DaVinci Code Protesters

[PixieDust32]

Disclaimer: This post was made entirely in jest.

But what they don't tell you is you have to get the Costco 'Mark of the Beast'(TM) before buying anything there.

Disclaimer: This post was made entirely in jest.

Ohh! I never go to that store anyway, and we are movie-holics also, so we always buy our tickets at the theater or online, we got the movie rewards card too.

 

[yeartolate]

I'm sorry, but comments like these are totally unnecessary. It comes across as very rude and arrogant (at least in written form). Let's all please be a bit more civil.

I believe in God, but I also believe in Freedom of Speech. They are as arrogant as a Christian stating that their God is the only God.


JMHO.

 

[declansdad]

Also the "Priory of Sion" which Brown says was founded in 1099 and included Newton, Boticelli and Da Vinci, was actually founded in 1956 by Pierre Plantard.

This also depends on who you believe.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

That's impossible as religion and god (ALL religions and ALL gods) are figments of human imagination - so there is only a human side to it.

How do you know this for sure? You say "are", not "could be" or "might be", so you imply that you're sure of this. How do you know for sure that it's all just "figments of human imagination?" You must have some basis...

 

[wvrevy]

How do you know this for sure? You say "are", not "could be" or "might be", so you imply that you're sure of this. How do you know for sure that it's all just "figments of human imagination?" You must have some basis...

The "basis" is logic. Still, I tend to lean towards "probably are" rather than "certainly are," just because it is probably impossible to prove, despite the evidence.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

The "basis" is logic. Still, I tend to lean towards "probably are" rather than "certainly are," just because it is probably impossible to prove, despite the evidence.

Logic? Evidence? Pretty general statements. What specific logic or evidence do you have that tells you it's all imaginary?

 

[cardaway]

But I thought it was always "about the art". It's honestly a lousy movie. If I went to see it without the hype, it would have just been okay. It certainly didn't live up to expectations and Ron Howard usually does better. Tom Hanks usually picks better.

The Terminal was a huge bomb so by your argument he should be lucky to be working anymore.

 

[cardaway]

I'm sorry, but comments like these are totally unnecessary. It comes across as very rude and arrogant (at least in written form). Let's all please be a bit more civil.

It's his opinion. You make similar comments all the time about your beliefs. Are you going to stop?

 

[DisneyDotty]

I sometimes think people look at the painting of the Last Supper like it is a photo and Davinci was there in the room as a witness to the event. He wasn't there and we have no idea what Jesus and the apostles looked like or if one looked more feminine than the others etc.

Good point. Isn't the painting full of historical inaccuracies--eg., the color of their skin; the fact they're sitting at a table instead of lying on the floor...?

 

[Buckalew11]

Right. It is just his interpretation of the event. Like, some would probably paint it with Jesus and Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy having the Last Supper. So what? Again, it is only someone's opinion and thought on the subject.

It is either truth or fiction. (Jesus and His story--not DC) We either believe it or not. God isn;t going to come down and show anyone any facts to back it all up because that isn't the way Faith works. If someone is waiting for that to happen, they'll always be waiting. God can touch your life in many ways and some people believe it is God and some people think it is just "life" or nature or whatever. Still, in the end, a choice is made. And if God is all made up and there is no God, then that is the way it'll be. I think we all find out the truth when we die and before that it is all guesses and faith.

 

[wvrevy]

Logic? Evidence? Pretty general statements. What specific logic or evidence do you have that tells you it's all imaginary?

Actually, turn the argument around. There is not one shred of "logic" that can be used in defense of any theory surrounding a "supreme being." There are mountains of evidence against the teachings that bible-thumpers hold as fact (the "christmas" story, Easter, the resurrection...not to mention the vast majority of the old testament...ALL of these have roots in much older tales that predate christianity by hundreds and in some cases thousands of years).

Which is more logical: that a supreme being created everything in the universe (where did he stand while doing this, anyway?) and demands the worship of the pitiful creatures he created, or that men created gods out of fear of their unknown (death...volcanos...the sun...name it)? God(s) give meaning where there is actually little more than chaos.

"Logic" and "religion" go together like peanut butter and iPod. There just isn't any connection between the two.

 

[HomeSweetDisney]

"Logic" and "religion" go together like peanut butter and iPod. There just isn't any connection between the two.

Unless you are me and somehow (we won't go into details here ) managed to get peanut butter ALL OVER your i-pod. In which case there is a very big connection

And while I can certainly see your POV I must respectfully disagree. I don't practice any particular religion anymore ( I see far too much hypocrisy in organized religion) but I do believe in a higher power. And again, that's just my personal belief. I suppose we'll all find out what the truth really is when we're dead

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Actually, turn the argument around. There is not one shred of "logic" that can be used in defense of any theory surrounding a "supreme being." There are mountains of evidence against the teachings that bible-thumpers hold as fact (the "christmas" story, Easter, the resurrection...not to mention the vast majority of the old testament...ALL of these have roots in much older tales that predate christianity by hundreds and in some cases thousands of years).

Which is more logical: that a supreme being created everything in the universe (where did he stand while doing this, anyway?) and demands the worship of the pitiful creatures he created, or that men created gods out of fear of their unknown (death...volcanos...the sun...name it)? God(s) give meaning where there is actually little more than chaos.

"Logic" and "religion" go together like peanut butter and iPod. There just isn't any connection between the two.

So can I then assume that you think it is "logical" that a big bang just happened, and life was somehow magically created, as complex as life is, especially human life?

Also, what are the "mountains" of evidence that "bible-thumpers" hold as fact? Just curious what you are referencing...

 

[wvrevy]

So can I then assume that you think it is "logical" that a big bang just happened, and life was somehow magically created, as complex as life is, especially human life?

Also, what are the "mountains" of evidence that "bible-thumpers" hold as fact? Just curious what you are referencing...

Not necessarily. That's just the theory at the moment. As for it being extremely unlikely...people win lotteries every day in this country, and more than one person has won more than once, the odds of which are phenomenally high (I think I read somewhere that the odds against this are something like one quintillion to one). Besides, I'm not the one saying life was "magically created"...you are.

You may want to re-read my post. There are any number ofl things - the resurrection, the "son of god" with a "virgin" mortal mother, Christmas and Easter celebrations - that were stolen from earlier religions.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Not necessarily. That's just the theory at the moment. As for it being extremely unlikely...people win lotteries every day in this country, and more than one person has won more than once, the odds of which are phenomenally high (I think I read somewhere that the odds against this are something like one quintillion to one). Besides, I'm not the one saying life was "magically created"...you are.

Actually, I was asking if YOU thought that the Big Bang "magically created" life. I don't believe that it did, myself.

You may want to re-read my post. There are any number ofl things - the resurrection, the "son of god" with a "virgin" mortal mother, Christmas and Easter celebrations - that were stolen from earlier religions.

I read it right the first time. What I was asking you is to expound on these "mountains of evidence" you say exist. The celebration of Christmas (the holiday) is not in the Bible, nor is the celebration of Easter (the holiday). However, Christians do memorialize the birth of Christ and the resurrection of Christ on those respective holidays, which, granted, are rooted in traditions outside the church. I was asking more about all this evidence that exists, which you talk about.

 

[Viking]

I'm sorry, but comments like these are totally unnecessary. It comes across as very rude and arrogant (at least in written form). Let's all please be a bit more civil.

Gimme your phone# and I call you but the wording will be the same as it is neither rude nor arrogant.

 

[Viking]

"Logic" and "religion" go together like peanut butter and iPod. There just isn't any connection between the two.

This analogy is surprisingly good: If you drench an iPod in peanut butter it will cease to work - the same happens when you apply logic to religion.

 

[Viking]

Actually, I was asking if YOU thought that the Big Bang "magically created" life. I don't believe that it did, myself.

The BIG BANG did not magically create life. Life on our planet started several billion years later and then -Caution: Here comes another 'bad' word for you- EVOLVED to what we see now. There's ample proof for both the big bang and the evolution.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

This analogy is surprisingly good: If you drench an iPod in peanut butter it will cease to work - the same happens when you apply logic to religion.

Examples, please. You seem to be saying that logical people can't be religious, or that religious people aren't logical - is that it? Why do you say that? I am Christian, yet consider myself logical. Why do you not think so?

 

[Viking]

Examples, please. You seem to be saying that logical people can't be religious, or that religious people aren't logical - is that it? Why do you say that? I am Christian, yet consider myself logical. Why do you not think so?

The logic used by religious people has not much in common with the logic used in science, because it is always based on beliefs. When the base for a logical chain is just a belief and not something that can be proven the rest of the chain is completely useless - even if from link #2 on everything is logical.