DaVinci Code Protesters

[Tiggernut_jadie]

How is what I say out of line if it is my opinion, based on the few things I've seen you say? It's not just you, Cardaway, either - I believe it about everyone who is so blatantly against religion, God, etc... I've found that most people who have those lines of thinking (though not all) have been hurt deeply by something earlier in life of a religious nature.

I thought in this world of "tolerance" that everyone likes to preach about, that everyone's opinion is OK and should be "accepted." These are my opinions. If they hurt your feelings, I do apologize for that, but nonetheless they are my opinions.

Viking, I believe your fooling yourself, and deep down, I believe you know it. Something caused you to have the world religious view that you now have, you weren't just born with it. Something drives it. You speak of your opinion as fact, then are upset when others speak of their opinion as fact when it doesn't match up to yours. It never ceases to amaze.

Wow how incredibly patronising! I can't beleive that you actually think that people are 'born' believeing in God and then are 'turned against it' by some negative experience. Do you seriously think that a newborn baby has sussed out all the theological arguements and 'beleives' in God even before they can sit up unaided. And then it's only later that something negative turns them against religion? Seriously?

The 'thing that drives' people like Viking and myself is to try and convince people who blindly believe that there are other views in the world apart from the fairy tales written in a book! Is this so different from your attempt to 'convert' everyone to your way of thinking! There was no great tragedy or negative experinece that turned me against reliegion - it was LOGIC pure and simple. Even at a young age, I asked why the Dinosaurs don't appear in the bible, how all the people in the world are decended from just two - and yet we're all different colours, why there are different religions and how come they all think they're the 'one'. And i could go on but I think I've made my point.

Thanks anyway for giving me a good laugh

 

[cardaway]

IWhat I did notice is my church and several mega churches in the area all started DaVinci Code studies. They taught church history (something I was already studying) and pointed out where DB's view differed from Church view.

Yeah, a lot of churches sold stuff and held special services when the Passion and Narnia were in theaters too. They know a good money making opportunity when they see it.

 

[declansdad]

The 'thing that drives' people like Viking and myself is to try and convince people who blindly believe that there are other views in the world apart from the fairy tales written in a book! Is this so different from your attempt to 'convert' everyone to your way of thinking! There was no great tragedy or negative experinece that turned me against reliegion - it was LOGIC pure and simple. Even at a young age, I asked why the Dinosaurs don't appear in the bible, how all the people in the world are decended from just two - and yet we're all different colours, why there are different religions and how come they all think they're the 'one'. And i could go on but I think I've made my point.

Thanks anyway for giving me a good laugh

ncdisneyfan doesn't blindly believe. ncdisneyfan has proof that God exists but will only share it in a setting that can be controlled. Sounds a lot like organized religion to me.

But don't listen to me, I'm close-minded and have limited intellect.

 

[cardaway]

ncdisneyfan doesn't blindly believe. ncdisneyfan has proof that God exists but will only share it in a setting that can be controlled. Sounds a lot like organized religion to me.

But don't listen to me, I'm close-minded and have limited intellect.

I wonder what would happen if somebody professing to be a Christian supported your posts. Would he imply that real Christians wouldn't do that.

 

[Rella Bella]

Both sides had large followings, the viewpoint roughly spilt between Western Europe (Roman) going with "divine" and Eastern Europe (Greece) going with "subordinate to God". There were gangs of thugs to reinforce those views and plenty of dirty tricks. The big fear for the bishops was that the general populace would not see JC as divine and wander back to their old religions. This would have stunted the growth of the Christian/Catholic church and reduced their income at a time when they were actively seeking new converts at the periphery of their influence. If the bishops had voted against the Nicene Creed it would have been akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.

As a personal aside, I'm not Catholic and it wouldn't have mattered to me if the Catholic church had EVER convened to offically agree that Christ was divine.

Please keep in mind The Council of Nicaea (or Nicea if you prefer) was held in 325. At that time there was no "Catholic" church. There was no "eastern" church. Each bishop was independently responsible for his own region, each represented his particular area of oversight... they were not part of any organized body.

The Great Schism that split the church between east & west and in effect created the "Catholic Church" was in 1054; many, many years later.

There were several other councils held, but these two reflect what is being discussed here.

 

[Viking]

Wow how incredibly patronising! I can't beleive that you actually think that people are 'born' believeing in God and then are 'turned against it' by some negative experience. Do you seriously think that a newborn baby has sussed out all the theological arguements and 'beleives' in God even before they can sit up unaided. And then it's only later that something negative turns them against religion? Seriously?

The 'thing that drives' people like Viking and myself is to try and convince people who blindly believe that there are other views in the world apart from the fairy tales written in a book! Is this so different from your attempt to 'convert' everyone to your way of thinking! There was no great tragedy or negative experinece that turned me against reliegion - it was LOGIC pure and simple. Even at a young age, I asked why the Dinosaurs don't appear in the bible, how all the people in the world are decended from just two - and yet we're all different colours, why there are different religions and how come they all think they're the 'one'. And i could go on but I think I've made my point.

Thanks anyway for giving me a good laugh

Well said!!!

 

[ford family]

Please keep in mind The Council of Nicaea (or Nicea if you prefer) was held in 325. At that time there was no "Catholic" church. There was no "eastern" church. Each bishop was independently responsible for his own region, each represented his particular area of oversight... they were not part of any organized body.

The Great Schism that split the church between east & west and in effect created the "Catholic Church" was in 1054; many, many years later.

There were several other councils held, but these two reflect what is being discussed here.

From Wikpedia
The term catholic is derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός, meaning universal; and Churches that use the word in their name do so with an implicit claim to be the one universal Church founded by Christ.

The Catholic Church has consistently referred to itself by this name, among others, since the second century, when the term Catholic Church was first used. When drawing up documents jointly with other Churches, it refers to itself exclusively either as the Catholic Church or - when one of those other Churches opposes its use of this designation - as the Roman Catholic Church.

Divergent usages attach a certain ambiguity to each of these terms. Some apply the term Roman Catholic Church only to the Western or Latin Church, excluding the Eastern-Rite particular Churches that are in full communion with the Pope, and are part of the same Church, under the Pope, taken as a whole.

ford family

 

[Rella Bella]

From Wikpedia
The term catholic is derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός, meaning universal; and Churches that use the word in their name do so with an implicit claim to be the one universal Church founded by Christ.

The Catholic Church has consistently referred to itself by this name, among others, since the second century, when the term Catholic Church was first used. When drawing up documents jointly with other Churches, it refers to itself exclusively either as the Catholic Church or - when one of those other Churches opposes its use of this designation - as the Roman Catholic Church.

Divergent usages attach a certain ambiguity to each of these terms. Some apply the term Roman Catholic Church only to the Western or Latin Church, excluding the Eastern-Rite particular Churches that are in full communion with the Pope, and are part of the same Church, under the Pope, taken as a whole. ford family

I went to Wikipedia and could not find the passage you quoted, but it doesn't surprise me at all that "the church" was using the word "catholic" as a description of itself back in the second century. The word catholic means universal. Of course they were the universal church, at that time there was just one church -- there were no divisions, there were no denominations.

My disagreement with them (Wikipedia) -- or anyone -- using the phrase the "Catholic Church" to describe something from that time period is that most people today consider that phrase to mean "The Roman Catholic Church", which did not exist until after 1054. (Which was the point of my previous post.)

Arguing that the "catholic church" did anything before that time is redundant because before that time all Christians were catholic (small c -- there was no other kind).

Since many people do not like/agree with the beliefs/practices of the RC Church, it is important to note -- simply for clarity -- that any disagreement that was happening in the second or third or fourth century -- or at "The Council of Nicaea" -- WAS NOT the Roman Catholic Church (or Western Church) disagreeing with anyone, or any group of people.

While I respect Wikipedia, some of the information on that site is posted as articles written by various known or unknown authors. They are not all experts in church history -- nor do I claim to be.

However, if we are having a discussion about who was debating what at the Council of Nicaea, we should be careful to realize that at that point of church history the "East" and "West" were not the two groups arguing. It was the "Arians" -vs- "the whole catholic church", which was everyone else.

On another note, I would be very interested to know where you got the quote -- or information -- you posted:

"Both sides had large followings, the viewpoint roughly spilt between Western Europe (Roman) going with "divine" and Eastern Europe (Greece) going with "subordinate to God". There were gangs of thugs to reinforce those views and plenty of dirty tricks."

Was this from Dan Brown's book? Or some other source?
And I am truly curious; not trying to be contentious.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Wow how incredibly patronising! I can't beleive that you actually think that people are 'born' believeing in God and then are 'turned against it' by some negative experience. Do you seriously think that a newborn baby has sussed out all the theological arguements and 'beleives' in God even before they can sit up unaided. And then it's only later that something negative turns them against religion? Seriously?

Yes, I believe that we all have an innate sense that God exists inside of us, and that many people suppress that knowledge written on their very hearts b/c they don't want to believe, for whatever reason. The Bible speaks very clearly of this in many places (see Romans 1, for example).

The 'thing that drives' people like Viking and myself is to try and convince people who blindly believe that there are other views in the world apart from the fairy tales written in a book!

It's always funny how Christians are the ones who "blindly" believe, yet those who DON'T believe aren't characterized as "blindly" not believing, as if they have some proof or fact that God DOESN'T exist. What makes you so sure, what keeps you from being "blind", that God doesn't exist, that Christianity isn't true? Just curious...

Is this so different from your attempt to 'convert' everyone to your way of thinking! There was no great tragedy or negative experinece that turned me against reliegion - it was LOGIC pure and simple. Even at a young age, I asked why the Dinosaurs don't appear in the bible, how all the people in the world are decended from just two - and yet we're all different colours, why there are different religions and how come they all think they're the 'one'. And i could go on but I think I've made my point.

This is your point? You don't believe b/c dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible? Do you realize how many things AREN'T mentioned in the Bible that have been shown or can be seen to exist? Do you have a car, a television, a computer? These things can be seen to exist, but none of them are mentioned in the Bible. So it's really tough to use the argument "it's not in the Bible" as a reason, I think. As to your other 2 points, which you think prove your point, these are pretty clear in the Bible. People moved around to different areas of the world, their languages were purposely confused by God, total destruction of whole tribes occurred. And the fact that different religions all think they're the "one", you think proves your point? Doesn't that just prove that some people believe one way and that all people don't agree? How does disagreement prove your point?

Thanks anyway for giving me a good laugh [/QUOTE]

 

[ncdisneyfan]

ncdisneyfan doesn't blindly believe. ncdisneyfan has proof that God exists but will only share it in a setting that can be controlled. Sounds a lot like organized religion to me.

But don't listen to me, I'm close-minded and have limited intellect.

Anyone who looks has access to the exact same evidence and information I have, it's no secret! It still amazes me why so many people have problems with organized religion, just don't understand why?

 

[ncdisneyfan]

I wonder what would happen if somebody professing to be a Christian supported your posts. Would he imply that real Christians wouldn't do that.

I would hope that a true Christian would never say they are "blindly" believing in God. But I can't speak for all Christians, only myself.

 

[IndianaDVCMember]

Anyone who looks has access to the exact same evidence and information I have, it's no secret! It still amazes me why so many people have problems with organized religion, just don't understand why?

Well said. I find it amusing when Christians are accused of being intolerant. Of course, if tolerance is what someone is looking for then they should be tolerant of our perceived intolerance.

I can't figure out why anyone would want to be an atheist. If we assume that atheists are correct in their views, then death is the end of our existence no matter what we believe. If Christians are correct, then death is the gateway to eternity to those who believe. Let's not forget to mention that scientific studies (That's right, I'm a Christian and I'm bringing science into the equation) have shown that people with strong religious beliefs live longer.

Ncdisney fan has nothing to apologize for and is not patronizing.

 

[Jpgirl]

I saw the movie this weekend and no protesters at the showing we went-not a lot of people in the audience. As a Christian with an ex Catholic husband neither one of us can understand what all the hullabuloo is about. We both read the book and wanted to see how the book was interpreted in the movie. It was a good FICTIONAL movie based on a good FICTIONAL book. Not as good as National Treasure Or Pirates of the Carribean (hey why aren't the pirates out protesting how they were protrayed by "Jack Sparrow" character) but a good movie. I think Ron Howard down played what some Catholics call bashing and tastefully handled what a person might be like if they were of Christ's bloodline. But it's still speculation and at the end of the day you're left with your faith. No, my faith was unchanged and I'm not going to hell by watching a movie. I choose not to speculate one way or the other on Jesus' life. I know our church goes by what the Council of Nicea (sp?) laid out, but I don't think it's wrong to explore outside of the box. After all, I wasn't alive back then to see it myself-nobody here was. My faith is based on how I see Jesus/God/Holy Spirit working in my life and how I can share that with others. On another note the popcorn was particularly good that day .

 

[cardaway]

Some people can't, or refuse to see, the difference between being intolerant of intolerance and simply beig intolerant.

 

[sha_lyn]

This is your point? You don't believe b/c dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible? Do you realize how many things AREN'T mentioned in the Bible that have been shown or can be seen to exist? Do you have a car, a television, a computer? These things can be seen to exist, but none of them are mentioned in the Bible. So it's really tough to use the argument "it's not in the Bible" as a reason, I think.

You do realize that those items you mentioned were invented after the bible was written? Dinosaurs OTOH walked the earth before man did.
If the Bible is taken literally (as many fundamental Christians believe) where do dinosaurs fit into the "God created the world in 7 days myth?". You do realize that there are Christian pastors/preachers/educators that teach that either Dinosaur fossils were planted by the devil to confuse people, or God created the fossils (and dinosaurs never walked the earth) because he knew man would need fossil fuels.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Some people can't, or refuse to see, the difference between being intolerant of intolerance and simply beig intolerant.

And some people don't realize there is no difference. Either way, you're being intolerant. Anyone who can't "tolerate" someone else's opinions, whether they agree with them or not, is by definition "intolerant." Whether you're "intolerant of intolerance" or just simply "being intolerant", either way you're still "intolerant." There's just no difference. A lot of people mistakenly equate "agreement" with "tolerance"; I can tolerate someone else and their opinion, while still openly disagreeing with them/it. But why all of a sudden do I become "intolerant" when I disagree with their opinions, or make mine known and they happen to disagree with what others believe? That's not intolerance, that's disagreement.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

You do realize that those items you mentioned were invented after the bible was written? Dinosaurs OTOH walked the earth before man did.
If the Bible is taken literally (as many fundamental Christians believe) where do dinosaurs fit into the "God created the world in 7 days myth?". You do realize that there are Christian pastors/preachers/educators that teach that either Dinosaur fossils were planted by the devil to confuse people, or God created the fossils (and dinosaurs never walked the earth) because he knew man would need fossil fuels.

Of course I realize they were invented after the Bible was written, they are just examples of a flawed pattern of reasoning. Take the Sphinx, then, for example. By most accounts it was built at least as long ago as about 2,500 BC (well before the entire Bible was written), yet it isn't directly mentioned in the Bible, is it? Does this mean it doesn't exist? No, we can clearly see that it does.

You refer to the "myth" of the 7-day creation (well, actually 6 if you get down to it ) as if it is fact; what do you base this upon? And for that matter, who cares about dinosaurs? In any case, did they exist? It seems that they might have, or at least could have. If they did, I believe God created them. There's no reason they couldn't have lived on Earth and died out, is there?

And just b/c "some" Christian pastors/teachers, etc... teach what they do about dinosaur fossils, doesn't mean all Christians believe it. There are "some" Muslims who commit terrible atrocities in the name of Islam or for Allah; does that mean all Muslims are terrible murderers? No. So, in the same way, all Christians don't believe what some of these outlier teachers actually teach.

 

[Tiggernut_jadie]

I can't figure out why anyone would want to be an atheist. If we assume that atheists are correct in their views, then death is the end of our existence no matter what we believe.

Turning that on it's head - what's wrong with believing that our time on earth is just that - not a great prelude to what comes after but just what it is?! Do you believe earthworms go to heaven? What about ants, butterflies, spiders, flies, lobsters, plankton, rats, snakes.......... ? Or are those things on earth to perform a purpose - either as food for the higher life forms in the food chain or to help break down waste to keep the planet 'clean'?

I would consider myself a 'humanist' rather than an aethiest but the basic tenent is the same - that there is no God and that there is no 'higer purpose' life is just what it is and our 'role' is to live a worthwhile life not in the expectation of a 'reward' when we die but just becasue it is the right thing to do for ourselves and those around us!

Have a look at THIS link for more information...

Ncdisney fan has nothing to apologize for and is not patronizing.

Yes they have and yes they are!!!!!

 

[IndianaDVCMember]

Turning that on it's head - what's wrong with believing that our time on earth is just that - not a great prelude to what comes after but just what it is?!

We spend the first 20 years of our lives (give or take a few years depending on our individual situations) trying to determine what to do with our lives. If we don't die young, the last few years of our lives may be spent in physical decline or illness. For most of us, the years in between are a constant struggle. What I am getting at is even when things are good in this world, they aren't THAT good. The thought of a greater existence thereafter is much more appealing to me.

 

[IndianaDVCMember]

Do you believe earthworms go to heaven? What about ants, butterflies, spiders, flies, lobsters, plankton, rats, snakes.......... ?

St. Francis of Assissi stated that animals are too wonderful not to be included in heaven, although the Catholic church has not taken a stand one way or another on this issue.

However, there is a great difference in humanity in comparison to other species. Humans have a sense of right and wrong. By almost anyone's standards, stealing is wrong which is why every country that I know of has laws against stealing. There are still people who have committed the crime of theft, but I would imagine the vast majority would feel a sense of guilt for their crimes. There are very good reasons not to compare the meaning of human existence to that of a species with no moral sense other than survival.