oh no it's davinci code week

[Meadmaker]

Huh? Darwin didn't invent anything.

All the more reason atheists would be up in arms.

If Jesus had married Mary Magdalene, Christians wouldn't be up in arms about a book that said he did.

 

[Meadmaker]

1)Theres no way Leonardo Davinci or Isaac Newton were members of the Priori De Sion. The Priori didn't exist prior to the 20th century.

That's what they want you to believe.

 

[slingblade]

I would think it'd be a good idea for Christ to have been married and have had a child or three or whatever. If God's going to come to Earth to be human and share the experience, shouldn't he get the deluxe package? Don't you miss a lot of the human experience without at least falling in love? I guess you could give the whole kid thing a miss, but love...you gotta know love or you just aren't people.

IMO, of course.

If I were Christian, I'd want my god to have a taste of all the big things down here, at the least. So I can't figure out why the possibility or suggestion of Jesus being married is a problem to start with. That is what's irritating some people, isn't it? The suggestion Jesus might have "done it?" If so, that's kind of sad.

 

[Huntster]

I would think it'd be a good idea for Christ to have been married and have had a child or three or whatever. If God's going to come to Earth to be human and share the experience, shouldn't he get the deluxe package?...

One would think so, but crucifixion doesn't fit with the top shelf option. Neither does the life of a carpenter fit with the Son of God.

Ain't it great?

He came to be one of us. Few of us get the "deluxe package".

...Don't you miss a lot of the human experience without at least falling in love? I guess you could give the whole kid thing a miss, but love...you gotta know love or you just aren't people....

Christ was all about love.

It's a different type of love than the type Hollywood likes to market.

...If I were Christian, I'd want my god to have a taste of all the big things down here, at the least. So I can't figure out why the possibility or suggestion of Jesus being married is a problem to start with. That is what's irritating some people, isn't it? The suggestion Jesus might have "done it?" If so, that's kind of sad.

It's not our fantasy to fashion.

 

[yanit]

If you were as tough as you claim to be, you wouldn’t be afraid of persecution, hate, and intolerance (if you were righteous).

I think the word you meant there was self-righteous.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
If you were as tough as you claim to be, you wouldn’t be afraid of persecution, hate, and intolerance (if you were righteous).

I think the word you meant there was self-righteous.

(Note the phrase, "if you were righteous".; not "self-righteous")

Nope. I meant "tough".

 

[yanit]

(Note the phrase, "if you were righteous".; not "self-righteous")

Nope. I meant "tough".

Oh right, I forgot; religious zealots don't recognise sarcasm because they take everything literally. Whoops.

 

[Huntster]

Oh right, I forgot; religious zealots don't recognise sarcasm because they take everything literally. Whoops.

Yeah. I forgot, too; anti-religious zealots can't speak anything close to truth/accuracy, because everything they utter is a lie or sarcasm.

Whoops..........

 

[Darat]

All the more reason atheists would be up in arms.

If Jesus had married Mary Magdalene, Christians wouldn't be up in arms about a book that said he did.

Again what has anything Darwin did or did not come up or believed himself with have anything to do with atheists?

 

[Robin]

What has Darwin got to do with atheists? There is not a creed of atheism, a doctrine of beliefs as there is for a religion. Remember in essence atheism is a lack of belief in something.

Which would surely make the premise of the hypothetical film/book even sillier and more offensive.

To be told that you are in effect the dupe of a Satanist plot.

 

[Robin]

Again what has anything Darwin did or did not come up or believed himself with have anything to do with atheists?

Er, I'm not promoting the premise - it is supposed to be silly.

 

[Robin]

Yes, when someone is seriously trying to say evolution is a hoax to undermine religion, which they do say often, I roll my eyes. I'm so used to hearing it though, I wouldn't be surprised to see a "Da Vinci" book on Darwin.

I don't know if I'd get "up in arms about it", since I am used to hearing it.

Sure, but you haven't seen it as a blockbuster. I'm thinking Mel Gibson to direct and Kevin Spacey as the albino monk from the American Atheists brutally suppressing the truth.

I would be curious as to how they could paint him that way. I'd go see the movie or read the book and see if they had some logical ties or proof that Darwin belonged to which, if any satanic cult at the time.

I am thinking the O.T.O. I am pretty sure you could find something if you tried hard enough.

As you can see, they would have to mention which satanic cult, and prove that those satanists wanted to undermine religion, which is weird since satanists must believe in some kind of religion to believe in and worship satan.

It is pretty much a tired cliche of the last hundred or so years that Satan's main task is to make materialists. See hammegk's recent sig lines for example. Screwtape letters says something similar.

So Satanists would (according to this theory) be working hard to promote atheism rather than doing spooky Omen style stuff.

As an atheist, I wouldn't be up in arms. If that movie claimed to be factual, however, I would.

Naturally the movie/book would claim to be fictional but based around true events. How do you deal with that? Every time you spot a factual error they would just say "that is one of the fictional parts"

The bible code doesn't claim to be factual.

I am assuming you mean the Da Vinci Code. The Bible Code did claim to be factual. The Da Vinci Code claims to be fictional with a factual basis. Of course this might just mean the historical bare bones, but they are implying more.

Even if such a movie claimed to be factual, I'd give arguments to debunk the lies, just like I do against creationists.

The problem being is that if the movie claimed to be fictional, with a factual basis you would end up sounding just like the Christians with the Da Vinci Code.

 

[thaiboxerken]

True, but you don't consider God as spirit?

No, I consider gods a different type of mythical creature.

Risen from the dead, and always alive in spirit.

Dead for only 3 days.

Still a zombie.

And, politically partisan as you are, you are not a ewe?

Am i politically partisan? What's my stance on gun control? What's my stance on taxes? I am not a sheep, it's just that the democratic party happens to stand for many of the same values that I have, but I don't take their values as my own.

I profess that courageous people act in spite of fear.

Then what do you base your assertion of cowardice in me off of?

It's your words that reveal that you you don't know much.

I know plenty. However, it takes no knowledge to understand that your beliefs often are not support with any evidence.

You don't even know how to learn.

Simply an insult, that's ok, sasquatch-boy.

I don't know if He "liked it", but it apparently became necessary.

Applied discipline is a fact of life.

What loving father doesn't correct His children?

WTF?! Are you saying you'll kill your kids as an object lesson?

And their lack of relationship with God is their own business.

Are you "getting it" yet?

I do get it, you are convinced that your god exists. You don't care if atheists don't believe in that god. That's fine, I commend you. You've embraced freedom of religion as a value, despite your bible.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yeah. I forgot, too; anti-religious zealots can't speak anything close to truth/accuracy, because everything they utter is a lie or sarcasm.

You don't mean "anti-religious zealots" you mean anyone that doesn't accept your beliefs as anything more than superstition.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The problem being is that if the movie claimed to be fictional, with a factual basis you would end up sounding just like the Christians with the Da Vinci Code.

Not at all. It wouldn't be just atheists debunking the fictionalization of evolutionary theory, it would be scientists. Historians would also get into the fray, I suspect.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yeah. I forgot, too; anti-religious zealots can't speak anything close to truth/accuracy, because everything they utter is a lie or sarcasm.

You don't mean "anti-religious zealots" you mean anyone that doesn't accept your beliefs as anything more than superstition.

Let's see.........

You claim that "I'm always right".

Now am I to believe that you read minds, as well?

And you deny the existence of God?

You behave as if you are God (or at least think so).

(Remember this, oh awesome one?):

 

[KevinM]

Lets see

The bible joke funny. Sure its first and second hand accounts(in terms of the gospels) all written shortly after the death of Christ representing his teachings and the beliefs of his folllowers. Followers so commited they died rather then denounce him. The bible is a representation of beliefs held by real people and in many cases relate to legitimate events that are a matter of historical record it interprits them throughh religious belief. The Davnici code claims to bef ounded on actual events or groups but either makes up the events entirely or simply lies about what actually happened. Did Christ exist? ALmost certainly enough eyewitness accounts survive to support the idea and enough non christian sources mention him(its anecdotal sure but we're talking about history no oliving person met Christ but then no living person met Julius Ceaser). The reasonable question is was he divine not did he exist. THe Davinci Code can makes no reasonable claims its just catholic bashiing and conspiracy theories. Brown should write about the second gunman on the grassy knoll next.

 

[KevinM]

Atheists and Evil

I'd point out by Christ's teaching(the foundation of Christianity the OT was the foundation of Christs teaching) atheists aren't necissarily evil. They are sinful but this is frankly a moot point because by Christ's teaching EVERY ONE is sinful. Christ never said nor claimed his followers became perfect when they accepted him(sadly some moron fundamentalists seem to think so) just that they become forgiven. Its akin to a man who commits murder, is found guilty and is released on parole after serving part of his sentence. His being on parole doesn't change the fact he's a murderer just the punishment he is facing from being a murderer. Its one of the greatest points in Christian ehthics(in my oppinion) is that unlike other religions its based on the assumption people will screw up and that repenetence and forgiveness are the point not hopping to be perfect enough to get into the best possible after life. As no one seems to pull of the perfection thing it seems a more reasonable standard to me.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Let's see.........

You claim that "I'm always right".

Yes, and I really mean it too.

Now am I to believe that you read minds, as well?

Just yours.

And you deny the existence of God?

Not just yours, all gods.

You behave as if you are God (or at least think so).

Which one?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
...Now am I to believe that you read minds, as well?

Just yours.

Well, then, apply for the Randi challenge and get paid.

Let's give it a test:

What am I thinking right..............................now!