DaVinci Code Protesters

[ncdisneyfan]

Absolutely sure.




I believe this. Many people find TDC a quick and interesting read. People who haven't picked up the Bible in years have read TDC. If they are not well versed in the New Testament or in church history what Dan Brown says will sound plausible.



Dan Brown claims in TDC that there was a controversy. There was no controversy. TDC claims the Nicean Creed (which "officially" defined the doctrine of Jesus' divinity) was hotly debated and passed by a very close vote. In reality only 5 of the more than 300 bishops present protested the Creed. In the end, only 2 refused to sign it. There is also no evidence that suggests the topic of "throwing out books of the Bible" ever came up as claimed in TDC.



That is an interesting statement. I would acknowledge that agnostics or atheists might hold that "great unspoken doubt" but for devout Christians the doctrine of Jesus' humanity and divinity is a no brainer.



Yes, there were people that did not believe Jesus' claims of divinity from the very beginning. These were unbelievers, gnostics, men like Arius. However Jesus did claim to be divine (Matthew 2:6-12, Mark 14:61-64, Luke 22: 66-71, Matthew 4: 25-26, etc. etc. etc.). And the Early Church taught that he was divine (read the writings of Paul through out the New Testament).



The Catholic Church didn't invent the doctrine of divinity. This doctrine had been taught from the beginning. The catholic church decided in effect to write it down in the form of an "official creed" to be used to settle the matter for once and all. Arius and gnostics like him were viewed as heretics. Dan Brown is re-hashing heretical material.

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. The New Testament is FULL of places where Jesus' divinity is claimed and being familiar with the New Testament is the BIGGEST proof that His divinity was taught long before the Nicean Creed.

Very well said.

 

[declansdad]

You're right, I evidently don't get what you're trying to say. You seem to be perched on top of the fence, writing in a disagreeing style but not wanting to say you disagree, and then when it is assumed that you disagree you get upset that I say that, when what other conclusion can I draw from what you say (or don't say)? If I am wrong about what I have assumed about you from what you have said, I suppose you could clear it up by stating what you believe. Otherwise, I'll have to keep on assuming, won't I?

My money is where my mouth is. You know my condition (open, objective minds in a different forum, which you may or may not have), but do not want to take me up on that. You keep getting upset thinking I haven't done what I said I would, but actually I have done exactly what I said I would, you just don't (or perhaps can't) go the extra step to either say "I don't have an open mind, so it doesn't matter" or "I do have an open mind, let's do this somewhere else." Why not, I would ask?

I give up. You obviously won't back up what you have to say unless you are in a forum you can control.

Anyone that does give you information to counter what you say you know to be true, you discount. Case in point, the rebuttal offered by wvrevy. You say this poor soul did not approach the topic with an open mind but from his pre-conceived beliefs. I make the same type of comparison about the authors of the book you referenced and you say that I am close-minded.

The reason that I have responded to you in the manner that I have is to simply ask you to put your proof out there for everyone to see. You brought it up here, post it here. Or our you afraid that people will be able to offer credible counter-arguments to yours

 

[ncdisneyfan]

I give up. You obviously won't back up what you have to say unless you are in a forum you can control.

That is correct, as things appear to be able to get out of control on forums like this quite quickly. But if the person(s) was truly interested, the forum not being here shouldn't matter. You don't have to give up, you just refuse to go elsewhere to hear the information. You make it sound as if you have no other option, but you do, you're just choosing not to take that option, which is of course your right to do.

Anyone that does give you information to counter what you say you know to be true, you discount. Case in point, the rebuttal offered by wvrevy. You say this poor soul did not approach the topic with an open mind but from his pre-conceived beliefs. I make the same type of comparison about the authors of the book you referenced and you say that I am close-minded.

Just like anyone who reads the information I present to them to counter what they say to be true, they discount? If you read through a lot of what the author of that rebuttal says, all he does is try to turn words around using presuppositions, rather than providing any evidence for his counterclaim. You have yet to see (b/c you choose not to) anything I have to present on it (unless you've read the book, which at this point I won't assume one way or the other, so maybe you have read the book, maybe you haven't), so you may not even know what the evidence might be! As I said, everyone approaches something from a bias, but that bias can be overcome if people have an objective mind and the ability to look at something neutrally and accept or reject it. Nobody here even wants to look at it objectively, so as I said, there's no reason to continue.

The reason that I have responded to you in the manner that I have is to simply ask you to put your proof out there for everyone to see. You brought it up here, post it here. Or our you afraid that people will be able to offer credible counter-arguments to yours

Afraid of nothing except wasting my time, which is why I wanted to host it on a non-Dis Comm. Board forum where those involved actually are seeking information, rather than arguments. I think you understand that, but aren't seeking information. If you were, why not say OK?

 

[cardaway]

Anyone that does give you information to counter what you say you know to be true, you discount. Case in point, the rebuttal offered by wvrevy. You say this poor soul did not approach the topic with an open mind but from his pre-conceived beliefs. I make the same type of comparison about the authors of the book you referenced and you say that I am close-minded.

The reason that I have responded to you in the manner that I have is to simply ask you to put your proof out there for everyone to see. You brought it up here, post it here. Or our you afraid that people will be able to offer credible counter-arguments to yours

I've also noticed the very obvious attempts to talk down to those he is responding to whenever possible. All but talking out of both sides of his mouth given the many sentances about how he wants to openly discuss all this.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

I've also noticed the very obvious attempts to talk down to those he is responding to whenever possible. All but talking out of both sides of his mouth given the many sentances about how he wants to openly discuss all this.

This is coming from you, who does the same thing? Wow, the pot calls the kettle black...

I've said I'd be glad to discuss it, just not with those who don't care to be able to objectively look at the evidence, which nobody here wants to do.

 

[cardaway]

This is coming from you, who does the same thing? Wow, the pot calls the kettle black...

I don't recall ever going on for pages and pages trying to convince people to take my offer to have a civil discussion about something offline while at the same time being outright rude about anything they say in return. I may do a lot of things, but I don't do that.

I've said I'd be glad to discuss it, just not with those who don't care to be able to objectively look at the evidence, which nobody here wants to do.

I'm with the others who have pointed out numerous times that you have repeatedly done everything you say you don't want others to do, and it's why you want to take this all offline. That's a pot and kettle conversation.

 

[cardaway]

Back to the topic...

Anybody seen any protesters in the last week? I'm going to a very popular cinema complex this weekend and I'll see if the local band is still there.

If they are not it's IMO a good indicator of what it was all about in the first place. Another case of modern religion really only being about words and appearances.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

I don't recall ever going on for pages and pages trying to convince people to take my offer to have a civil discussion about something offline while at the same time being outright rude about anything they say in return. I may do a lot of things, but I don't do that.

The only reason that keeps getting brought up is b/c somebody who shall remain nameless keeps insisting that I post it here, when I've said I won't do it and have said the conditions I'll have the discussion under. If people don't want to read or see the evidence for themselves, that's their right. And for that matter, what have I been outright rude at? Disagreeing with somebody isn't being outright rude, it's disagreeing with somebody.

I'm with the others who have pointed out numerous times that you have repeatedly done everything you say you don't want others to do, and it's why you want to take this all offline. That's a pot and kettle conversation.

What have I repeatedly done that I say I don't want others to do? My offer to take this offline happened before most people got involved in the discussion. I've said I've looked at the evidence objectively myself, and have decided the evidence I agree with based upon what I've seen. You reject that there is any evidence before you even hear it.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Back to the topic...

Anybody seen any protesters in the last week? I'm going to a very popular cinema complex this weekend and I'll see if the local band is still there.

If they are not it's IMO a good indicator of what it was all about in the first place. Another case of modern religion really only being about words and appearances.

Cardaway, based on what you say when you write it seems at some point you were probably pretty hurt by religion, or at least by someone religious. If that's the case, that really is too bad. But don't let your bitterness at religion cloud your thinking about it. I believe that deep down everyone knows the truth, but it is just suppressed by many b/c they don't want to believe it, b/c to believe it would mean that many of the things they do and say are no longer considered OK, so it's easier to just deny they're wrong than to change.

 

[cardaway]

Cardaway, based on what you say when you write it seems at some point you were probably pretty hurt by religion, or at least by someone religious. If that's the case, that really is too bad. But don't let your bitterness at religion cloud your thinking about it. I believe that deep down everyone knows the truth, but it is just suppressed by many b/c they don't want to believe it, b/c to believe it would mean that many of the things they do and say are no longer considered OK, so it's easier to just deny they're wrong than to change.

You feel you can make these statments about me given your short time here? This would be the time to admit this is only your most recent username or apologize for being totally out of line.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

You feel you can make these statments about me given your short time here? This would be the time to admit this is only your most recent username or apologize for being totally out of line.

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.

 

[ford family]

Dan Brown claims in TDC that there was a controversy. There was no controversy. TDC claims the Nicean Creed (which "officially" defined the doctrine of Jesus' divinity) was hotly debated and passed by a very close vote. In reality only 5 of the more than 300 bishops present protested the Creed. In the end, only 2 refused to sign it. There is also no evidence that suggests the topic of "throwing out books of the Bible" ever came up as claimed in TDC.

I don't believe the debate was as open and shut as you say. 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.

Yes, there were people that did not believe Jesus' claims of divinity from the very beginning. These were unbelievers, gnostics, men like Arius. However Jesus did claim to be divine (Matthew 2:6-12, Mark 14:61-64, Luke 22: 66-71, Matthew 4: 25-26, etc. etc. etc.). And the Early Church taught that he was divine (read the writings of Paul through out the New Testament).

Arius died under mysterious circumstances (more dirty dealing) and most of the controversy was smoothed over, history being written, as ever, by the victors. The new, approved, set up, now with a divine JC, started an annual get together in which they acted as a Supreme Court, dispensing "justice" to whomsoever they considered to be heretical whilst continually updating the parameters for such decisions.

The Catholic Church didn't invent the doctrine of divinity. This doctrine had been taught from the beginning. The catholic church decided in effect to write it down in the form of an "official creed" to be used to settle the matter for once and all. Arius and gnostics like him were viewed as heretics. Dan Brown is re-hashing heretical material.

At this time the Church was already a powerful and wealthy business, able to extract tribute from all and sundry to maintain their leaders life style and provide both physical and moral support to the territorial ambitions of the Emperor. I don't think you should dismiss alternative opinions simply by branding them "heretical". It may have been ok in AD325 but nowadays we are a lot more aware of the way the early Church stole ideas and icons (e.g. Madonna & child) from other religions to help in the conversion process.

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. The New Testament is FULL of places where Jesus' divinity is claimed and being familiar with the New Testament is the BIGGEST proof that His divinity was taught long before the Nicean Creed.

It may well have been taught but that does not make it fact. The early Church had to have a divine JC to differentiate themselves from the rival beliefs. If JC was known to have married and had children, his offspring would not have been considered divine and therefore,by logical extension, JC himself could not be divine. No divinity no differentiation, no differentiation no power, no power no money. The Church had to suppress any opinion that JC got married and had children both then and now. Hence the protests.

ford family

 

[ncdisneyfan]

I don't believe the debate was as open and shut as you say. 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.

Arius died under mysterious circumstances (more dirty dealing) and most of the controversy was smoothed over, history being written, as ever, by the victors. The new, approved, set up, now with a divine JC, started an annual get together in which they acted as a Supreme Court, dispensing "justice" to whomsoever they considered to be heretical whilst continually updating the parameters for such decisions.

At this time the Church was already a powerful and wealthy business, able to extract tribute from all and sundry to maintain their leaders life style and provide both physical and moral support to the territorial ambitions of the Emperor. I don't think you should dismiss alternative opinions simply by branding them "heretical". It may have been ok in AD325 but nowadays we are a lot more aware of the way the early Church stole ideas and icons (e.g. Madonna & child) from other religions to help in the conversion process.

It may well have been taught but that does not make it fact. The early Church had to have a divine JC to differentiate themselves from the rival beliefs. If JC was known to have married and had children, his offspring would not have been considered divine and therefore,by logical extension, JC himself could not be divine. No divinity no differentiation, no differentiation no power, no power no money. The Church had to suppress any opinion that JC got married and had children both then and now. Hence the protests.

Gee, that's all well and good that you believe it and all, but other than it being your opinion, what is your proof that what you believe really happened?

 

[Viking]

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.

I for my part was never hurt by anyone religious, I was even a member of a catholic youth group for many years and I'm still a volunteer for a protestant ambulance service.
As I told you before: Most of the christian ethics are OK, but trying to use a collection of fairy tales (The bible or other religious books) to explain our world like you do is just utter nonsense. There aren't many facts in the bible, and especially none about how our universe came into existence.
At least you are suddenly speaking of 'your opinions' and no longer of 'evidence' - so perhaps you may start to see the light.

BTW, it was very CHRISTIAN of you to make fun of a minor typo
Does the term hypocrite ring a bell with you?

 

[ncdisneyfan]

I for my part was never hurt by anyone religious, I was even a member of a catholic youth group for many years and I'm still a volunteer for a protestant ambulance service.
As I told you before: Most of the christian ethics are OK, but trying to use a collection of fairy tales (The bible or other religious books) to explain our world like you do is just utter nonsense. There aren't many facts in the bible, and especially none about how our universe came into existence.
At least you are suddenly speaking of 'your opinions' and no longer of 'evidence' - so perhaps you may start to see the light.

BTW, it was very CHRISTIAN of you to make fun of a minor typo
Does the term hypocrite ring a bell with you?

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.

As to your "minor typo", I personally did find it humorous that the person who insulted my "half education being worse than none at all" made a typo on the very term, "intellect", that he was talking about. Classic. Not sure how that makes me a hypocrite, though.

 

[Viking]

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.

As to your "minor typo", I personally did find it humorous that the person who insulted my "half education being worse than none at all" made a typo on the very term, "intellect", that he was talking about. Classic. Not sure how that makes me a hypocrite, though.

ncdisneyfan,
I don't know what you're smoking, but I'm sure that it is illegal

BTW: As you're so keen on typos: It is 'I believe YOU'RE fooling...'
After I had for some time the opinion that there is no sense in discussing with you, I now know that this is a fact - END OF TRANSMISSION

 

[ford family]

Gee, that's all well and good that you believe it and all, but other than it being your opinion, what is your proof that what you believe really happened?

Sorry, I think you've crossed to the wrong conversation. We are talking about the history of the early church here as it relates to TDC whereas I think you were busy denigrating non-believers on another track. Please stay in character.

ford family

 

[JoyG]

I don't believe the debate was as open and shut as you say. 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. ford family

I don't deny that the Catholic church used persuasion and force to gain converts in the early days. However the real point I'm trying to make is that the Early Church...starting with the Pauline Christians onward absolutely believed that JC was divine. I can believe pagans forced to convert wouldn't readily believe that b/c their conversion wasn't from the heart.

Arius died under mysterious circumstances (more dirty dealing) and most of the controversy was smoothed over, history being written, as ever, by the victors. The new, approved, set up, now with a divine JC, started an annual get together in which they acted as a Supreme Court, dispensing "justice" to whomsoever they considered to be heretical whilst continually updating the parameters for such decisions. ford family

Arius died in 366 A.D. The last book of the New Testament was written in 90 A.D. Jesus claimed he was divine long before Arius or the Council of Nicea (see Bible verses in my previous post). Paul claimed Jesus was divine long before Arius or the Council of Nicea. Agreed that the Catholic Church committed atrocities afterwards, but the doctrine of divinity was there long before that started.

At this time the Church was already a powerful and wealthy business, able to extract tribute from all and sundry to maintain their leaders life style and provide both physical and moral support to the territorial ambitions of the Emperor. I don't think you should dismiss alternative opinions simply by branding them "heretical". It may have been ok in AD325 but nowadays we are a lot more aware of the way the early Church stole ideas and icons (e.g. Madonna & child) from other religions to help in the conversion process. ford family

Sorry if it sounded like I was trying to dismiss DB as a heretic. I was actually alluding to what the author of the article you posted said. He labeled DB a heretic (although he said it with tongue in cheek). I was just agreeing with him (but maybe not so tongue in cheek ). I have not been dismissive of Dan Brown though. I have read his book, seen the movie and spent many hours studying his research...in the end I don't agree with him...but I haven't been dismissive.

It may well have been taught but that does not make it fact. The early Church had to have a divine JC to differentiate themselves from the rival beliefs. If JC was known to have married and had children, his offspring would not have been considered divine and therefore,by logical extension, JC himself could not be divine. No divinity no differentiation, no differentiation no power, no power no money. The Church had to suppress any opinion that JC got married and had children both then and now. Hence the protests.ford family

Jesus was claiming divinity before the Catholic church existed. I guess it boils down to if you think he and his apostles were telling the truth or not. Lots of people today and lots of people then didn't. I mean, that was the whole reason why he was crucified. He claimed he was divine, people thought that was blasphemous and a crime, so he was put to death.

 

[JoyG]

Back to the topic...

Anybody seen any protesters in the last week? I'm going to a very popular cinema complex this weekend and I'll see if the local band is still there.

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe any protesters were out in my area at all.

What 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.

I think that is a more effective way of dealing with controversial movies. It doesn't give added media attention to the project...which we all know just increases ticket sales anyway.

 

[Mizz Dizz]

It is just a movie. It is not real people.