ClintonHammond
Guest
So would I monkey... so would I...
The Da Vinci Code
- Thread starter Ska
- Start date
monkey
Guest
Thanks Clinton,
I thought I was going to get flamed for that. (I probably still will, by somebody).
But I find it interesting just how much this novel has disturbed and agitated a lot of Christians.
It is indeed a work of fiction, but there is a lot of true history in there, as well as some very interesting conjecture.
What really stood out for me in the novel is how much it expolored the (true!) misogynistic origins and concepts of the Christian religion. Misogynism is something that both Christians and muslims embrace. Though the muslims push it to grotesque proportions, it nonetheless also exists in Christianity.
Women are dirty......and BAD......seems to be their message oftentimes.
I've found this to be not true at all, which is part of the basis for my rejection of Christianity.
I thought I was going to get flamed for that. (I probably still will, by somebody).
But I find it interesting just how much this novel has disturbed and agitated a lot of Christians.
It is indeed a work of fiction, but there is a lot of true history in there, as well as some very interesting conjecture.
What really stood out for me in the novel is how much it expolored the (true!) misogynistic origins and concepts of the Christian religion. Misogynism is something that both Christians and muslims embrace. Though the muslims push it to grotesque proportions, it nonetheless also exists in Christianity.
Women are dirty......and BAD......seems to be their message oftentimes.
I've found this to be not true at all, which is part of the basis for my rejection of Christianity.
Last edited:
ClintonHammond
Guest
"there is a lot of true history in there..."
"the misogynistic origins... of the Christian religion."
That's about the ONLY 'fact' in there... (Archeology is the search for fact... If you want truth, DR. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall)
The rest of the 'history' of TDaVC is a load of rubbish...
"the misogynistic origins... of the Christian religion."
That's about the ONLY 'fact' in there... (Archeology is the search for fact... If you want truth, DR. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall)
The rest of the 'history' of TDaVC is a load of rubbish...
monkey said:
What evidence can you site that supports this claim. I have found that Christianity often gets a bad name due to the men that interpret, or rather misinterpret certain passages or verses to suit their own agendas, or ideology. The demonizing of women certainly can not be logically supported by Scripture. That is not to say that the Bible never mentions women who are evil, as both men and women have been proven to become corrupt. It is only to contend that the men who have intrepeted passages of scripture for the suppression of women, do so against the concept of Christianity, and are therefore outside of Christian Ideals.
____________________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER
I don't know if I should entertain this here. We'll try, as I know monkey, Clinton and some others may be able to maintain a civil discourse, but there is a good chance this could get shut down, so keep that in mind.
Junior Jones
New member
That's a pretty wide brush you're using there, monkey. Christianity isn't a monolith. Just like Muslims range from conservative devotees to murderous terrorists, people who call themselves Christian encompass a wide range of beliefs.
I don't want to get into a religious discussion here, but I belong to a conservative protestant church which disagrees with most Catholic doctrine. Not everyone who calls himself a Christian shares the same beliefs. One shouldn't reject all Christianity because of what one thinks of a particular church or denomination.
I haven't read The DaVinci Code but what I've heard doesn't offend me at all.
I don't want to get into a religious discussion here, but I belong to a conservative protestant church which disagrees with most Catholic doctrine. Not everyone who calls himself a Christian shares the same beliefs. One shouldn't reject all Christianity because of what one thinks of a particular church or denomination.
I haven't read The DaVinci Code but what I've heard doesn't offend me at all.
Last edited:
ClintonHammond
Guest
"against the concept of Christianity"
That's called the "Any Good Scotsman" logical falicy... Sorry...
"or rather misinterpret certain passages "
What makes your interpretation right, and theirs wrong? strike two....
"Clinton... may be able to maintain a civil discourse"
Oh no I can't! LOL (call that Ball One.... )
"One shouldn't reject all Christianity because of what one thinks of a particular church or denomination."
How do you know that we who do dismiss it all, aren't doing so because we've looked at it all???
That's called the "Any Good Scotsman" logical falicy... Sorry...
"or rather misinterpret certain passages "
What makes your interpretation right, and theirs wrong? strike two....
"Clinton... may be able to maintain a civil discourse"
Oh no I can't! LOL (call that Ball One.... )
"One shouldn't reject all Christianity because of what one thinks of a particular church or denomination."
How do you know that we who do dismiss it all, aren't doing so because we've looked at it all???
monkey
Guest
Sorry, didn't mean to stir up a hornets nest. honest. I just want to discuss why christians are so upset with DaVinci code. And I want to hear some christian points of view because I am genuinely interested; hence my somewhat provocative statements. Sorry if they are too provocative. No need to shut down anything.
As for the misogynistic tendencies of the Christian and Muslim faiths, Pale Horse you are right on the mark. It is MEN who have twisted and contorted the original ideals of the teachings of Christ. And this is one of the central themes of the fictional work 'The Davinci Code'. I don't reject the teachings and ideals of Christ. Who would? But modern established Christianity often times has very little to do with the teachings of Christ, and a lot to do with $$$ and power, and trying to establish rule by theocracy, and the denial of technological advancements, and scientific achievements.
You can't deny that the modern day established Christian religion(s) tend(s) to demonize sex, and by extension, women. None of us would be here today if it weren't for sex, and the union of man and women. modern day established Christianity tends to associate all things sexual with being dirty and bad. Juxtapose this with paganism, which celebrates sexuality and the union of man and woman.
As for the misogynistic tendencies of the Christian and Muslim faiths, Pale Horse you are right on the mark. It is MEN who have twisted and contorted the original ideals of the teachings of Christ. And this is one of the central themes of the fictional work 'The Davinci Code'. I don't reject the teachings and ideals of Christ. Who would? But modern established Christianity often times has very little to do with the teachings of Christ, and a lot to do with $$$ and power, and trying to establish rule by theocracy, and the denial of technological advancements, and scientific achievements.
You can't deny that the modern day established Christian religion(s) tend(s) to demonize sex, and by extension, women. None of us would be here today if it weren't for sex, and the union of man and women. modern day established Christianity tends to associate all things sexual with being dirty and bad. Juxtapose this with paganism, which celebrates sexuality and the union of man and woman.
ClintonHammond
Guest
"It is MEN who have twisted and contorted the original ideals of the teachings of Christ."
How do you know that wasn't Christ's point in the first place? (Provided of course, he existed at all... something I am not convinced of in the least)
How do you know that wasn't Christ's point in the first place? (Provided of course, he existed at all... something I am not convinced of in the least)
monkey
Guest
Irrefutable historical evidence confirms that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed a living breathing man. He was a very real historical person.
That his leanings were misogynistic..........hmmmmm, well, it's possible I guess , but it would seem to be incongruous with the rest of his teachings.
Can I confirm that?? No, I guess not.
What I do know is that Jesus never endorsed burning people at the stake, or stoning them to death, or locking them in stocks and pillories, or genocidally murdering Native Americans. All things which at some time or other have been practiced by a number of the different Christian denomenations who claimed to act in His name.
That his leanings were misogynistic..........hmmmmm, well, it's possible I guess , but it would seem to be incongruous with the rest of his teachings.
Can I confirm that?? No, I guess not.
What I do know is that Jesus never endorsed burning people at the stake, or stoning them to death, or locking them in stocks and pillories, or genocidally murdering Native Americans. All things which at some time or other have been practiced by a number of the different Christian denomenations who claimed to act in His name.
ClintonHammond
Guest
"Irrefutable historical evidence confirms that Jesus"
What "Irrefutable historical evidence"? Cause all the evidence I've ever seen has been MASSIVELY refuted....
(Or we could drop it, as WAY too off topic...)
"incongruous with the rest of his teachings"
We don't know anything about his 'teachings'... all we have is what was written down about him 2-3 hundred years after his supposed death...
We have more evidence to support the existance of Bigfoot...
What "Irrefutable historical evidence"? Cause all the evidence I've ever seen has been MASSIVELY refuted....
(Or we could drop it, as WAY too off topic...)
"incongruous with the rest of his teachings"
We don't know anything about his 'teachings'... all we have is what was written down about him 2-3 hundred years after his supposed death...
We have more evidence to support the existance of Bigfoot...
monkey
Guest
Jesus was a contemporary of the Roman Empire. Just like the Nazis, the Romans kept real good records. Jesus was branded a criminal, and crucified by Pontious (check spelling) Pilot, a Roman offical. Historical fact, documented in the Roman records. That would be my proof. What is the massive evidence that would refute it?
(Wow! Monkey, the pagan, atheist primate arguing for the existence of Jesus Christ! What next???)
Big Foot, and cryptozoology in general is one of my favorite subjects, but would be kind of 'off topic' for this thread. There is some compelling evidence though.
The existence of Jesus would be quite 'on topic' though, since this discussion centers on the DaVinci Code, a fictional work that suggests the possibility that Jesus was married, and had a child. To do that he would have to have existed.
(Wow! Monkey, the pagan, atheist primate arguing for the existence of Jesus Christ! What next???)
Big Foot, and cryptozoology in general is one of my favorite subjects, but would be kind of 'off topic' for this thread. There is some compelling evidence though.
The existence of Jesus would be quite 'on topic' though, since this discussion centers on the DaVinci Code, a fictional work that suggests the possibility that Jesus was married, and had a child. To do that he would have to have existed.
ClintonHammond
Guest
Jesus was a VERY common name in that time period... so the recorded crucifixion of -a- Jesus then is about as remarkable as the arrest of a guy named John in contemporary North America... There is no way to tell if that is in reference to "THE" Jesus... One can speculate, sure, but speculation isn't fact...
"pagan, atheist primate"
Same here...
"Big Foot... There is some compelling evidence though."
There's some compelling conjecture (just about every foot print has been refuted... every 'caught on film' been debunked... ) but I wouldn't say there's any evidence... But ya... another thread...
"pagan, atheist primate"
Same here...
"Big Foot... There is some compelling evidence though."
There's some compelling conjecture (just about every foot print has been refuted... every 'caught on film' been debunked... ) but I wouldn't say there's any evidence... But ya... another thread...
monkey
Guest
I suppose you're right Clinton. It is possible that everything that has been attributed to a man named Jesus might not have actually happened exactly as has been recorded. Or it may have been embellished. But then again, isn't that what DaVinci Code is all about? A provocative alternate truth that would debunk the centuries old accepted truth?
But while there might have been a lot of guys named Jesus, there was at least one that was quite a charismatic cult leader. That is why the Romans had him arrested, because they viewed his growing cult following as subsersive.
But no one more than I would agree with you that much has been written in Christian holy books.....(or is it just one) that was written by men who stood to gain or lose by what words they concocted and put to paper.
Then, as now, it was all about power, $$$, and influence far more than any ideals.
But while there might have been a lot of guys named Jesus, there was at least one that was quite a charismatic cult leader. That is why the Romans had him arrested, because they viewed his growing cult following as subsersive.
But no one more than I would agree with you that much has been written in Christian holy books.....(or is it just one) that was written by men who stood to gain or lose by what words they concocted and put to paper.
Then, as now, it was all about power, $$$, and influence far more than any ideals.
ClintonHammond
Guest
"Then, as now, it was all about power, $$$, and influence far more than any ideals."
Brother, you said a MOUTH full!
Brother, you said a MOUTH full!
I am a little disappointed with the CH arguements to this point, sorry man, but it reads like: You can't empiraclly prove anything. I know this in not your intent, but that is how I am taking it. I know your a better arguer than that.
This would be a liberal dating of the gospels. I say the gospels, because if monkey would like to discuss why Christians are "in an uproar not his quote" about the Da Vinci Code then we have to look at the Gospels as the basis for those ideals (forgive the cliche term).
While some theological scholars do date the first four books near 200 AD, the more standard datings are somewhere in the vincinity of 60-100 AD with Luke even being attributed to as early as 53 AD. I would imagine using an approximation would put the dating of the Four canonized Gospels at 75 AD, or about 40 years after the accepted death of the Jesus of Nazareth (the one crucified according to the Roman records.)
As far as determining Christian theology compared to Catholic theology, there is a great difference in the thinking. I would contend that Dan Brown, who based his book on the works of Michael Baigents collabrative work Holy Blood, Holy Grail and other works, I am too lazy to cite right now. Often, Christianity gets lumped into the sins of the Catholic Church, and vice versa, so we need to be clear which position we want to argue or defend.
In addition, the whole mythos around the Knights Templars and the quest for the Grail is just as complicated as Church History. Why they set out for the Holy City, sparking the Crusades can be argued from many different positions, with money being one of them.
You know the nature of this board. I don't want to have to shut it down (or someone else, as I am involved). So far, I read respectful tones from everyone, and it's on topic for the theme of this thread. You know, from moderating that religious topics tend to provoke great passion. I can not promise this thread will stay civil, hopefully it will. I am sure there is lots of information here that everyone can benefit from.
ClintonHammond said:
This would be a liberal dating of the gospels. I say the gospels, because if monkey would like to discuss why Christians are "in an uproar not his quote" about the Da Vinci Code then we have to look at the Gospels as the basis for those ideals (forgive the cliche term).
While some theological scholars do date the first four books near 200 AD, the more standard datings are somewhere in the vincinity of 60-100 AD with Luke even being attributed to as early as 53 AD. I would imagine using an approximation would put the dating of the Four canonized Gospels at 75 AD, or about 40 years after the accepted death of the Jesus of Nazareth (the one crucified according to the Roman records.)
As far as determining Christian theology compared to Catholic theology, there is a great difference in the thinking. I would contend that Dan Brown, who based his book on the works of Michael Baigents collabrative work Holy Blood, Holy Grail and other works, I am too lazy to cite right now. Often, Christianity gets lumped into the sins of the Catholic Church, and vice versa, so we need to be clear which position we want to argue or defend.
In addition, the whole mythos around the Knights Templars and the quest for the Grail is just as complicated as Church History. Why they set out for the Holy City, sparking the Crusades can be argued from many different positions, with money being one of them.
monkey said:
You know the nature of this board. I don't want to have to shut it down (or someone else, as I am involved). So far, I read respectful tones from everyone, and it's on topic for the theme of this thread. You know, from moderating that religious topics tend to provoke great passion. I can not promise this thread will stay civil, hopefully it will. I am sure there is lots of information here that everyone can benefit from.
Last edited:
Deadlock
New member
monkey said:
I'm not going to argue that the outright vilification of sex hasn't and/or doesn't occur. However, I believe those Christians that participate in such things are in the wrong. I think it important to note that the Christian would agree to "celebrating sexuality" with a slightly different understanding than monkey might.
In regards to what certain Christians say about sexuality (which contradicts Monkey's understanding), and in response to this quote:
Pale Horse said:
Here's my response:
Care to guess the source, Sheriff?
Junior Jones
New member
ClintonHammond said:
I don't think its possible to look at it all. I've been going to church all my life (my mom even took me before I was born). I'm satisfied with the denomination I've chosen, but I'm still learning suprising things all the time about what other Christians believe and how they interpret things.
TombReader
New member
I don't hold to the Bloodline theory in general or Brown's cruddy scholarship in particular,but there are some good points being made here.It's interesting reading nonetheless.