How to be "brave" in Hollywood --- attack Christianity

[Hobbit]

OK, I can see where it would bug you to the extent that you don't buy it. But to be honest, it isn't blasphemy. No where does it say one shouldn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah if that's their belief, just a flight of fancy based on the acknowledgement that he was also flesh. In fact, if you read the book, it talks at the end, about faith being good for people and how it shouldn't be shaken. I think part of the problem you're having with it is a cultural thing....understandable. But for non-believers who see it as "just a book" or "just a movie", it doesn't rise to that level of importance any more than Godspell or Jesus Christ, Superstar, should be taken as gospel truth (pun intended). Should you not see it? Perhaps. Should you tell the people who believe as you do that they shouldn't see it? Sure...if they find it offensive. I guess I just see the possibility of Jesus having been married as interesting. Also interesting, to me, anyway, is that since Jesus was an Essene, (at least seems to have been the case based on the Dead Sea Scrolls) his body couldn't have been attended by any woman but for his mother and/or his wife. His body was attended by both Mary's. Just a side-note.

If Jesus was in a monastic order, I don't exactly see it being ommitted from the gospels, same as him being married.

As far as just not liking it enough not to buy it, I really don't see you grasping the gravity of what they're doing by passing this off as truth. If you want a bit more perspective on it, just imagine if somebody claimed that AIDS as an STD was just a myth and that it was actualy just a latent genetic disorder. Now, there's a book of fiction about the coverup of this knowledge for the purpose of suppressing sex, and enough people believe in the coverup that they stop practicing caution in their sexual practices. Of course, there would be a huge outbreak of AIDS cases, at least until the truth came to light. Now then, imagine if a bunch of people who didn't do any activities that could result in AIDS just walked around saying, "Hey, it's just a piece of fiction. What's the big deal." However, in the case of the Da Vinci Code, people who start believing all this stuff won't realize it's wrong until it's too late.

This piece of 'subjective belief' that allows people to believe they can just alter Christianity to suit their own purposes is damaging to everything that missionaries have spend centuries working toward.

 

[Diuretic]

By legal standards concerning burden of proof, reasonable doubt, and credibility of testimony, the biblical account of Jesus' life is can be considered true while the gnostic account cannot. If the Bible doesn't meet the standard of proof, we need to rethink the entire legal system and possibly disqualify any case that relies solely on eyewitness testimony.

Eyewitness testimony is crap. But that's not what you meant. I just thought I'd put that in the mix.

Now why anyone would subject The Bible to legal standards of proof is beyond me. The Bible is a compilation of material from various sources, interpreted used a specifc process. The Bible can't meet the legal standard of proof because none of it would be admissible in court due to the fact that in common law jurisdictions hearsay is (except in very specific circumstances) inadmissible. However you could get it in as evidence in France.

As far as getting bent out of shape, the thing that's getting us bent out of shape is how many easily duped people believe this perversion of scripture and try to tell the world how evil the church is for covering up 'the truth.' I wish it was just a piece of fiction like any other, but you don't need to tell me that it's fiction. You need to tell the people walking around proclaiming the evils of the Catholic church and how chauvanistic it is for covering up the 'true' role of Mary Magdeline.

It seems to be worry most those from denominations who need to see The Bible as literal truth, that is, fundamentalists. The Bible is not literal truth, it was never meant to be taken as literal truth. Therefore anyone attacking it on the basis of it being literal truth is bound to fail in their attempts.

 

[Hobbit]

Eyewitness testimony is crap. But that's not what you meant. I just thought I'd put that in the mix.

Now why anyone would subject The Bible to legal standards of proof is beyond me. The Bible is a compilation of material from various sources, interpreted used a specifc process. The Bible can't meet the legal standard of proof because none of it would be admissible in court due to the fact that in common law jurisdictions hearsay is (except in very specific circumstances) inadmissible. However you could get it in as evidence in France.

Actually, it would be admissable in court since the original authors are not available to give testimony. In fact, a devout atheist and experienced lawyer once sat down to show that the Bible did not live up to legal standards of proof, but instead found out that it did and converted to Christianity.

It seems to be worry most those from denominations who need to see The Bible as literal truth, that is, fundamentalists. The Bible is not literal truth, it was never meant to be taken as literal truth. Therefore anyone attacking it on the basis of it being literal truth is bound to fail in their attempts.

Now see, this is you, someone who doesn't even follow the Bible, telling me, somone who has followed it since he could read, what the Bible is and what it is not, something about which you know little and I know much. Yes, there's some symbolism and metaphor, but the Bible is primarily fact. In fact, all the best generals and archeologists operating in the right parts of the world carry around Bibles simply because of their historical accuracy.

 

[Diuretic]

Actually, it would be admissable in court since the original authors are not available to give testimony. In fact, a devout atheist and experienced lawyer once sat down to show that the Bible did not live up to legal standards of proof, but instead found out that it did and converted to Christianity.

Yes, that was my point. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible because it can't be tested by cross-examination. At best some of The Bible might be admitted under an exception to the hearsay rule, eg dying declarations (note this is wry humour, not a serious point).

Now see, this is you, someone who doesn't even follow the Bible, telling me, somone who has followed it since he could read, what the Bible is and what it is not, something about which you know little and I know much. Yes, there's some symbolism and metaphor, but the Bible is primarily fact. In fact, all the best generals and archeologists operating in the right parts of the world carry around Bibles simply because of their historical accuracy.

Leaving aside for a moment the ad hominem - you assume too much. How can you know The Bible is primarily fact?

 

[Hobbit]

Leaving aside for a moment the ad hominem - you assume too much. How can you know The Bible is primarily fact?

Because the majority of the Old Testament consists of historical accounts which can and have been verified with the same standards used to verify such stories as the Scottish War for Independance, the Inquisition, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, and the invasion of Greece by the Persians. The majority of the New Testament consists of letters written between members of the early church, with much of the rest of it being an eyewitness account of the events leading to, during, and following the life of Jesus of Nazereth, and with four similar, distinct, and non-contradictory accounts of the gospel, that much is pretty solid. If nothing else, the authors of those books believed they saw exactly what they wrote down.

In fact, archeological teams routinely discover terrific finds right where the Bible places them, with evidence that events transpired there that were at least similar to the Biblical account. Soddom and Gammorah are believed to have been found. Scientific evidence has been discovered that supports the account nine of the ten plagues of Egypt. The excavation at ancient Jericho shows that the walls literally fell, intact, with no help from any man-made object. The evidence is overwhelming, but so many people who just don't want to believe chalk it up to zealous mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Diuretic]

Because the majority of the Old Testament consists of historical accounts which can and have been verified with the same standards used to verify such stories as the Scottish War for Independance, the Inquisition, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, and the invasion of Greece by the Persians.

And what was the origin of the Old Testament? I'm pretty sure that much of it came from Judaism?

The majority of the New Testament consists of letters written between members of the early church, with much of the rest of it being an eyewitness account of the events leading to, during, and following the life of Jesus of Nazereth, and with four similar, distinct, and non-contradictory accounts of the gospel, that much is pretty solid. If nothing else, the authors of those books believed they saw exactly what they wrote down.

And when were they written? How long after the events? Who wrote them? Don't take my questions as being attempts to dig at you, they're not. I'm just wanting to put things in perspective, not threaten anyone's faith.

In fact, archeological teams routinely discover terrific finds right where the Bible places them, with evidence that events transpired there that were at least similar to the Biblical account. Soddom and Gammorah are believed to have been found. Scientific evidence has been discovered that supports the account nine of the ten plagues of Egypt. The excavation at ancient Jericho shows that the walls literally fell, intact, with no help from any man-made object. The evidence is overwhelming, but so many people who just don't want to believe chalk it up to zealous mumbo-jumbo.

I don't. I'm interested in the representation of historical fact in The Bible. Given the origins of the Old Testament I would think that it's interesting just to read it because of its historical accounts and when scientific evidence is found to corroborate some of the accounts that's really interesting. The legends of the flood, for example, are found not just in the Old Testament but are in various cultures which means, for me at least, that there is something in it. However I wouldn't rely on it as a historically fully valid text.

 

[Hobbit]

And what was the origin of the Old Testament? I'm pretty sure that much of it came from Judaism?

The Old Testament contains much of the same text as the Torah, which had the primary purposes of chronicling the history of the Isrealites and laying down the rules which they must follow.

And when were they written? How long after the events? Who wrote them? Don't take my questions as being attempts to dig at you, they're not. I'm just wanting to put things in perspective, not threaten anyone's faith.

And I'm more than happy to comply. The original date of the writing of the gospels is unknown, but is assumed to be sometime during the events listed in the book of Acts, as they were written by eyewitness accounts, something only available within about three to six decades of the events in question. The authors were also eyewitnesses who were executed or exiled, cutting the window short. The reason they're hard to pin down, though, is because, at that time, belief in Christ was a capital crime, so the gospels weren't able to be 'published.' The writings were hidden and passed around, copied and recopied one page at a time in order to hide them from the Roman Soldiers. Now, you'll hear many people site 325 AD at the Council of Nicea as the date the gospels were written, but that was merely the date when the first Christian Bible was assembled and published.

I don't. I'm interested in the representation of historical fact in The Bible. Given the origins of the Old Testament I would think that it's interesting just to read it because of its historical accounts and when scientific evidence is found to corroborate some of the accounts that's really interesting. The legends of the flood, for example, are found not just in the Old Testament but are in various cultures which means, for me at least, that there is something in it. However I wouldn't rely on it as a historically fully valid text.

Many things must be put in perspective. The flooding of the entire Earth is unlikely, as the water had to come from, and subsequently go, somewhere, added to the fact that all existing species of animal could not fit in a boat of the dimensions listed. What is more likely is that some sort of superstorm flooded the known Earth. Both are unlikely, but God is, of course, omnipotent, and given my observations of God and how he works, I am more likely to believe the latter. What you have to remember is that the people who wrote the words, while inspired by God, lacked the understanding of the Earth required to list a fully scientific account of what they saw, so they wrote the appearance.

Take, for example, the ten plagues.

The first plague is that the river turned to blood. If it was an exceptionally rainy season in the Ethiopian highlands, the Nile would flow high and gather up the reddish, clay heavy silt, causing the river to run red. The fish would have died as the bacteria and other animals that were washed downstream would have eaten up all their food. Leaving the mystique of the myth, it is still unexplained how Moses could have caused fresh water already in containers to 'turn to blood.'

The second plague is frogs. Just like the fish, the frogs would have no food, but unlike the fish, they would be able to hop onto dry land in search of more.

The third plague is the plague of lice, a mistranslation, as the word more likely refers to mosquitos, which would have thrived in the pestilent water.

The fourth plague is the plague of flies. Swarms of flies so thick that they can suffocate a man have been seen around the Nile before, and they would have been attracted to the dead fish.

The fifth plague strikes cattle dead. Chalking it up again to the high Nile, anthrax, a disease which strikes mainly cattle, would have thrived, likely causing these deaths.

The sixth plague is the plague of boils. When non-weaponized cattle anthrax hits human beings, it causes large, painful, disgusting boils on the skin.

The seventh plague is thunder and hail. Given how the seasons of the Nile follow, a season of exceptionally bad weather would follow from the same conditions that caused the high Nile in the first place, leading to severe thunderstorms and hail.

The eighth plague is locusts. Swarms of locusts routinely cross the Sahara and other Middle Eastern deserts. With heavy rains in other places thick with crops, the locust swarms would likely have followed the Nile north into Egypt after the hailstorms had passed.

The ninth plague is darkness. The clay dust kicked up in desert windstorms can entirely blot out the sun in affected areas, causing darkness.

The only things left unexplained within the scope of scientific evidence were the turning of a staff into a snake, Moses' prediction of the plagues, the incredible sequence of coincidences causing the plagues to hit in rapid succession, and, of course, the almighty tenth plague, death of the firstborn son. The full events would have been completely omitted from Egyptian histories as the history of ancient Egypt leaves out anything that made the Egyptians look bad, and the defeat of their divine Pharoah and his army by the god of the slaves would have been far too embarassing to want to remember.

 

[Diuretic]

A thorough and interesting answer. Yes, the Pharoahs would certainly not have wanted the truth to be told, human nature is constant.

Interesting about the plagues. The recording of an event and its interpretation through the ages is fascinating. Something that can look supernatural because we don't have the knowledge of its cause can later be explained. And strangely enough this can support biblical accounts of those events. The events you mentioned, if read by say, someone in England at the time of King James, would have seemed supernatural, shocking, terrifying. But to us now we can look back and see perfectly natural, as opposed to supernatural, explanations for the events. That, ironically, supports the accounts of the events because we can say, yes, that probably happened.

Most of us now accept that the Earth isn't flat and that the Earth revolves around the Sun, despite the apparent evidence of our eyes. Humans have a greater propensity to accept something if the evidence is produced for it.

 

[Dr Grump]

OK, Grump--I got a great plot line for ya ( all fictional of course).
There is this group of Jews who secretly collaborate with the Nazis. Their motivation is to gain access to the miilions of dollars of thier fellow Jews' assets. They cruise all over Europe ratiing on thier brothers and sisters. Do you think there would be any protests by the Jewish community if a movie with this plot was premiered? It's just fiction.

There probably would, and I'd tell them to get at thicker skin too. However, there is a caveat: Again, Brown's book hurts no-one. It is not commenting on the deaths of millions of people. It is just one take on what might have happened 2000 years ago. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not attacking anyone. Denying 6 million people died. That having being said, holocaust deniers should be able to say what they like. If they want to look like fools let it be so...

 

[Dr Grump]

By legal standards concerning burden of proof, reasonable doubt, and credibility of testimony, the biblical account of Jesus' life is can be considered true while the gnostic account cannot. If the Bible doesn't meet the standard of proof, we need to rethink the entire legal system and possibly disqualify any case that relies solely on eyewitness testimony.

I actually believe you are right in some instances. I think parts of Jesus's life may have occurred. The only problem I have as far as the bible goes is the divinity of Jesus, which I don't believe.

You also mention in a subsequent post that a lot of the stuff in the bible can be traced as historical fact. Again, of this I have no doubt. That there were certain battles, plagues, kings living during these times is believable. But once again, I do have doubts that Jesus was the son of a god. Also, as far as I know, there is only one tiny little bit of one of the original gospels that survived (this from an interview I saw in the weekend with Michael Baigent who co-authored the Holy Blood/Holy Grail). How do we even know who wrote the gospels? You say they do not contridict each other. Who is to say the same person didn't write them or it was a case of Chinese Whispers? As the originals are no longer around where is the evidence that they were written by who they say they were?

You also seem to take umbridge at the Da Vinci Code undoing what priests etc have taken centuries to do. Well, why not? For us unbelievers that is a good thing. Should things that people assert over the centuries that others think are not true not be questioned ? I think not. Just over 150 years ago there was no Mormon Church, now there are 10 million adherents. How many do you think there will be in another 1,850 years? Ditto Scientology? It is all in the eye of the beholder.....

 

[jillian]

There probably would, and I'd tell them to get at thicker skin too. However, there is a caveat: Again, Brown's book hurts no-one. It is not commenting on the deaths of millions of people. It is just one take on what might have happened 2000 years ago. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not attacking anyone. Denying 6 million people died. That having being said, holocaust deniers should be able to say what they like. If they want to look like fools let it be so...

There is another issue. While I can see members of Opus Dei having concerns about this film, no one is running around saying that Christians should die if Jesus turned out to be married. Nor does the fact that there are historical references in the Bible detract from the message or the divinity of Jesus if that's what people believe. This isn't the middle ages where people were prosecuted for "heresy". Also Jews were told to "get a thicker skin" when Christians were engaging in their love affair with The Last Temptation of Christ which was made by the son of a holocaust denier and added up to little more than an anti-semitic diatribe while painting the Romans, who were occupiers and who had all the power, as hapless victims of Jewish whim.

Once again, there seems to be a group of people who think their faith should dictate what the rest of us watch, listen to and believe.

It's a movie! And while it may not comport with Christian beliefs, it is neither meanspirited nor harmful nor can it be used to incite anyone against the Christian beliefs. And, ultimately, THAT'S the difference, I think.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There is another issue. While I can see members of Opus Dei having concerns about this film, no one is running around saying that Christians should die if Jesus turned out to be married. Nor does the fact that there are historical references in the Bible detract from the message or the divinity of Jesus if that's what people believe. This isn't the middle ages where people were prosecuted for "heresy". Also Jews were told to "get a thicker skin" when Christians were engaging in their love affair with The Last Temptation of Christ which was made by the son of a holocaust denier and added up to little more than an anti-semitic diatribe while painting the Romans, who were occupiers and who had all the power, as hapless victims of Jewish whim.

That's right. Holocaust denial IS heresy in this "Oh poor jews" world.

Once again, there seems to be a group of people who think their faith should dictate what the rest of us watch, listen to and believe.

It's a movie! And while it may not comport with Christian beliefs, it is neither meanspirited nor harmful nor can it be used to incite anyone against the Christian beliefs. And, ultimately, THAT'S the difference, I think.

And as usual. Jews are still pushing talmudic collectivism as if it's a secular concept, down our throats.

 

[jillian]

That's right. Holocaust denial IS heresy in this "Oh poor jews" world.

Heresy? No...just a lie.... but an ignorant, dangerous one.

And as usual. Jews are still pushing talmudic collectivism as if it's a secular concept, down our throats.

*Twilight Zone theme playing now*

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Heresy? No...just a lie.... but an ignorant, dangerous one.

Like spreading lies about christianity?

*Twilight Zone theme playing now*

*Theme from fiddler on the roof*


"They made an agreement? Unheard of! Unthinkable!"

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Jillian, how is Holocaust Denial dangerous?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Jillian, do you think Holocaust Denial should be a crime punishable under the law like it is in some places?

Jill, your every utterance lately reveals a nearly pathological case of double standards and hypocrisy.

 

[dilloduck]

OK, Grump--I got a great plot line for ya ( all fictional of course).
There is this group of Jews who secretly collaborate with the Nazis. Their motivation is to gain access to the miilions of dollars of thier fellow Jews' assets. They cruise all over Europe ratting on thier brothers and sisters. Do you think there would be any protests by the Jewish community if a movie with this plot was premiered? It's just fiction.

Well, Grump? what do ya think--How will it play in Peoria ?

 

[5stringJeff]

Jillian, how is Holocaust Denial dangerous?

In the same way that every rewriting of history is dangerous.

 

[Hobbit]

I actually believe you are right in some instances. I think parts of Jesus's life may have occurred. The only problem I have as far as the bible goes is the divinity of Jesus, which I don't believe.

You also mention in a subsequent post that a lot of the stuff in the bible can be traced as historical fact. Again, of this I have no doubt. That there were certain battles, plagues, kings living during these times is believable. But once again, I do have doubts that Jesus was the son of a god. Also, as far as I know, there is only one tiny little bit of one of the original gospels that survived (this from an interview I saw in the weekend with Michael Baigent who co-authored the Holy Blood/Holy Grail). How do we even know who wrote the gospels? You say they do not contridict each other. Who is to say the same person didn't write them or it was a case of Chinese Whispers? As the originals are no longer around where is the evidence that they were written by who they say they were?

Authentication of the gospels is actually quite thorough. In the four gospels, some events are out of chronological order. Some are omitted in different gospels. Some things are explained a little differently. However, they never truly contradict. Not only is this consistent with different people writing different accounts (VERY hard to fake), and the perspectives given fit the known personalities of the credited authors. All evidence points to them being authentic.

I wouldn't rely on the book "Holy Blood/Holy Grail." If it's the book I think it is, both the National Geographic Channel and the History Channel investigated the claims of the book and found no credible evidence to back it. The fact is that all four gospels survived. A page may have been lost here or there, but I doubt it.

As far as the divinity of Christ, you might want to check out a book called "A Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel. The book examines the resurrection legally and concludes that it is the only logical explanation to account for what can be already be proven true. One of the most compelling bits of evidence is the deaths of the disciples themselves. One doesn't face a horrendous, torturous death like that of the disciples for something that isn't true, especially when denying it is a quick and easy way to get out of it.

You also seem to take umbridge at the Da Vinci Code undoing what priests etc have taken centuries to do. Well, why not? For us unbelievers that is a good thing. Should things that people assert over the centuries that others think are not true not be questioned ? I think not. Just over 150 years ago there was no Mormon Church, now there are 10 million adherents. How many do you think there will be in another 1,850 years? Ditto Scientology? It is all in the eye of the beholder.....

There's no problem with things being questioned. It's when an age-old truth is suddenly assumed false by millions of people based on a bunch of phony evidence. If as many people who believe the premise of the Da Vinci Code believed that the holocaust was a giant hoax because of a small amount of flimsy evidence, would you still think it's good to question such things?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

In the same way that every rewriting of history is dangerous.

SO without the holocaust, someone growing up today might think genocide is good?