo Cookie is Dangerous (Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous) |
16 May 2006 09:42:58 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 May 2006 19:26:21 +1000, Dr Zen <longhornster@gmail.com>
wrote:
GIGO, innit. "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> fed this in:
On 15 May 2006 17:58:50 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/othercott.html
Let's "Othercott" Da Vinci
Great strategy! What better way to ignore a movie than to devote an
entire article publicizing its existence? Don't watch this movies!
It's coming out this weekend!
Besides, I'm sure one of those Over-the-Hedge animals is gay. Just
like Tinky Winky.
Many Christians see The Da Vinci Code as an opportunity for evangelism;
others say it's a chance to engage the culture. Rubbish. Da Vinci is
dangerous, so I'd like to suggest a better alternative.
By Barbara Nicolosi | posted 05/03/06
I've read and heard a lot lately from Christians who suggest that we
should be willing to "engage" The Da Vinci Code, so that we can be a
part of the "cultural conversation." Believers are touting the upcoming
movie as an "opportunity for evangelism" and even an incentive to
bolster our own faith.
Baloney.
This film is based on a book that wears its heresy and blasphemy as a
badge of honor, and I intend to stay far away from it.
I get lots of calls to do interviews about The Da Vinci Code, but I
duck as many of them as I can. Basically, I hate talking about DVC
because I have a personal relationship with Jesus-and he isn't a
proto-feminist goddess-cultic with a weak personality that could have
been simply co-opted by power-hungry misogynists.
I love Jesus.
How hard do you think he has to restrain himself from adding "but not
in a sexual way".
As an acquaintance once remarked, Christians have this odd
sexualized-ferver about Jesus, fro example try to substitute "Jesus"
for "penis" in their manifestos.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2444 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Ahhhhhh, yessssssss, ummmmmmm - Alito, Alito, Alito"
-duke (duckgumbo@cox.net), aka PedophilEarl J Weber, 59
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge,who pussied
out of the Vietnam draft, showing his gay side
despite his avowed anti-gay bigotry
Contact duke's priest and ask
him why duke is such a racist:
http://www.stpatrickbr.org/
Father Gerard "Jerry" Martin
stpatrickbr<AT>bellsouth<DOT>net
Saint Patrick Catholic Church
12424 Brogdon Lane
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Zen" |
|
| Title: Re: To Christ-o-Morons, an Oreo Cookie is Dangerous (Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous) |
16 May 2006 06:13:30 PM |
|
|
GIGO, innit. "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> fed this in:
On Tue, 16 May 2006 19:26:21 +1000, Dr Zen <longhornster@gmail.com>
wrote:
GIGO, innit. "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> fed this in:
On 15 May 2006 17:58:50 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/othercott.html
Let's "Othercott" Da Vinci
Great strategy! What better way to ignore a movie than to devote an
entire article publicizing its existence? Don't watch this movies!
It's coming out this weekend!
Besides, I'm sure one of those Over-the-Hedge animals is gay. Just
like Tinky Winky.
Many Christians see The Da Vinci Code as an opportunity for evangelism;
others say it's a chance to engage the culture. Rubbish. Da Vinci is
dangerous, so I'd like to suggest a better alternative.
By Barbara Nicolosi | posted 05/03/06
I've read and heard a lot lately from Christians who suggest that we
should be willing to "engage" The Da Vinci Code, so that we can be a
part of the "cultural conversation." Believers are touting the upcoming
movie as an "opportunity for evangelism" and even an incentive to
bolster our own faith.
Baloney.
This film is based on a book that wears its heresy and blasphemy as a
badge of honor, and I intend to stay far away from it.
I get lots of calls to do interviews about The Da Vinci Code, but I
duck as many of them as I can. Basically, I hate talking about DVC
because I have a personal relationship with Jesus-and he isn't a
proto-feminist goddess-cultic with a weak personality that could have
been simply co-opted by power-hungry misogynists.
I love Jesus.
How hard do you think he has to restrain himself from adding "but not
in a sexual way".
As an acquaintance once remarked, Christians have this odd
sexualized-ferver about Jesus, fro example try to substitute "Jesus"
for "penis" in their manifestos.
I'd like to shake the penis that died for my sins by the hand.
--
Dr Zen
I hold their faces in my hands
and I think what a cruel thing
that they should even exist;
what a cruel thing that they should grow
to hope, to burn, to live, and lose it all,
sooner or later, in their own dark sun of pain.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Antonio Forza" |
|
| Title: Re: To Christ-o-Morons, an Oreo Cookie is Dangerous (Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous) |
17 May 2006 09:03:54 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 May 2006 19:26:21 +1000, Dr Zen <longhornster@gmail.com>
wrote:
I love Jesus.
How hard do you think he has to restrain himself from adding "but not
in a sexual way".
Have you seen the "jackhammer jesus"?
http://www.divine-interventions.com/jackhammer.html
Perfect for those who want to become one with their lord!!!!
--
Mental Anarchy - Free Your Mind
http://mentalanarchy.com
--
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: To Christ-o-Morons, an Oreo Cookie is Dangerous (Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous) |
17 May 2006 01:43:11 PM |
|
|
"Antonio Forza" <antonioforza@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s8bm625ajtrv62tpvgbfud1mc16618sfso@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 May 2006 19:26:21 +1000, Dr Zen <longhornster@gmail.com>
wrote:
I love Jesus.
How hard do you think he has to restrain himself from adding "but not
in a sexual way".
Have you seen the "jackhammer jesus"?
http://www.divine-interventions.com/jackhammer.html
Perfect for those who want to become one with their lord!!!!
Oh my ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Antonio Forza" |
|
| Title: Re: To Christ-o-Morons, an Oreo Cookie is Dangerous (Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous) |
17 May 2006 08:57:21 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 May 2006 23:05:00 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On 15 May 2006 17:58:50 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/othercott.html
Let's "Othercott" Da Vinci
Great strategy! What better way to ignore a movie than to devote an
entire article publicizing its existence? Don't watch this movies!
It's coming out this weekend!
Besides, I'm sure one of those Over-the-Hedge animals is gay. Just
like Tinky Winky.
LOL. If it weren't for all the hype and controversy, I probably
wouldn't even bother with this film. Now I am curious, and will
probably check it out this weekend.
--
Mental Anarchy - Free Your Mind
http://mentalanarchy.com
--
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: To Christ-o-Morons, an Oreo Cookie is Dangerous (Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous) |
17 May 2006 10:20:11 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 May 2006 06:57:21 -0700, Antonio Forza
<antonioforza@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 23:05:00 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On 15 May 2006 17:58:50 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/othercott.html
Let's "Othercott" Da Vinci
Great strategy! What better way to ignore a movie than to devote an
entire article publicizing its existence? Don't watch this movies!
It's coming out this weekend!
Besides, I'm sure one of those Over-the-Hedge animals is gay. Just
like Tinky Winky.
LOL. If it weren't for all the hype and controversy, I probably
wouldn't even bother with this film. Now I am curious, and will
probably check it out this weekend.
I'm going just to spite the Christ-o-morons.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2449 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Ahhhhhh, yessssssss, ummmmmmm - Alito, Alito, Alito"
-duke (duckgumbo@cox.net), aka PedophilEarl J Weber, 59
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge,who pussied
out of the Vietnam draft, showing his gay side
despite his avowed anti-gay bigotry
Contact duke's priest and ask
him why duke is such a racist:
http://www.stpatrickbr.org/
Father Gerard "Jerry" Martin
stpatrickbr<AT>bellsouth<DOT>net
Saint Patrick Catholic Church
12424 Brogdon Lane
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: To Christ-o-Morons, an Oreo Cookie is Dangerous (Re: Da Vinci Code Is Dangerous) |
16 May 2006 09:47:47 AM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
On 15 May 2006 17:58:50 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/othercott.html
Let's "Othercott" Da Vinci
Great strategy! What better way to ignore a movie than to devote an
entire article publicizing its existence? Don't watch this movies!
It's coming out this weekend!
Besides, I'm sure one of those Over-the-Hedge animals is gay. Just
like Tinky Winky.
Many Christians see The Da Vinci Code as an opportunity for evangelism;
others say it's a chance to engage the culture. Rubbish. Da Vinci is
dangerous, so I'd like to suggest a better alternative.
By Barbara Nicolosi | posted 05/03/06
I've read and heard a lot lately from Christians who suggest that we
should be willing to "engage" The Da Vinci Code, so that we can be a
part of the "cultural conversation." Believers are touting the upcoming
movie as an "opportunity for evangelism" and even an incentive to
bolster our own faith.
Baloney.
This film is based on a book that wears its heresy and blasphemy as a
badge of honor, and I intend to stay far away from it.
I get lots of calls to do interviews about The Da Vinci Code, but I
duck as many of them as I can. Basically, I hate talking about DVC
because I have a personal relationship with Jesus-and he isn't a
proto-feminist goddess-cultic with a weak personality that could have
been simply co-opted by power-hungry misogynists.
I love Jesus. It makes me physically sick to entertain discussion about
the ways in which the defining acts of his life-his Passion,
Resurrection and establishment of the Church-could be a diabolical
scam that he never anticipated nor experienced. It would make me sick
to hear salacious lies about anyone I love; how much more my Savior?
Besides that, I don't think we should encourage people in the terrible
sin against the Holy Spirit of speculating that things that are holy
are evil, and that things that are evil are holy. Isn't that what is
going on here? How is that not painful for anyone who knows the Lord?
Don't debate the Devil
DVC as great opportunity for evangelism? Hmmm. The climate of
evangelism is not consistent with a posture of defiance and cynicism.
Is slander an opportunity? Is angry superiority an opportunity? DVC
represents all the "opportunity" that the Roman persecutions offered
the early Church. Rah.
And here's another thing that troubles me about the "opportunity for
dialogue" stance. The debate is all on hell's terms. I am somebody who
reads about exorcisms. I don't know why. I just do. And one of the
first rules of exorcism is that you never answer the Devil's questions.
You don't debate the Devil. You do not give evil the authority to
question God.
DVC represents a debate in which the questions start with Satan's
presumptions. I find it beyond naive to convince myself that the folks
who are lapping up DVC are on a "search for truth." They're not. They
are on a crusade to validate their own rejection of the authority of
Christ and the Church.
Here's a typical DVC-inspired dialogue. See if you can find a search
for truth in it.
It usually starts with something like this: "Everybody knows that the
Church Fathers were liars. Can you prove the compilation of the Bible
wasn't pure politics?"
And just when you start saying, "Well, I don't agree that the Church
Fathers were--", the questioner moves on with eyes flashing
unnaturally, "Why is the Church so afraid of women, huh? Why has it
suppressed them since the beginning? Answer THAT!"
You clear your throat and say, "Well, I wouldn't say that the Church is
afr--"
But they've moved on: "The fact is, there is no evidence for the
Resurrection. Have you ever read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene?"
"Well, no, but--"
"See you people are all brain-washed." [Exhalation of disgust.] "How so
many people could be so stupid is amazing to me."
When you debate with Satan, there is no opportunity for anything but
people digging their heels into the sludge of chaos and confusion.
Scandalizing the sheep
I also hate the idea that some of the sheep would be scandalized away
from Jesus by this idiotic story. And they will.
The sheep have been bred as teeming little narcissist lambs who
stubbornly consider themselves "special," no matter how mediocre their
understanding and living out of their life of discipleship. We have a
global pasture full of sheep pasturing themselves, with coats
shamefully besmirched by loving their sins.
They bleat defiance and pride of their filth, and insist that Jesus is
indifferent to their degradation and shame: "Who knows, Jesus is
probably just like us!" They don't know, and don't know that they don't
know, or don't know, and don't care that they don't know.
And now The Da Vinci Code comes along to sheepish ears that are primed
and ready to be told that holiness is impossible. And that is why this
book is a success. It says to people, "If Jesus was a sham, then
anything is permissible." (Ref. "You shall be like gods!")
I thought of this when I read a recent DVC rant from Mark Shea, who
wrote that "the most maddening thing about this book is the thought of
somebody losing their faith over this-this!-stupid piece of
dimestore erudition. If you are going to risk your eternal soul, it
should at least be over something noble and romantic and big. If you
are bound to damn yourself, then at least let it be over a torrid and
star-crossed love affair, or out of tragic hubris that sought to know
What Man Was Not Meant to Know .... But to lose your soul over this
cartoonish, illiterate, dishonest piece of hack drivel?"
I recently attended a DVC event at a local evangelical church. Several
panelists gave long speeches about how Christians should welcome DVC as
an opportunity for dialogue, then opened the floor for questions. A
woman began her question by saying, "I don't have any problem with the
fact that Jesus had sex ...."
Unbelievable! Yeah, let's all march our troops into | | |
