WAT:

Wasach brews aren't bad, particularly if you've been in Utah for a while. I think that the breweries can serve above 4%, but the markets can't sell it.

I used 2 be able 2 get Ruby Mtn in Mesquite on my way 2 OOSP, but they seldom carry it anymore. So, it's a 3-hr round trip drive 2 Ely if I'm "in need". Sometimes, Baker has it (Baker, NV, that is, which is about 100 times smaller than Baker, CA), and that saves some time.

They make a really nice porter, amber ale, and a few others I can't remember at the moment.

YUM... may have 2 make a beer run this morning, instead of stocking up this afternoon for the weekend! But it won't be Ruby Mtn, sadly. Maybe Stone though.

-ol' 2long

It's already afternoon here, so you can have one on my proxy. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

WAT

I think DVC is great fiction.

It's interesting to think about the ramifications of the books assertions, don't you think?

What if Jesus was married. After all, He was fully God and FULLY MAN. Wouldn't marriage be a human experience?

I think the greater ramification would be if he had decendants - how would that have affected the Church?

IF these assertions were found to be true, how would that affect our faith? Would it make Christ any less our Savior? Any less worthy of our adoration?

Stuff to think about.

Good questions, Low Orbit.


The Bible does say He was/is married...to the church. The church being the body of believers. We are his bride.


There would be no church (I dont mean necessarily the Catholic church...I mean the body of believers...the Christian church).


Yes it would. He stated certain things. The Bible and history confirmed them. For Jesus to have lied would not make Him a savior...but would make him as evil as Satan himself.


Always good to think...me thinks. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His arms.

Dear Lemonman,

In all the debate, I fear your original question has been lost. Here is the verdict from Anthony Lane in "The New Yorker":


HEAVEN CAN WAIT
“The Da Vinci Code.”
by ANTHONY LANE
Issue of 2006-05-29
Posted 2006-05-22

The story of “The Da Vinci Code” goes like this. A dead Frenchman is found laid out on the floor of the Louvre. His final act was to carve a number of bloody markings into his own flesh, indicating, to the expert eye, that he was preparing to roll in fresh herbs and sear himself in olive oil for three minutes on each side. This, however, is not the conclusion reached by Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), a professor of symbology at Harvard, who happens to be in Paris. Questioned by Bezu Fache (Jean Reno), the investigating policeman at the scene, Langdon starts rabbiting about pentacles and pagans and God knows what. But what does God know, exactly? And can He keep His mouth shut?

Help arrives in the shape of Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), a police cryptographer. She turns out to be the granddaughter of the deceased, and a dab hand at reversing down Paris streets in a car the size of a pissoir. This is useful, since she and Langdon are soon on the run, convinced that Fache is about to nail the professor on a murder charge—the blaming of Americans, on any pretext, being a much loved Gallic sport. Our hero, needing somebody to trust, does the same dumb thing that every fleeing innocent has done since Robert Donat in “The Thirty-nine Steps.” He and Sophie visit a cheery old duffer in the countryside and spill every possible bean. In this case, the duffer is Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen), who lectures them on the Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, in 325 A.D. We get a flashback to the council in question, and I must say that, though I have recited the Nicene Creed throughout my adult life, I never realized that it was originally formulated in the middle of a Beastie Boys concert.

Fache is not the only hunter on Langdon’s scent. There is also Silas (Paul Bettany), a cowled albino monk whose hobbies include self-flagellation, multiple homicide, and irregular Latin verbs. He works for Opus Dei, the Catholic organization so intensely secretive that its American headquarters are tucked away in a seventeen-story building on Lexington Avenue. Silas answers to Bishop Aringarosa (Alfred Molina), who in turn answers to his cell phone, his Creator, and not much else. Between them, they track Langdon and Sophie to England, where a new villain, hitherto suspected by nobody except the audience, is prevented from shooting his quarry because, unusual for London, there is a gaggle of nuns in the way—God’s Work if ever I saw it, although I wouldn’t say so to a member of Opus Dei.

The task of the Bishop and his hit man is to thwart the unveiling of what Teabing modestly calls “the greatest secret in modern history,” so powerful that, “if revealed, it would devastate the very foundations of Christianity.” Later, realizing that this sounds a little meek and mild, he stretches it to “the greatest coverup in human history.” As a rule, you should beware of any movie in which characters utter lines of dialogue whose proper place is on the advertising poster. (Just imagine Sigourney Weaver, halfway through “Alien,” turning to John Hurt and explaining, “In space, no one can hear you scream.”) There is a nasty sense in “The Da Vinci Code” that, not unlike Langdon, we are being bullied into taking its pronouncements at face value. Such nagging has a double effect. First, any chance to enjoy the proceedings as hokum—as a whip-cracking quest along the lines of “Raiders of the Lost Ark”—is rapidly stifled and stilled. Second, one’s natural reaction to arm-twisters of any description is to wriggle free, turn around, and kick them in the pentacles. So here goes.

There has been much debate over Dan Brown’s novel ever since it was published, in 2003, but no question has been more contentious than this: if a person of sound mind begins reading the book at ten o’clock in the morning, at what time will he or she come to the realization that it is unmitigated junk? The answer, in my case, was 10:00.03, shortly after I read the opening sentence: “Renowned curator Jacques Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum’s Grand Gallery.” With that one word, “renowned,” Brown proves that he hails from the school of elbow-joggers—nervy, worrisome authors who can’t stop shoving us along with jabs of information and opinion that we don’t yet require. (Buried far below this tic is an author’s fear that his command of basic, unadorned English will not do the job; in the case of Brown, he’s right.) You could dismiss that first stumble as a blip, but consider this, discovered on a random skim through the book: “Prominent New York editor Jonas Faukman tugged nervously at his goatee.” What is more, he does so over “a half-eaten power lunch,” one of the saddest phrases I have ever heard.

Should we mind that forty million readers—or, to use the technical term, “lemmings”—have followed one another over the cliff of this long and laughable text? I am aware of the argument that, if a tale has enough grip, one can for a while forget, if not forgive, the crumbling coarseness of the style; otherwise, why would I still read “The Day of the Jackal” once a year? With “The Da Vinci Code,” there can be no such excuse. Even as you clear away the rubble of the prose, what shows through is the folly of the central conceit, and, worse still, the pride that the author seems to take in his theological presumption. How timid—how undefended in their powers of reason—must people be in order to yield to such preening? Are they reading “The Da Vinci Code” because everybody on the subway is doing the same, and, if so, why, when they reach their stop, do they not realize their mistake and leave it on the seat, to be gathered up by the next sucker? Despite repeated attempts, I have never managed to crawl past page 100. As I sat down to watch “The Da Vinci Code,” therefore, I was in the lonely, if enviable, position of not actually knowing what happens.

Stumbling out from the final credits, tugging nervously at my goatee, I was none the wiser. The film is directed by Ron Howard and written by Akiva Goldsman, the master wordsmith who brought us “Batman & Robin.” I assumed that such an achievement would result in Goldsman’s being legally banned from any of the verbal professions, but, no, here he is yet again. As far as I am qualified to judge, the film remains unswervingly loyal to the book, displaying an obedience that Silas could not hope to match. I welcome this fidelity, because it allows us to propose a syllogism. The movie is baloney; the movie is an accurate representation of the book; therefore, the book is also baloney, although it takes even longer to consume. Movie history is awash, of course, with fine pictures that have been made from daft or unreadable books; indeed, you are statistically more likely to squeeze a decent movie out of a potboiler than you are out of a novel of high repute. The trouble with Howard’s film is that it is far too dense and talkative to function efficiently as a thriller, while also being too credulous and childish to bear more than a second’s scrutiny as an exploration of religious history or spiritual strife. There is plenty going on here, from gunfights to masked orgiastic rituals and mini-scenes of knights besieging Jerusalem, yet the outcome feels at once ponderous and vacant, like a damp and deconsecrated Victorian church.

This is grim news for Tom Hanks, who has served Howard gamely in the past. How does the genial mermaid-lover of “Splash,” or the jockish team player of “Apollo 13,” feel about being stranded in this humorless grind? Apart from Paul Bettany, who finds a leached and pale-eyed terror in his avenging angel, the other players seem bereft. Molina, so violently vulnerable in “Spider-Man 2,” is given no room to breathe, and, as for Audrey Tautou, it is surely no coincidence that Howard sought out and hired almost the only young French actress who emits not a hint of sexual radiation. “The Da Vinci Code” may ask us to believe that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, that she bore him a child, and that the Catholic Church has spent two thousand years not merely concealing this but enforcing its distaste for the feminine (and thus for all bodily delight), but did the movie have to be quite so pallid and prudish about breaking the news? Whose side is it on, anyway?

Behold, I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people, except at Columbia Pictures, where the power lunches won’t even be half-started. The Catholic Church has nothing to fear from this film. It is not just tripe. It is self-evident, spirit-lowering tripe that could not conceivably cause a single member of the flock to turn aside from the faith. Meanwhile, art historians can sleep easy once more, while fans of the book, which has finally been exposed for the pompous fraud that it is, will be shaken from their trance. In fact, the sole beneficiaries of the entire fiasco will be members of Opus Dei, some of whom practice mortification of the flesh. From now on, such penance will be simple—no lashings, no spiked cuff around the thigh. Just the price of a movie ticket, and two and a half hours of pain.

2long - I'll not debate with you your opinion of the Flood, at least not at this time, but I did want to agree with you that "evidence" is a key thing, especially when it might lead one to a different conclusion when whatever presupposition they may have begun with doesn't "fit" as well with the facts as "another opinion" might.

"Arguing" the Flood is sometimes fun, but it's irrelevant to anyone who is NOT a believer in Jesus and who takes the Scripture as having been inspired by God and inerrant in the original autographs. NO ONE will be saved by believing that the Flood of the Bible actually happened just as the Bible describes. All I'll say about the Flood and geological arguments is that modern geology basically believes, and attempts to apply, the presupposition of Uniformitarianism to the interpretation of facts (evidence, i.e., fossils, rock strata, etc.).

But the thing I wanted to toss out here is your statement that seems to give us your "belief" and "reasoning" very succinctly; "But as I alluded above, we have plenty of evidence - the lack of recent marine deposits and erosional/depositional forms at high elevations - that such a flood did NOT occur. And yes, we are left with the Biblical account. But it's how, and WHY we interpret that, that's important."

I agree wholeheartedly with your call for evidence being key. Granted, "evidence (as in facts) is evidence." It IS the interpretation of the same evidence (facts) that depends as you say, on the "HOW and WHY" anyone interprets the very same data.

I suggest that the self-same data is abudantly clear concerning Jesus of Nazareth. The question that is asked concering that data, and the one called Jesus Christ, is very basic. Given the weight of evidence, did Jesus Christ actually exist? If he existed, IS he who he said he was?

Without an answer to THOSE two questions, it does not matter whether one believes in the DaVinci code, the Flood, Creation, or any number of "secondary" issues. With respect to the DaVinci code, fiction or not (depending upon one's chosen opinion), it presents NO evidence, just mere speculation and an attempt to discredit WHO Jesus is. The premise, for example of the "family" that is alleged to have descended from a union of Mary Magdelene and Jesus has been scientifically EXCLUDED by DNA analysis. That FACT will still not stop some who approach the issue of "who Jesus IS" from applying their presupposition to the issue and "interpreting" the data any way they want to. That is nothing new either, whether it's with the Gnostic Gospels, those who think that there are "major errors in translations" of the Bible, or the current crop of "alternate" theories.

In the final analysis, Jesus claimed to be the "Son of God"(the second person of the Trinity) and to be the Messiah, the Savior. If he is NOT, then it really doesn't matter what anyone believes. If he IS, all the other arguments and opinions don't matter.

So we're back to your statement about "plenty of evidence." Given that evidence, a choice must be made. So does the "evidence speak" or does the "presupposition" speak so that the same evidence available to all can be "interpreted" to support the presupposition?

What do you think?

Just J,

Hi! Just wanted you to know that I've read your thoughtful response to my questions. You are just the neatest person -- you know that, don't you? I don't have the time (or the energy) to respond fully right now. Perhaps this weekend. If this thread is dead in the water by then, I'll write my thoughts and shoot you an email. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

LowOrbit,

You and I have talked before and I love what you have to say. I also wonder about Jesus being not ONLY *fully God* but also *fully man*... and what that entails. It's a question worth exploring, I think.

A thread is dead
When it's been read
Some say.
Archival value
Just begins
That day.

-- AMM

(with apologies to Emily Dickinson)

AM ~ Oh, you're GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

FH:

Before I comment further on the specifics, I wanted 2 say...

I LOVED your post! I hope that doesn't sound strange...


Like we often hear on MB... "our truths". We all need, at some level, 2 validate each other's perspectives, our "truths", if we're ever hoping 2 find some common ground 2 initiate real communication. Please believe me when I say this: HERE MIGHT BE some of that common ground.


I agree, it's NOT the ISSUE. As in this verse by King Crimson (written by Peter Sinfield), but very often misunders2d, with offense taken (and understandably, considering the specific wording - but like the DVC, it "makes you think", believer or non, and I love 2 think!):

"Magi blind, with vision's lights, net death in dread of life.
Their children kneel in Jesus 'til they learn the price of nails.
Whilst all around our mother Earth waits balanced on the scales."
-King Crimson, "In the Wake of Poseidon"

It isn't the intricate details of what happened 2 Jesus that's important, it's what he taught that is (and that's from an atheologist, FH)


You might find the history of the Missoula Flood that Appy talks about, interesting in this light. Harlan Bretz made the observation that there were flood-carved landforms in SE Washington that were GINORMOUS in scale - requiring a truly great flood 2 form them. This was in the early 20th cen2ry, before air photos were available of the region. He was laughed at by the scientific community. Because his flood appeared 2 violate "Uniformitarianism" and suggest "Catastrophism" played a major role in Earth's recent his2ry. In the end, he was right, but so were the Uniformitarianists - because catastrophies like the Missoula Flood follow the laws of physics, but they do so at very rare intervals, and so appear 2 us humans and our limited lifetimes, as catastrophies that violate na2ral laws!


YES! You understand!


That's 2 2uestions. And the answers aren't as important as the persuit OF the answers, 2 me! Does that make sense? Do you have a clearer pic2re of my fascination with our "human experience" and the his2ricity of Jesus? This is an open 2uestion - a continuing "problem 2 be solved" for me. And here, "the journey" IS the prize. "Salvation" is a daily imperative - it's not a "one-off" event.


I haven't read the book or seen the movie yet. But I would argue, based on what I revealed about my "inner workings" above, that it isn't the answer that's important. It's asking the question, that is.

-ol' 2long

No, it doesn't sound strange. You are a scientist who is used to looking at facts. Suffice it to say that EVERYONE approaches all facts with some sort of presupposition. That's one of the reasons for "hypothesis."




Agreed, though what happened to him is important in "proving" who he was and is. And what he taught IS what is important, "I am the way, the truth, and the light. NO ONE comes to the Father but by me." "He that believeth in me shall have eternal life."

"They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus.


So, the issue is the same today as it was 2000 years ago...IS Jesus who he said he is? If he is, what is your, my, anyone's, response to that fact? More questions, or acceptance that the question has received an answer and that future questions will be directed at how to become more "Christ-like?"






Uh huh. And so does the Great Flood catastrophe. It happened so rarely that it only happened once. But once was enough to forever end the "world that was" and establised the "world that now is."




I understand that to "accept" Jesus requires a fundamental change of "who is in control."

What you are saying here is "nothing new." The way it is usually phrased is, "Always seeking, never finding." But the end result is a "neverending journey" where the "facts" are ignored because the person perceives that acceptance of them would end the "journey." What they don't understand is a NEW journey is just beginning when they "choose Christ."




And I would argue that questions with no intent of finding an answer are meaningless. ANSWERS ARE what are important. Questions merely "weigh the facts" and eliminate (hopefully) the incorrect or absurd potential answers as one seeks the truth, the real answer.

"To be or not to be, that is the question," IS the question, as William so aptly put it.

It simply needs to specify what the "be" is. To BE a believer in Christ or not to be....is the eternal question.

I saw a really good movie tonight called CRISIS OF FAITH: THE JESUS MOVEMENT; PORTRAIT OF A RADICAL. Anybody seen it? Here's a description:

Not rated; 60 min.

Whether you believe their veracity or not, it is difficult to deny the ideas behind the words of Jesus were revolutionary and radical, something even the temple guards in the Gospel of John recognized when they came to arrest him, and failed: "No one ever spoke the way this man does."

In "Portrait of a Radical," noted theologians and authors, including Huston Smith, Robert Bly, the Doors, and Jean Houston, attempt to reclaim Jesus’ message from the institution that has, in many ways, obscured his radical, compassionate and inclusive teachings.

Unlike more traditional videos about the life of Jesus, "Portrait of a Radical" attempts, using powerful images and music, to move the viewer out of the intellect and into a space where the dynamic nature of Jesus can be experienced. The film relies heavily on art to help the speakers tell the story of the movement. In addition to original footage shot in Israel, the film makes strong use of frescoes and mosaics which tend to be more approachable than the better known traditional Christian art and Icons. The continuous stream of art and nature woven throughout the story seem to come to life with the music that lurks behind it.