OK, PB or whomever may have seen the Da Vinci Code....lets have the goods. Is the Da Vinci code worth seeing? I am hearing some bad things about it, but so what...I wanna know what you thought?

Lem

You read the book lem ? IMO it was a bit cack compared to the 'spiracy factual book "the holy blood and the holy grail" that Dan Brown ripped it off from.

Can't imagine the movie's much cop when the book was such a duffer.

It's been critically slaughtered at launch over here in the UK.

We went to the Arclight cinema in Hollywood, which is a HUGE screen

I really was really entertained ... Hanks was understated in his performance and this allowed the other actors to *shine*

I am prejudiced ... I loved the book ... and this may be why I enjoyed seeing the film so much

We took our daughter's boyfriend as our guest

He did not read the book ... he was a little "lost"

because the premise and context is so complex

I'm gonna see it again ... just for the beauty of the European locations

Pep

LOL pep !

it's true!

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I thought it reeked. You read any Umberto Eco ? MUCH better IMO !

It's a best selling novel ... so the reek is subjective

LOL

80% of people have affairs, popularity don't make 'em good ! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

An article in the paper this morning said 80% of the people asked in Europe and GB believe the book is a true expose of an actual cover-up by the Catholic Church.

But less than 2% of Americans do in the same survey.

Interesting, but I have no idea what it means, if anything.

darn that was funny! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Sump'n funny is certainly going on. I've read a few factual/theory books. Church/ Freemasonry/ Knights Templar / preure de sion / opus dei blah blah.

all good fun. Doesn;t prove anything but the old tenet "opinions vary" IMO ! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

My H was a radio talk show guest yesterday when we went to the theater ... he got selected to speak ... but since I was not listening to the radio (I was in the bookshop) I did not hear him

he basically said in reference to the controversy

>serious paraphrasing<

"If you go to see the movie King Kong, you walk away knowing this was a movie trying to entertain you NOT trying to educate you, the audience about ape behavior ... DaVinci is the same thing ... simply entertainment, not an attempt to educate or debate the church's teachings."

leave it to my husband to bring King kong into the conversation about THIS movie

so funny my man

Pep

My son said something very similar but without the King Kong. He said the movie was pretty good, but liked the book better.

It means Europeans are dumber than Americans

>duck & run< <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

And EVERYBODY's dumber than texans ! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

amen <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Pep, with all due respect, it's vulgar, in my humble opinion. "Facts" used to "support" the premise have been proven false (see the History Channel special that examined the facts, for example).

Beyond that, consider the vulgar attack on Christ and the offensiveness of it, along with so many other things that have been "excused" in the name of "Art." Maplethorpe "exhibit" anyone?

Consider the reaction if the "subject matter" were Mohammend for example.

People who want respect should act in a respectful manner, wouldn't you think?

But consider the treatment Mel Gibson received for The Passion and compare that to the slander and false accusations of Ron Howard and Mr. "Garp"

The sad thing is that so many will simply accept that garbage as "fact" since in was in the movies. The intellectual depth of much of the public is astounding. South Park, that icon of wisdom and intellectual depth, wouldn't dare to put on a simple picture of Mohammed, but they, and many others have no problem blaspheming Christ.

Supporters of such garbage really should, in my opinion, examine themselves. It's getting so bad that the jerk in charge of Iran wants all non-Muslims to wear color coded identification, ala Hitler and the Jews.

That's enough. I'm getting hot under the collar over the blatant sin against God and the supporters of such activities.

Art? Not even close. "Rationalization" for disgusting behavior intended to slander and hurt many people...sounds very familiar to another use of "rationalization."

European,s opinions? Tell it to the French and their retreat from Christianity and support of Muslim imports. Reaping what they have sown comes to mind.

Enough...I'm starting to have a "rant."

rant on ...

it's a movie and a fictional story

Pep

Yes exactly....why can't people just see it for what it is. Some entertainment. I loved the book, and I am certainl I will love the movie.

I am a catholic and for the life of me cannot understand why everyone has their panties in a bunch over this movie. "Get over it"...
<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Lem

you ARE??

so am I ...

who knew?

I am the only Catholic Susan ever met !

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> ... just kidding ... I'm the 2nd

BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAA

maybe I'll go to confession tomorrow and confess I enjoyed a fictional movie ...

maybe not

LOL

Refresh my memory! LOL Who was the first?

I'm a Baptist, but not your typical Baptist.

I've seen kids sit up in our church and read Harry Potter checked out of OUR church library.

Get the bobsled ready...we are on our way! weeeeeeeeeee

sled = too slow

send me fed ex

me handbasket.

Hilarious...I met my first Catholic my junior year of high school, a "new" girl, she was from Ohio...I met my first Jew when I was in college...the South is a vacuum of sorts, huh?

Mrs. W<-----Southern Baptist

My 19 year old son read and passed the book on to me. I loved the book, but haven't seen the movie. I think the book has enough "possibilities" to challenge one's thoughts. This doesn't have to be a negative. Sometimes it is in the challenge that one develops a deeper, stronger faith.

As a teenager and young adult I would ask various questions in church classes about scripture. When there seemed to be no clear answers or large gaps in information I was told "you just have to have faith.". I often wondered why God had given me intelligence if it was to ultimately be the source of my spiritual doom. And yes I know the line about God giving us free will, etc, but I was genuinely seeking understanding. Why was it okay to use my intelligence as a "gift" in other areas of my life but not my spiritual beliefs?

While the focus in The Da Vinci Code tends to be on Catholicism/Christianity, I think the greater issue is in examination of the role of the feminine in religion long before Christianity. Like it or not, there is much that is valid in examining the role of the feminine, Goddess based, Earth based beliefs and rituals. Many of the Christian rituals were developed around the traditional "pagan" holidays. People were reluctant to give up what had been meaningful, life giving to them. Thus, modifications were made which made the rituals and celebrations more in keeping with acceptable Christian beliefs and practices.

Male and female symbols related to life-giving, "spiritual" energy, are ancient archetypes. The balance of such energies is seen as an optimal state...not one energy over the other. Each has a different, but necessary role in creating "wholeness", as God is whole. This is unlike Christianity where the role of the feminine in spirituality is relegated to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Mary is certainly not seen as an equal to Jesus or the masculine/paternal "God" as "Father". In fact, her conception of Jesus was "immaculate", unsullied by human touch. Are we to conclude that the coming together of husband and wife in sexual relations is somehow a contaminated act?

Would it be so terrible if Jesus had married and had children? Would this make him "less then" as an example of love and sacrifice? Some of the most selfless and loving relationships are between a couple and their children.

Thought provoking....to say the least.

Mrs W

When Susan and I finally met in person ... she examined my head for tiny stubs of horns! Once she "cleared" me ... we went on to our party wearing blackfishnet stockings, lace panties and "sparkly" shirts in vibrant colors that would have made Neil-in-his-hey-day-Diamond blush ! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

I love me some Southern Baptist girl named Suz ... she gave me "new eyes"

~once I was 'blind' ~~ now I can see~

Bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Pep

And I have lots of PICS! Wanna SEE???? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

fact: I haven't read all the responses on this thread.

fact: I read the book - but not until it was available in paperback. Similarly, don't know if I'll see the movie before it's available to rent. I'm frugal that way.

fact: I followed the news and objections about the book when it got popular. I've been following the "commentary" in the news about the release of the movie and folks' reaction to it.

opinion: I imagine I'm not the only one who sees the irony in some who blast the book/movie as being "fictional" - compared to the REAL truth in another book.

fact: I'm a huge fan of Michener.

opinion: Michener is the master of transforming historical, factual settings into fiction - filling in characters, detail, and sub plots into otherwise bonafide, factual history. The stories are very plausible and represent to me a way a more detailed history might very well have actually been. Unabashedly fiction, but very, very plausible - and sometimes more rational than the "truth" - because the truth has "gaps." (Intentional irony here - "gaps" as in those being filled on almost a daily basis in evolutionary biology.)

opinion: Similarly, to me, the "Code" seems a more plausible fiction than the "truth." A much more believable fiction.

WAT
----------------
Spy vs Spy
Fiction vs Fiction
So dark the con of man.

You see, I knew I was way beyond my time....

I'm Baptist...dunked in the "swimming pool" at a young age...

BUT..one of my beloved grandmother's was Catholic..a founding member of her church..the other beloved grandmother was Baptist..I guess she won the rivalry...I was the ONLY grandchild for many years...

But better yet...I started wearing BLACK FISHNETS and LACY PANTIES in the 9th grade...did other unmentionable things at that time as well... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Shall I go on..my first job was for a Jewish storeowner...

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Oh yeah, BTW, I'm a Southern Lady....

But Jesus was married - to the Church.

I will say I have not read nor seen the movie. The only thing I do know is from our Sunday service today. Covering the Da Vinci code.

Yes, this is a fictional story, but isn't the author claiming that the backdrop to the novel is rooted in historical fact?

Here is a link to a website that might be of interest:
www.davincichallenge.com

Kim

Lemonman - therein lies the problem...you don't see.

Try reading WAT's post or Heartmending's post for examples of "the problem."

You know there are still people who believe "Piltdown Man" "proves" evolution. There will always be people who believe a lie simply because someone was "allowed" to lie.

"Oh poor Christian, you shouldn't get offended when we deliberately try to pass of opinion and lie as FACT. You should 'turn the other cheek,' right?"

Nevermind that if ANY other belief was attacked with such impunity and falsehood, the adherents of those beliefs being attacked would be mounting nuclear counterattacks and screaming bigotry and prejudice.

Check how WAT responds to anyone who says, or intimates, that Evolution is wrong and that Gould and his "punctuated equilibrium" is a lot of unproven nonsense being passed off as "fact."

Check how the Islamists reacted to the Netherlands cartoon.

Salmon Rushdee anyone?

Check how South Park wouldn't air a segment with a cartoon of Mohammend in it ostensibly because they didn't want to "offend" any Muslims. (But it's okay to offend Christians all day long with their disgusting attacks on Christianity).

Call it "Righteous Anger," if you will. But I am highly disgusted with and incensed with outright and deliberate blasphemy against God, Jesus Christ, and Christianity by two-faced "artistic" hypocrits. Poor old Mel Gibson was practically stoned for some trumped up accusation that The Passion was somehow "anti-Semitic" when it dealt in FACTS. Here comes Ron Howard with an outright attack on Christianity based in lies and premises that have already been proven to be false and NO ONE is calling it "anti-Christian" as if "anti" was so bad.

Pardon me while I go "hurl" over the hypocrisy.

You apparently have a problem with the Biblical command regarding forgiveness and you also really aren't offended by blasphemy against God, are you Lemonman? What DOES offend you, as a Christian, if not that?

FH,

Have you lost your mind?

I am so sick of you bashing WAT ever single chance you get, and over the stupidist reasons, right out of the blue.

WAT is one of the most decent, intelligent, caring & straight up guys on this board.

Leave him alone, please...enough is enough.

And yes, that was a frontal attack as well as an opinion, that you are going way too far.

***In fact, her conception of Jesus was "immaculate", unsullied by human touch. Are we to conclude that the coming together of husband and wife in sexual relations is somehow a contaminated act?***

Now, even an old pagan like me knows that the term "Immaculate Conception" does NOT mean "conceived without sex".

It means "conceived without the taint of Original Sin that afflicts all other human beings."

The Immaculate Conception was Mary, the mother of Jesus. That is why Mary was suitable to become the mother of Christ - not *just* because she was a virgin.

I am assuming that Jesus was also considered to be an Immaculate Conception as well, but I have always heard the term attributed to his mother.

This is very commonly confused, even among practicing Christians.

End of religous instruction for today <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Mulan

The movie is

FICTION

it says on the front of the book

"A NOVEL"

it is NOT and attack on Christianity

if it is an attack on anything it would be Catholic dogma & the secret societies of Catholicism

this thread is about a MOVIE

NOT your faith

calm down

Can somebody please translate this into American? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

The book was entertaining, but there's better fiction out there. I'll get it when it comes out on Netflix.

Ditto Weaver. Thanks.

FH

Do you speak to anyone in real life like this?

Pep

Well....I guess I can't really let this one go FH. I don't have a problem with the biblical command of "forgiveness"....JUST THE WAY YOU INTERPRET IT !!!! I am not offended by a movie that is meant for entertainment. I am OFFENDED by people like you who use any and EVERY thing in life as an avenue to jam their perspective down your throat.

I have to be honest with you boss.....you have no idea how incredible of a turn off you are with regards to shoving your "biblical" perspective down everyone's throat ALL THE TIME.....EVERY TIME. I mean, come on dude...Get over yourself.

I think it was very clever of you to use the word "disentaglement" in describing your WW'S continued and willful betrayals of your marriage. I don't have any problems with forgiveness...I forgave my WW....she has my forgiveness...Some people here (mistakenly I believe) perceive that because I enforced my boundaries, honored myself and honored my self integrity by not allowing continued and willful damage to my life by staying in a marriage with a cheater that somehow I am not "forgiving" or a Christian person.... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> X 1000

We all contribute good to this world in different ways...You, by citing bible verses and fighting for the "word of God" here and enlightining those (like me) who "don't get it"...and me for standing on my feet for three hours this morning at 2 am and repairing Mr Frank Smith's (pseudonym) ruptured aorta that apparently a parked van didn't like too much after his speeding ford escape SUV smacked it. I can look at myself in the mirror just fine everyday. I do this world plenty good and I make my "fellow man" better by being on this planet (even if I can't recite ten bible verses word for word).

So, I am a catholic, I believe in God and a higher power and am open to learning more...BUT when I have to hear it form the likes of you and in your condescending "holier than thou" way...I tune right out (you wanna bet I am not alone on this one).

LEM

FH



no one

NO ONE

NO ONE

[color:"red"] NO ONE [/color]

is passing this MOVIE off as anything but a movie based on a book , a fictional novel written in a very imaginative way which weaves historical people art & architecture into a storyline

it is a CHASE MOVIE

FH <~~~ YOU are argueing against a point that none of us are making

THIS MOVIE is no more "fact" than the movie JFK by Oliver Stone was a fact

Do you think the Wizard Of Oz is passing it's self off as fact?

Pep

***Can somebody please translate this into American?***

Sure, I'll try!

***IMO it was a bit cack compared to the 'spiracy factual book "the holy blood and the holy grail" that Dan Brown ripped it off from.
Can't imagine the movie's much cop when the book was such a duffer.***

"In my opinion, it did not hold up well when compared to the non-fiction conspiracy book titled *Holy Blood, Holy Grail* which the author of *The DaVinci Code* used very, very heavily as a source.

"I cannot imagine the film version of *The DaVinci Code* is worth seeing when the book itself was so poorly done."

There, how'd I do? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Mulan>getting my EN for Conversation met through MB and my EN for Attractive Spouse met by Errol Flynn and Cary Elwes!

You got that right and say it much better than I did. I tried once. It fell on deaf ears.

Don't tell me The Velveteen Rabbit was not based on a real story and a real wabbit!!!!!!!!

Count me in. I completely concur.

Thought I would throw my $0.02 into the to the mix.

First I read the book and loved it. It helps that I have been to some of the places mentioned in the book I suppose. It was really fairly good. His previous book is actually pretty slow, this one moved along.

I have not seen the movie but will. Tom Hanks is a good actor and "Opie" is a good director. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Heck, I loved Apollo 13 but then I had seen it on the launch pad back in the day. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

I will relay to you a few comments made by my minister during Easter services, as the book was part of his sermon, but not in the fashion one would expect. He relay he had been asked if he felt the book was true. His response to the person was to ask "What part of the book store did you find the book?" Her response: "The fiction section." He smiled and said he found his copy in the same place, and had no reason to believe the book store had misplaced it. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I like a good suspense story and the best ones make enough touch with reality to make you wonder...but NOT BELEIVE. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Just my thoughts.

JL

I am not offended by anything on this thread with the exception of the two above statements. Those two statements are highly inflammatory to me. And I like WAT, I think that he is a very intelligent and helpful resource on this site...I know that he isn't a Christian, and I can handle that, and WAT, you know that many here are Christians, some that you even consider friends, I believe. Anyway, WAT, I just thought that you should know, FWIW.

Mrs. W

P.S. And Heck yeah Susan I wanna see those pictures-I may even want to borrow the outfits, 'specially if they include a tiara!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Susan,

I CRY like a baby EVERY time I read that story to my DD6 at bedtime...LOVE IT!!!

Mrs. W

Of course they include a tiara. If Pep will OK it, I'll link you to our photo album online. (via email)

PEP??? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Here's 50 cents worth from my little Lutheran corner of the world:

I think this book and this movie are great - not because Dan Brown wrote a neat thriller, not because Ron Howard is an excellent director, not because Tom Hanks is a fine actor, but because they have prompted Christians across the country, and around the world to reflect on their "walk with God".

Clergy of every denomination should thank Messrs Brown, Howard, and Hanks for provoking thought, reflection, and discussion on Jesus. What an opportunity!

And, instead of finding offence in fiction, consider this:


[color:"red"] [/color] John 15:12 - This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.



Because, at least to me, that's what Christianity is all about. Everything else is extraneous.

You want conspiracy? I'll give you conspiracy.

Check out David Icke's "The Biggest Secret."

For 10,000 years, the world has been ruled by an alien race of lizard men. All our governments and religions have been created by Lizard Men, and they still shape-shift to human form.

Think of Opus Dei, with long, darting tongues.

Look at Queen Elizabeth II or George Bush long enough -- you'll see their lizard forms.

Drop acid, and the reptilian illusion often drops and you will see lizards.

Why do you think LSD is illegal??? And who made it illegal??? Huh???

My Sunday School teacher said today that we should all read A Skeleton in God's Closet. It is a NOVEL.

All but the Bible aside, to me, Christianity is about this...John 14:6


[color:"red"]"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."[/color]


Mrs. W

Lizard MEN ... LM-bloody-AO!

Makes perfect sense to me. In the dating world sometimes you get a chilling peek at MEN who were always suspected to be reptile-like. And this ISN'T a good thing, just in case anyone was wondering. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Costume Party at A.M. Martin's House! WOOOO HOOOO!!! LOL!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Mrs. W <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Cool, but .... I don't think my costume is up to "scale". <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

BWAHAAAAAAAAAAA!!! I think I'm coming as a Sleestack from The Land of the Lost! Anybody remember them? If not, click here! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Mrs. W <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Very nice. One thing tho, you have a zit on top your head hon, and its ready to blow.

That's Not me silly, that's Mr. W, of course...He's really gotta start usin' his Proactive Solution...Maybe that "honker" will be gone before the shindig...You won't see me til I make the grand entrance at the party like the drama queen that I am...LOL! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Mrs. W <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Thanks for the translation, Mulan. Wasn't sure if he was talking about the Monty Python movie for a moment there. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Huh?

sure

why not

everyone else has seen my azz getting kissed by the pink flamingo

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Too funny Mulan.

Mrs. W, how can you get offended by an opinion when it is espoused as such? He wasn't saying it was fact, just an opinion. - RE: your comments on the statements WAT made.

Weaver<<<<practicing the fine art of conversation in civilized company, and putting her CA away for a sec.

That's a complimente` Mrs. W, cuz I think you are quite civilized... you'd be considered downright Grace Kelly like in my neck of the woods.

WHOA....Wait a minute...I saw my name...

I never ever ever said this...

Not fair....

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

And Plus:

Don't include me in the everybody who finds Forever to be condescending...

I learn a lot from him myself...and he's helped me a lot!

I respect everybody's right to their own opinion...

Forever is Forever....

Mimi is Mimi....

It is what it is....

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

And weaver is weaver,

or veaver if you are TT and/or German.

Are we on drugs around here LOL, or maybe it's me who has lost her mind...bedtime.

I haven't. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/teary.gif" alt="" />

fair enough Mimi...I will withdraw the comment regarding your name. That wasn't fair. Sorry.

Lem

Mimi....WHO SAID "EVERYONE" finds FH condescending on this thread???????? NOONE did....reread the thread.

Lem

Thanks, LM.

Heck, I don't even believe in FORGIVENESS of NONREPENTANT WSes...

I've grown accustomed to Forever's style...

Like I've grown accustomed to you...

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Because Weaver, I feel that it is blasphemous to allude to the Bible as containing "truth" as WAT did...to me, the Bible is 100% the literal TRUTH, in fact, <singing> "B-I-B-L-E, yeah that's the book for meeee"...I already know that WAT doesn't believe it to be that when he says that he is not a Christian...it's implied, and that's enough for me...But for him to take it further is offensive to me...It essentially says to me that he believes everything that I base my life upon is a crock, and that seems demeaning and insulting...Again, I like WAT, I'm not trying to "call him out"...not at all, I'm just telling him how it makes me feel when he does that...he doesn't have to care or change it...just stating my feelings/opinion as he did his, ya know?

Mrs. W

P.S. I don't mind at all that you asked me this, btw...'specially when ANY parallel to myself and Grace Kelly is drawn, heck, ASK AWAY! LOL <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

All I need is your email address then. I can fix that. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

weaver - WAT is the one who blasted Christianity with his post, the most disgusting part of it quoted above.

But, I'm so bad for merely reference WHAT HE SAID.

Get a life Weaver. WAT is caring most of the time, but NOT when it comes to believers in Christ who might have the temberity to suggest, let alone say, that his animosity toward Christ, God, Creation, etc., etc., etc. is NOT very caring. He EXCLUDES the "poor demented souls" (ooops, he doesn't believe in souls either) who believe in God and Jesus Christ and ridicules their believe. Sometimes I wonder, very unChristianlike, why Christians don't have anything like Fatwah's and Jihad's. That's probably a big part of why folks like WAT can be so disgusting...they know Christians won't be running around cutting off the heads or hands or tongues of those who disagree with them.

And YOU want to yell at me for mentioning HIS post?

Nevermind, it's not worth it.

I agree Mimi...In fact, if I had even a small percentage of the Biblical knowledge that FH does I would, many times, be right there alongside him spreading truth...I do think that a certain Ark quote really fits when it comes to FH, she said, "It's always funny how speaking the truth is blasting someone"...


Mrs. W

Mrs. Wondering and Mimi - bless you two ladies. You have no idea how close I am right now to imploding. I appreciate your words, and I'll be silent as I contemplate the wisdom of remaining here anymore.

From Lemonman's judgments of MY recovery, to WAT's total animosity to Christ and God, to apologists for those who find it "open season" on Christians and Christianity ("oh shoot, it's just a fictional attack, not a "real" attack, it's just artistic expression)...I've had just about enough of the way this system has gone. I think I've stayed too long and it's obvious that even the clear cut commands of God to believers are "argued" as not being pertinent to "this" situation or "that" situation.

In one week it will be 4 years since my wife and I began the long process of Recovery. That Lemonman doesn't like how I did it, by being obedient to God's commands even when I wanted give in to my human emotions and toss in the towel, is HIS problem, not mine. All I can say is I HAVE recovered my marriage....how's he doing with his?

Waiting on the LORD is NOT easy a lot of the time, but it always comes down to who we believe Jesus really is, and is He trustworthy to HIS promises regardless of the circumstances we are dealing with in our lives.

He has proved faithful and has used the circumstances to work good in our lives. I pray that others will find that truth also.

God bless you both.
Shalom, as our friends standing against the Islamist threat might say.

I am Catholic too.. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Well......HUH ???? Did I read that correctly? FH, you take alot of liberal use of other people's statements. YOu want to know how I am doing with my marriage? JUST GREAT. I followed God's word...I was able to forgive my wife for her betryal and destruction of my family.....and then I also REMOVED her in every way, shape, or form from my life in DIVORCE...I am a raging Marriage Builder success. These experiences will help me build a great marriage someday. I am "right" with God, and certainly dont need a heretic telling me different. I am glad you are recovered...wewll untill the next disentanglement.....cough

Goodluck

Lem

This is exactly what I am talking about. And you call me controversial. tsk tsk tsk...

They're on break. Worn out from the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, witch trials...

Lemonman - Good for you. I'm happy for your success.

I cannot believe you said that, what a hateful, horrible, misguided thing to say.

You take everything that is holy about Jesus and God and twist it.

I don't want any part of your "truth", I think you are a disgrace to everything which Jesus stood for. I do not believe you are a Christian at all, and I can no longer bare to sit by and watch you use Jesus' name to spread your thinly veiled hatred.

Not only WAT, but every single person on this earth has a right to state their opinion without you waiting for the chance to jump on them with your Bible toting, God used for your own purposes, bullcrap.

Last I checked in my Bible, adultry was grounds for divorce. It said nothing about forgiving 100 times and having to stay married.

Well Susan and Pep...

I enjoyed the heck outta those pictures...thank you both for sharing...Ya'll are a SECKSIE dynamic duo!!! (spelling borrowed from Frozen and Patriot-those two are a stitch!) Seriously, with all sincerity, the two of you are just beautiful-very classy ladies-how great that such a close friendship was formed from something as yucky as infidelity-God is Great!

I've been meaning for sometime to read the SPQ Book...course there's more than one, right? I just gotta get the first...Right now, I'm just starting on Neak's book though(I got an autographed copy-How Exciting Is That?), so it'll have to be after that...Anyway, it looks like ya'll had a BLAST! Do they have that parade every year? Do the festivities run for an entire weekend? Gosh, that looks F-U-N! I'd love to hear details...what a great way to bond with the girls...

And Pep, are you sure that Flamingo wasn't just a sniffin'...Did ya actually feel the pucker and hear the "M'WAH"? LOL! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Thanks again for sharing!

Mrs. W <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

P.S. Ya'll would just LOVE this crown necklace that I'm DYING for, it's made by Peace & Love Jewelry by Nancy Davis...check it out under the collection and then necklaces...It's called the royal crown with heart necklace and it's TO DIE FOR!!!

P.P.S. I think ya'll might also like My Flat in London Handbags & Accessories...LOTS OF CROWNS!!! LOVE EM!!! Here's the site! ENJOY!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I agree completely with what Weaver said. That was a cruel, cold, nasty thing to say.

I've got FH on ignore. I highly recommend it. And I'm sure he's got me on ignore, too.
Mulan

Lem:


No you're not, Lem, not as long as I'm here. I wish I had the nerve to express myself how you do. I don't post often, but lurk daily and I totally agree with you about "holier than thou" condescending attitude.

FWIW,

Loved the DVC book, will see the movie as soon as I can.

Loved the SPQ book, do they have a movie?

Loved the Velvetine Rabbit, The Secret Garden, Charlotte's Web and all things Winnie the Pooh. I'm a kid at heart - and loved all the movies, too.

All fiction, except SPQ, 'cause they actually live that life, don't they? Very fun stuff!

weaver,

Brave soul... thank you.

FH,

Those comments were SO BELOW THE BELT that I still can't believe you said them. Remember how you and I once talked about your ability to shine? It's gotta be in there somewhere, but it's sure not happening in this thread.

You know, I just started The DaVinci Code over the weekend. Love it so far. As with WAT, I find it to be much more plausible than the Biblical stories that I know.

I am not a Christian and I do believe that the Bible is mythology. That is not to say that it's fiction. That is to say that it is a grand telling of archetypal muths that provide structure and meaning for the bases of human existence.

For me, the DaVinci Code is better mythology than the Bible in that it better explains and structures my own experience of the world than the Bible does.

I understand that this particular evaluation is something that very few Biblical literalists will be able to understand or accept. It is my view, one that works for me alone.

What I find intriguing to consider is how the myths will change in the future. How will we -- as societies -- structure and retell the stories of our world in the future? The advent of the written word changed the evluation of our myths dramatically, I suspect; it will have slowed down the evoluation as we became able to go back to a written document. Now that we have fantastically more accurate (and more prolific) record-keeping and reproduction, I suspect the evolution of our mythologies will slow down even more.

Yet... I suspect that it will still happen. And the myths that survive, I think, will be the ones that provide the best lessons and guidance for human structures and life. I don't know whether that mythology will be god-centered, goddss-centered, polytheistic, atheistic, or something else entirely. It's just interesting to watch.



I am also tempted to comment on the flame war that this thread has degenerated into. I see this kind of bitter disagreement so often when people of strong faith try to interact with people of differeng beliefs. I wish that there could be more calm, interested discussion and less fear and attacks. I think we would all gain from it.

Still, I know it's hard to do and I know there are lots of times when it becomes a flame war instead. When I look at things like this, it seems like this anger and triggering, like all anger and triggering, arises out of fear, or inadequacy, or feeling powerless or unlovable. It arises out of some seed inside ourselves, after all. No one can "make" us feel anything. Those processes are internal; how we respond to the external can be changed and modified based on our choices.

So it seems to me that the best response is not to answer in kind (though it's difficult not to answer in kind, I know!). It seems to me that it would be better to take the time to reconnect with God first. It seems to me that if you are challenged and you can't answer with calm, compassion, and love, then it's a good time to look at the ground you're standing on and see whether it's the right place to build your house or not.

Can't enter the fray on this one. Not going to take the arrows!!

In His arms.

ABSOLUTELY, they DO!

This year's theme was "Do what makes your heart sing"

And the author IS Christian, btw.

Edited to add: SPQ's do not have a movie yet, but will soon have a Broadway Musical. The music is being done by Melissa Manchester.

Ok Susan...tell me you didn't just love the links that I provided in my post...Heck, tell me you even read my post amidst all this...sigh... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Mrs. W

Susan dear, what's your email addy for those pics. Or if you'd prefer, I'll place my here for a short enough term for you.

Jo

LOL! Yes, I read the post. I'm sorry. I'm at work and thought I replied, but no, I just thought about my reply.

I loved the links. Would it surprise you to know that I already have a crown necklace just like the one on the site? and matching earrings?

I'm glad you enjoyed the pics. The event is every year and wimmens from all over come from Thursday until Sunday. We had a wannabe QUEEN there from England this year. I kid you not. We could not understand a word she said, but she was so cute! She ordered "coffee" and people thought she said "cold feet" LOL

I can't believe you live in the south and have NOT read these books. Get them as soon as possible. I laughed out loud while reading them and my husband told me I was having too much fun just reading a book!

I had been communicating with Pep for 3-4 years when we finally met at this event. We did have a barrel of fun. Thanks for sharing our photos!

R. ~ Please place yours here temporarily if you do not mind.

Just J,

You know I think you're just about the best communicator I've ever read...

And I respect you very much -- and always thoughtfully consider your words.

So, I have a few questions, about this quote:
Before I ask my question, I want to say that I believe we DO need to "choose our battles"... I totally 'get that'... and I also believe that we serve humanity best by being compassionate and come from a place of calm.

So, my question is: In your opinion, is there ever a time to put those beliefs aside and actively fight for what we believe in?

Just to help, you can create temporary email addresses here.

LOL, thanks Dobie, but I wouldn't know how to check it!

Maybe R. will create one.

You put in your email addy, post the one it provides for you, and for the length of time you select, it will forward the emails to your real addy.

OK. Here is my email. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

3772fju5c1dw02w@jetable.com

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

Maybe I'm missing something...

And it's not my fight...

Probably butting into something that is none of my business..

But it seems that Forever was responding to being attacked...

He's only HUMAN....

It is TRUE anyways that he has RECOVERED his marriage...

Mimi..who was once called DELUSIONAL.... who keeps being brought up with assumptions made about her for no reason..that all was below the belt as well...

But it's all part of it...

Again, I say..we all have our different personalities...and ways of being and communicating...

Mortarman:

NOT FAIR! I want to hear what you have to say....

You know Hollywood is about entertainment, it always has been. The Da Vinci Code is now ranked # 13 for the weekend sales among movies like Star Wars, Spider Man, Harry Potter, etc.....even the Passion of Christ.

Director Ron Howard said the movie was not about theology it was fiction. It was a project he undertook knowing it was something to be done for the enjoyment of doing it. I'm glad he was committed to the work he did. I have always enjoyed the work Ron has done.

The problem is not about entertainment. The problem is not about anyone going to see a movie and enjoying watching something fictional. THE PROBLEM IS SOMEONE WATCHING THE MOVIE AND WALKING AWAY BELIEVING FICTION HAS MERIT AND TRUTH BECAUSE IT BLENDS WITH VALUES OF SACRED RELIGIOUS TRUTH.

I watched one man being interviewed and he said, "This movie made me really stop and think." Stop and think about what? It was fiction. Obviously he was considering it's religious value. Another person actually stated it made them consider their religious beliefs. So while I'm not opposed to entertainment, there does need to be awareness this is fiction mixed with sacred religious truth.

And for those opposed based on religious value, God bless all who stand up for their declaration of the truth. If that is what you believe you have the right to stand up and say I believe this movie has false content and I want to make you aware of it. It's a freedom we have. Just like the freedom to see the movie.

Got it! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Thanks Dobbie, but I have no quams about placing my addy here even permanently. Its my work addy, electronics field, where the security cannot be brut forced or compromised in any way.

Jo

Ask Me said:



I AGREE!!

MIMI..

lets be clear..

lemonman started an OPEN DISCUSSION on the movie...

16 mostly nonsensical posts about the movie/book...

foreverhers hits the posters with

ALL OF THEM


with some of this

The intellectual depth of much of the public is astounding. South Park, that icon of wisdom and intellectual depth, wouldn't dare to put on a simple picture of Mohammed, but they, and many others have no problem blaspheming Christ.

Supporters of such garbage really should, in my opinion, examine themselves. It's getting so bad that the jerk in charge of Iran wants all non-Muslims to wear color coded identification, ala Hitler and the Jews.


well that pretty much sums up the fact that foreverhers believes that people should have NO COMMENT on the movie/book....
don't see
don't know anything about it
don't read it

hear no speak no see no

because if they do they SUPPORT it...just by seeing it...
their grouped in to Southpark supporter mentality

even though I'm pretty sure that all 16 posts prior to that NOT ONE PERSON SAID...

MUCH great about the book or movie except it is FICTION


but some how HE'S DEFENDING HIMSELF!!!!!!!!!!!


PUHLEEEEEEESE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And you want to talk about hyprocrisy foreverhers...I bet you have very very very very little nice or good things to say about CATHOLICS as i have seen hints of your true beliefs on that issue here and there...

yet you will poster child MEL GIBSON for your own cause...while attacking HIS core beliefs.....


my name is ARK and I'm a CATHOLIC ALSO



I personally THINK Jesus laughs till his belly hurts when he watches MONTY PYTHON and THE HOLY GRAIL>>>>>

killer rabbits any one....

islamic reactionist and WATS opinion on evolution...in the same category
l a u g h a b l e!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


ARK^^

Me too:

I AM A PRACTICING CATHOLIC.

FWIW, I am rarely offended by attacks, even by fundamentalists, on my beliefs.

They know not what they do.

Well, I for one have the problem with the fig leaf of the "it's just fiction!" defense.

If you made a movie about A.M. Martin being a serial killer, and my friends started to avoid and stigmatize me, I'm not sure the claim that "it's just fiction" would mean much.

In fact, I'm not sure much of what I've heard about the DaVinci Code doesn't qualify as "malicious disregard for truth," the traditional standard for slander.

That said, it's hard to press charges on behalf of an amorphous, 2,000 year old institution that is responsible for the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. Lots of things have been done in its name, and lots of rotten people (as well as saints) have taken refuge under its banner. That's an inevitability with any institution that is 2K years old.

I don't think going the route of jihad is the answer.

So the best defense is really ridicule.

Have you heard about the Freemasons "faking the weather" for the last several hundred years? And I'm still on to the Lizard Men.

Ark:

This is what I was referring to as being offensive towards, Forever Hers.

Why is this OK whereas Forever Hers' comments are not?

I personally don't like any of this as a matter of fact because I feel that both sides have a right to their point of view.

However, it is public knowledge that many more conservative Christian churches are having trouble with the DVC..so Forever's POV is not that foreign.

Since this post, I was looking at President W on tv last night .... and good lord, he DOES look like a lizard in disguise.

***I watched one man being interviewed and he said, "This movie made me really stop and think." Stop and think about what? It was fiction.***

The purpose of any good fictional story IS to make you think.

A story's purpose is to give you a different view of the world by asking "What if . . . ?" and then exploring that "what if" scenario to see where it leads.

*The DaVinci Code* surely did succeed at that. The author asked himself a shocking, audacious, "What if?" question, and followed that question to see where it led. The book and the film were the results of that process.

All good fiction makes you think and wonder and ask questions and look at the world in entirely different ways. That is its purpose. And some of those different ways will be shocking indeed. That's the whole idea!

Mulan>author of nine published novels, none of them controversial, alas.

uh...cause lemonmans used those words having to defend himself after being told...

Lemonman - therein lies the problem...you don't see.


explain to me how that is a statement promoting understanding...

or just another slamm.....

ARK

R,

It's more to avoid the annoyance of the spam software that harvests email addys than anything else. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Ark:

Maybe..just maybe it's a cultural thing...

I don't know though because Susan seems to look at this differently.

I live in a relatively small Southern conservative town...

As you may have noticed or not, I am not conservative but I have been raised Baptist since birth..

I am accustomed and familiar with folks like Forever..

He is not that different in his approach and opinions than my former minister and deacons in that church....many people that I closely interact with daily and hourly...

There were SIMULCASTS all over my city encouraging folks not to read or to go see the DVC...

That's the world that I live in...

Then, combine that with my POV...

Because of my upbringing and beliefs, I felt uncomfortable with the thought of reading the DVC or seeing the movie because it deals with issues that I hold to be SACRED...

This is true although I am an AVID READER....

I also haven't seent THE PASSION, BTW...

So therein lies my position...

I think that folks are seeing things out of their different colored glasses and that there will be minimal understanding betweeen others about these issues which seem to be strongly ingrained.

I enjoy all of the opposing viewpoints here.

I wish people, Forever and Lemonman both, didn't have to slam each other but that is me living in an idyllic world that doesn't exist this...

I guess it's still true that it is not a good idea to discuss religion or politics...

mimi
it's not cultural

ARK

What cha thinking, Ark?

I live in the South. I'm a Christian...been "charismatic" all my life. I read The DaVinci Code and thought it was a really good mystery thriller . I'll probably go see the movie when the crowds die down....or wait til it comes on HBO 'cause I tend to be a bit cheap. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

My DS19 and his GF went to see it last week in a screening (she's Church of Christ). They both loved it, tho GF was a little lost regarding the story on occasion because she didn't read the book.

Many churches in our area are having anti-DVC seminars. I think the frantic reaction to this movie by the religious community smacks a little of fear and panic. But, that's just my PERSONAL opinion. Honestly, I can see both sides of the issue....but I choose to view the book/see the movie as a really interesting mystery/thriller.

Lori

Thanks, Lori.

I'm thinking I need to read the book after all this talk here about it and stuff...

My Goodness...

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

BTW, AM..if you are reading... THANKS FOR THAT LIZARD MAN tip..that explains a lot to me...

I think I definitely will read the book you suggested.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Dobie:

I had no idea! I'm not surprised, tho....she's awfully smart. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Lori

Also hope she's getting royalties for the 6+ some odd years I've purchased an expensive morning Starbucks.

My 2 cents,

The book was an exciting page turner that I could not put down.

The movie was boring, boring, boring....and long!!

And the foot on the pond thingy at the end was such a corn ball Opie slap.

It did go with the book step by step, and I guess it had to, but that added to the boringness.

IMHO

I read a review that touted similar. That unless you've read the book first, its likely the movie may leave you behind.

Anyone else that has seen the movie but didn't read the book first experience this?

I understand this totally, and I am a Christian (gawd it feels good to be able to say that again, after doubting it because my beliefs differed so much from the Fundalmentalists).

And I have great respect for all religions as well as those who choose no religion at all, but when someone uses their religion to entice, hurt and claim superiority through fear...it makes my blood boil.

Haven't read the book yet...maybe this summer.

Mulan - done.

Well, the problem I have with that -- and with many Fundamentalists -- is the treatment of "the Bible" as if it is one thing.

Anyone out there actually read the Bible? I mean, cover to cover?

If you do, you realize it is something compiled over millenia, and a very mixed bag of different books. To "believe" the Psalms is nonsense -- they are songs, expression of faith through songs. You can't "disbelieve" it any more than you can "disbelieve," say, Bob Dylan. Similarly with the collection of sayings known as "Proverbs." You may not agree with them -- but it is not a matter for belief or unbelief. Ruth is a sweet tale of human kindness -- family legend, perhaps. Much of the other books are geneologies.

Who was around to write down Genesis as it happened? Obviously, it signals truths, but what actually "happened" in the Garden of Eden was unwitnessed by any but the principals, and presumably passed on for centuries before it was recorded.

The New Testament, on the other hand, was written within decades after the events. The letters of Paul and others began 15 years after the Crucifixion. The authors take great pains to anchor their testimony in history -- "In the time of Caesar Augustus..." -- and they keep telling you it's true. Take the first few passages of Luke, where he talks about sifting through firsthand accounts of the events described.

Now, you may say the people are deluded or lying, but it's obvious that they did not see themselves as describing a myth, but rather describing what "really happened." They did not mean it to be taken as myth, but rather as historical record. And as a historical record, I don't know of anything like it at that time (Thucydides and Herodotus, for example, have a very different feel to them -- so does Suetonious.)

"The Bible" is not one, homogenous thing written at one time by one author. And each of its many books must be considered separately for its "literalness" (which is why we don't stone adulterers, though many of you are probably tempted, and why most Christians eat pork).

Mythology?

I agree parts of the Bible are allegory (as in: parable, symbolic, metaphor) though.

And it's prety well established that parts of it are garbled in translation and hand-copying time after time before the printing press.

Since I did cover this in Mimi's thread about FH, I thought I would repost here what I said. Take it as you will...and I know FH can speak for himself...but my feelings about this book and movie I describe below. I think that may be where FH is also. And some that might want to cast FH as being too "stuff shirted" about this...please read below. For many believers...this IS personal!


In His arms.

Yes. I have been in a Bible study that has gone on for ten years. It took us 7 years to go thru the Bible once. we are o nthe second time thru.


I wont break this down because it would take too long. But let me agree with you for a minute (mostly). So, what's the point here? Just because they tell stories about people who lived thousands of years ago...what does that have to do with the accuracy of the Bible?


God.


Presumably passed on? Hhhmmmmm?!?! Well, unbelievers "believe" it was presumably passed on. Believers know that Scripture was inspired by God. Which means that while these guys wrote these 66 books...while the people that copied them over the years...God was standing over their shoulder making sure His word was kept accurate.


I do agree with you here. But, not one part of the Old or New Testament has been disproven. The historical accuracy is unmatched.

The OT is the Old Law, what we lived under until the New Law came into being. That is why we dont stone adulterers now.

As I said, the Bible has been proven accurate as a historical document. It also has been proven accurate as a prophetic document.

I hope I havent misinterpreted what you were trying to say here.

In His arms.

I haven't read all the posts either...



weaver: The man has little 2 lose... ...okay, that was a cheap frontal attack. Sorry, FH!


Hey, at least he left me out that time! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


Yep.

-ol' 2long

Not entirely, Mortarman. But I'm not sure "accuracy" means 100 percent literal truth -- rather than a symbolic truth (in the case of Eden). The Fall is the best and most profound explanation I know for the existence of evil. Whether or not there was actually a snake in an actual garden isn't all that important to me.

And accuracy...well in the first chapter of Matthew, three generations are made to account for the 450-year period in Egypt.

But again, does it matter? And I think your points about a prophetic document, a description of the way God works, and a surprising amount of historical accuracy, given what we are finding out, hold.

My point was that people who describe Jesus as a "myth" are missing the very point the gospel-writers tried to make. This isn't a myth; they didn't mean it to be taken as one. And you may say that all the people who wrote it are nuts, but if so, they had a surprising degree of agreement among them about the very subject of their nutsiness -- more than you'd get from the participants at last Thanksgiving dinner. And if this is some sort of fraud, as some have maintained, then you have to get a lot of people working together to do it -- not only including the gospel authors (Thomas, too), but Paul of the Acts and letters, and the authors of the other letters, too. Always keeping in mind that these were mostly devout Jews (one of the gospel authors was presumably gentile), who would have had a lot of thoughts about "bearing false witness."

And what would have been the motive? Money????

Now THAT stretches credibility.

What is the evidence do you have for this? Or should we just take your words or the words of other apologists like you for this?

Btw, I believe in God, so I am not coming from an atheist perspective, but from that of a former philosopher. That is to say, as Hume would say, how do you know that your statement above is true?

And to think....I'll I wanted to know is if I should shell out the $16.00 for me and a date to see this movie while it is still first run....WOW.....sometimes you just have to say: "What the F*** ?"

Lem

The MOVIE

does not dispute the Godliness of Jesus

FYI

Pep

Save your bucks. Get the David Icke book, LM, and read it together. Lizard Men. That's our future.

Ha! My answer is "no" without seeing the movie, because I think the cost of a first run movie date can be better spent by the time you add in snacks and drinks.

Take her bowling or somewhere fun where you can actually interact.

This does not prove that all the relevant parts were proven to be true either. Last I checked, no one has proven that the red seas parted as depicted in Genesis, or that Elijah was indeed taken to heaven by a chariot, and so on. The absent of ~p does not prove p, where “p” stands for propositions. Thus, if I say that the events concerning the Hindu God Krishna as depicted in the Bhagavad-Gita have not been proven to be false, it does not mean that they are true either. I am sure you will agree with me on that.

LM,

You know that you love starting sh*t, so don't pretend to be surprise. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

"Which means that while these guys wrote these 66 books...while the people that copied them over the years...God was standing over their shoulder making sure His word was kept accurate."

Not hardly. We have some very old copies of original Greek manuscripts. And they differ significantly. Which is the correct one? (Oldest is not necessarily the right answer.)

We have sequences of copies tracing a series of changes in the text over many hundreds of years. Sometimes changes are tracable to specific scribes. Many changes in the text can be traced directly to scribes being paid by someone powerful (we often even know who they were) to put their political or personal bias into their own personal copy of the text. And many of these known changes to the early texts still live on in current translations.

Some scribes were just lazy or incompetent and made mistakes. Some of these mistakes are obvious, others have produced serious confusion. And they are still in current translations.

None of this invalidates the basic messages. But it does invalidate literalism.

Interested people may want to check out any of these books:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search...6665610-1561422


With prayers,

Did he use ink? Did he use pencils? If pencils, were they lead or much safer graphite?


God stands? He has feet? He's about 6' tall?

My point with this is 2 hope that people will consider how they convey their "truths." Mythology is, certainly was, a very effective way 2 convey great truths. Clearly, some stories in the Bible are mythology - Noah's and Gilgamesh's flood, for example. That doesn't diminish their importance in human development at all, certainly not in my view.

The thread is about a movie. I haven't seen it, but do want 2. I also want 2 see Gibson's movie. I did see "The Last Temptation of Christ" many years ago, and loved it. It was OBVIOUSLY fiction, but very cleverly done - religious fiction, and even mythological fiction (that's NOT reduntant, think about it). Clearly designed 2 make the viewer "think."


I also loved "The New World", which my W and her historian friend hated because of the inaccuracies it portrayed. The movie was a visual and musical STUNNER, in my humble view, and had a very important underlying message about the vast gulf between old and new world cultures at the time.


I also saw the latest version of "Pride and Prejudice" over the weekend with my sisters. I admit it - I'm a guy and I love that story. And it's been fascinating comparing the different depictions of it. I was worried that this latest would be 2short 2 do the story justice, but like "The New World" perhaps, it was a visually stunning piece of work - and the actors and the story were superb.

My belief system - or lack thereof in some's eyes - came out of all those movies entirely intact.

...but they do make me think!

-ol' 2long
[edited: that 2nd 2long was an imposter! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />]

UVA:

My friend, I can't take credit for this one. I honestly wanted a review of the movie from someone who saw it. I read the book and really enjoyed it, but being on call this weekend precluded me from going to see it, so I wanted some reviews from those who saw it...yet this thread degenerated into this...After it started going down hill, I changed the thread so the thread topic matched what was being discussed.

I won't take an ounce of responsibility for that or the angst in some who it might have caused. I think it is all pretty redicoulous if you ask me.

. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Lem

LOTS of guys love Pride & Prej, 2long! It's probably the most perfect novel in the English language. A perfectly cut little diamond.

I think it appeals to all of us whose lives are in disorder -- because the society is so perfectly ordered.

The appeal of that world is terrific and soothing.

When I'm feeling in the dumps, there's nothing like rereading Lizzy's rejection of Mr. Collins ... or Mr. Darcy. It always happens the same way.

I watched P&P on DVD last nite... LOVE IT .... it's one we own.

Mr Pep is out of pocket and I watch movies ..... what else is there to do???

*pout*

Pep

Ok buddy, fair enough. Here is a link to rottentomatoes.com for the DVC. Based on 161 reviews it does not look promising.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/

??? I am a little slow here..help me out with this one...

out of pocket

not at home

away

Ouch.... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I still am wondering how much it cleaned up at the Box Office this weekend?

Ohhh...I thought that meant "broke"...lol

Oh yeah, it made a lot of money at the box office but since it got a rating of 48% less than MI3, which was not that good, I do not think it can be that good. I suspect that DVC will be more like the last sets of Stars Wars movies: very popular but not very good (or not good at all).

I have no problem with A N Y T H I N G people have to say about the book..

but mortarman, saying yep I read it..thought it was as a piece of fiction...does not warrant attack and unreasonable leaps of (ILL-logical conclusions......

save the crusade of it being personal against the CREATORS not the viewers!!
save the crusade of it being against the people HERE ...

that's what gets me....

and here's my biggest point...mortarman..I read your whole post..

didn't see one personal attack
didn't see once you calling out a specific poster and challenging them on some personal level....

saw someone make a great case of what potential damage in your opinion book/movie can create...

and not a word about the evilness of WAT...
go figure...

this is hollywood schlock...it would hold the attention no longer than a week or two...and then poof be gone...

ARK^^

When Disney came out with Pocahontas a while back one of the "actors" (who provided the voice for one of the animated characters) was excoriated for being part of a movie that was not historically accurate.

His response? For Pete's sake, it had a talking raccoon in it, so WHAT if it wasn't historically accurate!

It's fiction. Mindless entertainment. Nothing more.

I think Shrek was historically accurate ... I mean ... the persecution of ogres ... was just plain wrong!

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

MM,

Lest my post to you be misconstrued given the recent history of this thread, I come in peace, as you know I have the utmost respect for you. I am challenging the intellectual/rational basis of some of your claims above, not attacking you personally.

Of course not. Scripture is reasonable. God actually wants us to ask these questions!!


Great question!

The issue is this...

Let me take us back to the Garden and the Fall. Was any of us there? Nope. do we have actual pictures, video, etc of the events in the Garden as it happened? Nope. Do we have archeological data showing the site where the Garden was? Nope. So, how do we know???

Well, the first authority for which I speak is Scripture itself. The last I heard, historians had proven events back to just after the Great Flood. Which means everything after that point has pretty much either been proven to have happened, or still stands as no evidence either way.

What I am saying without going down into the weeds here is that I have a remarkably accurate historical document here. And if it is accurate, let's say...for over 60% of the book...can I then assume that the other 40% might also too be accurate? Can I also say that if over 60% might be literal (except where it does say it is not being literal...such as parables), can I also assume that the other 40% would also be equally accurate and literal?

We have no other document of ancient history with this sort of accuracy. Accuracy in the events...and accuracy in the copying of the document down thru the years. It stands far above anything else out there.

The second reason I accept the Bible in its entirety is its prophetic accuracy. Every prophecy that was to come true before now...did. And exactly the way described. There is a study out there that did the mathmatical probability of Jesus meeting all of the prophecies written centuries before He came. It is the same probability of me standing blindfolded in the middle of Texas, with one foot of stacked silver dollars throughout Texas...and two of them painted red...and me picking randomly and finding one of the red ones.

I will post more later, as I have to go fight traffic.

In His arms.

I hope you win!

Pep

The Bible is a book of novels, written by men with their own perception and agenda's, and further limited by the religious politics of the time.

While I am sure there is some truth and lots of beauty, nobody knows in how many ways and how often Jesus was misquoted.

God doesn't have words, and yet Jesus so close to him could speak to him and bring the messages to us. That was Jesus's purpose, to bridge the gap between our limited understanding and God. Remember symbols (describing symbols) is twice removed from the truth. And this is the limitation of the written/spoken word, even if it could be written with total unbias and projection.

We will all get to heaven, but not one will get there until we all do, and this is the message of Jesus. We will all go together or no one will go... and his message of no one will get there except through him was meant for that group of people, in that time, based on their understanding and current state of evolvement.

Jesus is but one path to God, and this as a Christian is my belief...

There, I said it finally.

And to whomever asked this question, I have read the Bible from cover to cover, and many, many other books on Christianity, religion and spirituality.

It's almost all I read, and why I probably haven't read novel in question.

"Mr Pep is out of pocket and I watch movies ..... what else is there to do???

*pout*"

Write a novel? Crossword puzzels? Sudoku? Build a birdhouse? Construct a dye laser?

Clean house?


Me -> anything but watch TV.

The topic of people believing in fiction movies makes me think of that poor confused Japanese woman a few years ago who died in Minnesota while trying to find the money from the movie Fargo. She actually made a map based on the clues from the film.

Mimi, what about you is not conservative?

Heavens, NBII, I think there are many better communicators! I thank you, though, for the compliment.


Defining compassion as desiring fulfillment, peace, and love for each person, I would say no. There is no time when that desire should waver.

There are plenty of times when it -does-, of course. But time when you -should- set compassion aside? I can't think of one.

So I would not "fight" for what I believe in.

You know me and the strong stands I've taken, though, so you know that's not all of my answer.

When I see something troubling, something that appears to be harmful or without compassion, then I'm surely going to speak up about it, and usually with as much persuasive power as I can. When I do so, I try to remember compassion's dearest companion -- ethics. If I desire for good to come to everyone, then I must make my case in a way that harms none, and that limits or prevents harm that others may do, if I can.

Putting a positive spin on it, the greater good -- benefit to all -- is the goal.

So let's take a very simple, profound, and visceral situation. I walk into my living room and find DD and the little neighbor boy doing their level best to choke each other to death. Clearly, I need to act decisively in order to end the harm that they're doing to each other, and to themselves. (Physical harm as well as underlying harm to their integrity and, if you will, souls.)

It is certainly possible that in the course of separating them, I may suffer a few scrapes or bruises. It's also possible that one of the kids might tumble backwards and get a bump on the head.

It may very well, in other words, LOOK like a fight. However, its core is still action in the name of ending or minimizing harm.

I can also envision a proactive, and violent, action that is taken with a desire for the happiness and wellbeing of all involved, one that would limit or end harm, and thus be compassionate and ethical. Policemen do it all the time.

I do have trouble with application of the same ideas when lethal force is involved. It is the ultimate harm, the one thing that truly cannot be undone by any mortal human. After we're dead, there is no further good that can come to us in this life and we have been deprived of any further good that we could do, as well.

There are many who would argue that even in that case, there are times when causing the death of another human being is justified. The current war in Iraq was justified that way, as has been every war in my lifetime. I don't know whether that justifies the wars or not, though. The case in Iraq, now that we look back on it, appears to be very, very weak. I don't like the idea that I might be a member of an unethically aggressive nation in that case. But it might be true.

The ultimate philosophical debate of this kind of thing, of course, is the genocides and holocausts, the destructions of many hundreds of thousands and millions of people. Those appear to be unstoppable except by the use of overwhelming counter-attacks and destruction.

I don't know the answer to that one. I do know that I would want decisions made about all of those things to be made in compassion, in contemplation and prayer, and with the gravest and most dedicated reflection on the harm that is being done, or being contemplated.

I'm not sure that I answered your question, NBII. And there is something else to be said, here. The Dalai Lama, in the book called "The Wisdom of Forgiveness," said that he was capable of murder. He didn't say it was right, just that he was capable of it. He was describing a story he was told about a young boy who was brutally beaten with a lead pipe, and then left, and then eventually murdered by the Chinese because his father had convicted of being a Tibetan nationalist. The Dalai Lama said that if he had had a gun, he might have killed the men who did it.

When he was questioned about it, the Dalai Lama went on to explain that although he believes that murder is the ultimate wrong, there are times when the body reacts instinctively. I think he said something like, "Sometimes the fingers act more quickly than the mind."

I think it's worth understanding that we are all capable of such terrible things. The Dalai Lama, on most days, works to be compassionate and not kill mosquitoes. (He claims to have a hard time with it. Me? I swat the durn things left and right.) And in the moment when he heard the dreadful story of a terrible murder of an innocent, he was capable of murder.

I learned that I'm capable of premeditated murder one very bad day at the DMV. (I am so glad that I didn't have a weapon!) I learned that I am capable of emotional abuse one very bad day here in my own home. (I wish that I had not had the weapon of my voice.)

I cannot think, in all the situations that you and I will face in our lives, of a time when compassionate action would be a worse choice than some other choice.

That doesn't always make it slow, of course. I suspect I'd be acting to separate DD and her friend in about one tenth of a second. Perhaps before I was even consciously aware of what I was doing. However, it is my fervent hope that I will continue to learn to act with greater compassion and care throughout the rest of my life. (Note to God, I'm not asking for any more really big lessons on this one, though. Really, I'm having a hard enough time forgiving the instruments of my LAST round of big lessons on compassion!)

WOW!

Had your EX tried to take your daughter away from you, would you fight?

After becoming pregnant, had your EX decided to have an abortion, would you fight?

Pep,

Even though it says it is fiction, this book does cause people wo wonder on the veracity of the Bible. I have no problem with that, as I know the Bible can stand on its own.

But as I said, to change the truth about Jesus...when He is what He is to me...well, it's personal.

Everyone has their right to make their own decision about the movie, about Jesus, etc. My response here is my personal feelings on how we are treating Him.

In His arms.

Sure. Except there are parts of hinduism that has been proven untrue. Thus, with those errors, I can assume there might be more.

No such errors have been found in Scripture.

In His arms.

Dont know where you are getting your data. I would be interested in reading about these "significant" copies. Last I have researched, that isnt true. But I am alsways open to learning the truth.


HHHmmmm. I think historians would differ with you on that statement.


I will check them out. But as I have said, the research has shown that the manuscripts that we have found statistically have little variance. And none of the variances changes the basic text (Such as if I wrote that I was wearing a blue tunic when I went to visit Jesus, and then someone wrote that I wore a white one).

In His arms.

Susan you asked:



Oh my goodness, Susan... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

We were having enough trouble with RELIGION..now POLITICS...? No way....

I am not conservative politically but I do have conservative values..OK?

The Lizard Man stuff fits quite nicely with my point of view, KWIM?

ARK:

I got what you said about MM's approach as compared to Forever's....

Thanks.

Hunny, YOU were the one that bought it up first.

I was just curious.

I dont accept your theory that the Great Flood is mythology. No one has proven that it didnt happen.


As I said 2Long...this is a personal reaction to the movie. the question was what we thought about the movie/book. And it is indeed personal when others talk about or portray this Man in ways that are clearly not who He was or is. I know Him, and I know what He did for me. My faith also is very much intact. A fictional movie isnt going to shake that. But it still hurts and makes me a little angry when He is portrayed in ways that clearly are not Him.

That's all I have tried to write here.

In His arms.

Saw the movie over the weekend and thought it was better than the critics thought. As a spirtual person I did not think that it threatened my belief system. Guess if I had been Catholic I might have been offended because it did not represent the Catholic Church in a favorable light.
'-Tex Mex. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

My ex did try to sever my relationship with my daughter, Susan. My response became much, MUCH more effective after I stopped fighting and started taking compassionate, clear, grounded action.

Susan:

OK!.. I confess..I'm really HILLARY CLINTON...

Just kidding...

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Mortarman,

“I will check them out. But as I have said, the research has shown that the manuscripts that we have found statistically have little variance. And none of the variances changes the basic text (Such as if I wrote that I was wearing a blue tunic when I went to visit Jesus, and then someone wrote that I wore a white one).”

Don’t take my word for it. Yes, the books I reference are good enough. Especially the first book in the Amazon list.

I don’t know what research you refer to as “the research,” but Erhman is a biblical scholar and very thorough. He does not agree with your citations, whatever they are. His books are written at a general level, but his references and research are listed for all to see. His background was fundamental and literal, when he started his studies.

This issue of erroneous translations and reproductions, I want to be clear, in no way affects my fundamental Christian beliefs. It's just part of the human condition, Things aren’t always what they appear and observations are often fundamentally ambiguous, like Quantum Mechanics and Schrodinger's Cat.

OK, that analogue isn’t very accurate. Let me think on a better way to put it.


With prayers,

I attacked? I made ill-logical conclusions? Ark...you know better than that.


Ark, who peed in your Cheerios today? I attacked no one. I didnt go on any crusade. I gave my personal view of the movie/book, told why my personal relationship with jesus makes me a little upset in Him being portrayed in a way that clearly He is not. That's it.

What I do see is that I talk about my view of the movie, and it includes my personal reaction to my friend Jesus being portrayed this way...and then you come here accusing me of things I didnt say nor mean...in order to accomplish what? To shut me up?


Oopppps. sorry Ark. I thought you were talking about me. I can see what you were saying, and that you were talking about FH.

But let me say on this that I have seen a lot of vitriol toward FH, especially from specific posters. And FH has dished it back...and most of the time I think deservedly so.

I think that several posters may just not be able to deal with FH's way of portraying his views and ideas.

Not much to suggest on this, as I do believe that we should let the free exchaneg of ideas happen, even when it might to be want we want to hear.

In His arms.

This is your opinion...I do not agree with it.


You believe He was misquoted. I dont.


God spoke to Moses directly from a Burning Bush. Not sure what you mean that God doesnt have words.


The message of Jesus was that NO ONE will get to Heaven except thru Him. That He was THE way, THE truth, THE light. That was the message of Jesus.


This is your opinion. It is not what historical evidence and what Scripture shows that Jesus said or meant.


Sayig it doe not make it Christian.


Interesting. But as Jesus has shown us, the path to Heaven is very narrow...the path to ****** is very wide. Unfortunately, all paths lead to Heaven really dont. Those paths are all the wide path.

The path to Jesus and to God is very narrow.

But your beliefs are yours. But I do know that Jesus said, and it is written in Scripture, that one day all of us will come face-to-face with jesus. And no matter how sincere or good we thought we were...if we didnt accept His way to Heaven thru His free gift...then He will say to that person "I never knew you."

Again, it hurts to hear that some believe that His sacrifice meant NOTHING to them. That we could make it to Heaven without Him suffering, without Him dying. Pointless.

That is very sad, because He did pay that sacrifice for all. And all we have to do is accept it, acknowledge it...and follow Him.

"If you love me, you will obey My commands." Pretty simple...maybe not easy...but very simple.

In His arms.

Just J,

Dang, I typed out a long response and got totally dumped out of the net... grrr...

So, this will be shorter...

I appreciate your thoughtful, and as usual eloquent, response.

In my own internal housekeeping I've been doing, I have realized that there are some things I feel are worth fighting for... and by that, I mean FIGHTING for... and yes, while I realize that some harm may occur, it is the price that is sometimes paid for the greater good.

I resoect the work of the Dhali Lama and others who embrace (live and breathe) compassionate care... and have strived (striven?) to be that kind of person. However, I think that those who are truly able give compassion in the face of evil are probably far more evolved than I.

Or maybe I just define compassion in a different way?

I suppose it could just be that I have been a doormat for some people to trample over, or wipe their feet upon, for too long. I'm through with that kind of compassion. If compassion for others allows abuse(s) to myself or those I care about to continue, that's not what I think compassion *truly* is. Do you know what I mean?

MM:

"I dont accept your theory that the Great Flood is mythology. No one has proven that it didnt happen."

What's sad 2 me is that it is so unnecessary 2 read the GF story as literal truth 2 get the message it contains.

As for proof it didn't happen? It COULDN'T happen. The volume of the Earth's water inventory couldn't physically be increased 2 such a degree as 2 drown everything at least 2 the elevation of Mt Ararat, then decreased 2 its pre-flood levels. Even Kevin Costner couldn't do it plausibly.

The Gilgamesh flood story is almost identical 2 the Noah story, predates the Noah story, is Babylonian, and differs mainly in that there are multiple deities, rather than one. It is "clear" that the Noah flood story is adapted and modified from the earlier one.

I, for one, find that interesting. I don't think it diminishes the messages of either story.

-ol' 2long

weaver:

"And to whomever asked this question, I have read the Bible from cover to cover"

Me 2, ac2ally. Though it was a very long time ago that I did.

I know you wouldn't be surprised by that, though <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long

I agree

here's another work of FICTION that caused many a reader to 'stop and think'

Left Behind

fiction

a novel

made into a movie

expressed a point of view

again, controversial
thought provoking

same deal-io

Pep

WOW! JustJ, you managed 2 verbalize the very point I've been trying 2 get across here for at least the past 4 years now.

Like "What you resist, persists." I sure re-learned that this past week after the "great Mother's Day gift request of 2006".

I MUST let go, or I'll go nuts. Sure, no small children's lives are at stake, but a lot of people's fu2res are nonetheless.


Having said all that, I still don't know whether I have much strength 2 continue without "giving up hope" or appearing 2. For now, my sense of responsibility 2 myself and my family sustains me. We'll see.

Likely, life will happen while I'm "fighting" or being compassionate anyway.

-ol' 2long

MM,

You miss my point. But since I do believe in God and don’t want my questions here to make others question their faith, I will not pursue this further. I just leave you with the thought that for every belief you have on this issue, ask yourself “How do I know it is true?” Try to follow this question to its conclusion and see what happens. You’d be surprised.

God bless.

Well, I don't know, 2long. Gandhi resisted British rule in India.

Sometimes it's necessary for someone to resist what's coming down -- just for others to suddenly stop, see what they are doing, and make choices.

Lots of people we celebrate as heroes did exactly that. See "A Man for All Seasons," or whatever.

Sometimes being "compassionate" means recognizing that giving in is enabling. Sometimes "fighting" is just not giving in to lies.

Gee, I shouldn't have to say that on this board. Many of us have paid the price for not truckling up to the A and saying, "It must be for the best -- he seems so happy." Believe it or not, plenty of people do that.


"It is the advantage and the nature of the strong that they can bring crucial issues to the fore and take a clear position regarding them. The weak always have to choose between alternatives that are not their own."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison

I'm sorry 2long (and others) I have read the New Testament in entirety (at least the version I have), not the Old Testament though, although I did grow up in church (Presbyterian and Methodist), Sunday School, teen youth club and Bible study classes where I think most of it probably was covered...so that is not the Bible from cover to cover.

And LOL 2long, no I am not surprised that you have read the entire Bible, probably more than once.

Geez! I didn't mean that to sound snotty or challenging when I asked how many have read the Bible cover-to-cover -- and I wasn't even directing that at the MB board in particular

It's my project this year, and I'm finding it very enlightening (I had read New Testament, Genesis, and various books, and of course excerpts -- but not the whole thing, all the way through, beginning to end).

For one thing, books like Joshua give me a whole new slant on current Israeli politics.

It's an amazing thing -- and it's interesting to read the "excerpts" in context, as a very long story. Different themes emerge -- and are repeated in a pattern I had never seen before.

But I do flinch when people talk about "believing the Bible," as if it's one homogenous things and not a collection, an anthology. Generally when I hear people talk that way, it sounds like they'd only read the Cliff Notes version. It seems to me too reductionist a formulation, too simplistic an approach.

If you have any kind of ear for language, it's clear that it was written in different eras, for different intentions. And hearing all these different voices, through millenia, is fascinating.

Those paths are all the wife path.

Really? So any path which differs from the one you have chosen, which would be the Fundalmentalist Baptist Church I presume, are all the wife path?

Why would a loving God create a world filled with children He loves, give them all free will and then make only one path back to Him, and no proof that this is the right path at all?

Why? Is this really what you believe, that a loving God would do this? Is this some big joke of his?

Why do you believe God would do this MM?


You don't need to answer this MM...

I just wonder if you ever think about it, because I thought about it so much after first hearing the beliefs of you and FH, I almost decided I couldn't possibly be Christian if it was true...almost, but not quite.

I don't even like talking about this on this board away from Gray's campfire, but since you and FH are so very vocal in the "truth", I think it is important that all start vocalizing their "truth", just to maintain balance...

and lest they start questioning God at all, as I did after coming to this board and reading you & FH's views.

And as for the biblical scholars you refer to and who help shape your beliefs, there are biblical scholars right here on this board, and many biblical scholars who do not interpret the bible literally but who nontheless are very Christian.

They just are not as vocal as you, nor on a mission to convert the world to their beliefs.

Are all Muslims going to he11 then? Just curious. Some of them might like the heads up.

Oh I didn't think you sounded snotty at all AM. But I thought it was question, so I answered it. LOL

You sound so excited about reading the Bible from cover to cover, that's cool.

I can't get through the OT, it is just too much and makes no sense to me.

If that question was directed at me Pio, we are all already in h*ll.

Finding our way out is the problem...

When there are differing beliefs, opinions, etc. it might be helpful to explore the concepts of "defending" vs. "fighting" for one's beliefs, opinions, causes, etc.

For me "defending" is a type of boundary, a fence, wall of protection. It says "Stop. This is as far as I allow you to go with regards to your attack. If you continue beyond this, I will protect myself, even if that means counter-attacking in response to your attack. It's your choice. You can hold true to your beliefs and retreat or continue with your attack."

I view "fighting" as actively projecting out towards others.... taking the initiative in trying to force one's beliefs, opinions, causes, etc. on others who disagree or may be neutral. There is a conscious intent to intimidate, punish, or destroy others who refuse to accept your way of seeing an issue.

Second thought...
How does one go about proving something didn't happen? For example, did the parting of the Red Sea really happen? Response: "You can't prove it didn't!" So that's proof that it did happen?? Huh?????

What exactly constitutes "proof"? Much is based on what premise you start with. Carbon dating? Literal biblical interpretation? Carbon dating presumes that each part of the process utilized is valid, e.g. Does it really measure what it's intended to measure? Is the process reliable...can it be duplicated 100% of the time? Heck, in the future we may find our "premises" were raw, primitive, in terms of what we later discovered. We once thought that the atom was the smallest particle of matter. Look at the jump from our initial understanding of physics to quantum
physics!

For me,literal biblical interpretation assumes that there was no human error, that God literally dictated each word, each sentence of the Bible in order to guarantee it's accuracy. If "error" did occur, God met with a group of chosen ones who sorted through the various scriptures to determine which were accurately written.

I have never seen a physical "God" who speaks with a human voice that can be heard with the human auditory system. None of my family or friends report having this experience. Does this prove it couldn't have happened?? Perhaps it's a reflection of my lack of faith, or a vision/hearing impairment, or refusal to try and hear "Him". Perhaps it was a "miracle", a one time event which cannot be duplicated.

I don't find consistency from the Old to the New Testament. Many times in the O.T. statements are made to the effect of, "This is how it shall be for evermore. Unchanging. God has deemed it to be so." OK, so let's say I accept statements to that effect as being literal, dictated by God. How can this possibly be true when one moves into the New Testament only to find that dictates, beliefs, statements in the O.T. are no longer applicable?? Either something is unchanging, for evermore...or it isn't. God certainly has the right to change His mind, but this is not in keeping with what He dictated in the OT. Evermore is evermore...unless I change my mind. Huh???

None of this precludes me from believing in the existence of a Creator, a Higher Power that some call "God". It doesn't create confusion for me in looking at "science". Science only leads me to marvel more at the "miracle" of how extensive and wonderful the way "life" functions. And most of it functions quite well without we humans having to stick our little hands into it to make it happen!

And the beat goes on.......

My question was not directed at anyone in particular. Just being surrounded by 6 million muslims on any given day and an additional 2 million during Haj season, it is a question I sometimes ask myself. Since the issue of path width came up, I was curious exactly how wide the path was although it is by definition narrow. But how narrow is narrow?

On the other hand, I really liked the explanation from the college student who had to answer the thermodynamics question as to whether he11 was an endothermic or exothermic process.

That was a wonderful post heartmending. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

And what was his answer? I'm slow so don't smack me one if that was the joke in it's entirety, or even if it wasn't a joke. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Can be found here:

Is he11 an endothermic or exothermic process?

an unBiblical example of what I will fight for:

My son, who wasn't breathing when he was born, has myriad disabilities. (He's 21 now)

In the last month or so, he and I have been going through all the letters I wrote, as well as all the medical, psych and educational testing, etc. he went through while in school.

I "saw/heard" myself go through a five year cycle. First, I was irritated, then terrified, then begging, then I got pi$$ed, and not just a little. I began to fight - and whatever compassion I had for the district, the teachers and the educational system at large WAS GONE. This wasn't about THEM, it was about MY SON.

I could write a very long response right now about the struggles he went through, however it's been discussed on this site before... specifically and recently on a post begun in Recovery by Daisy. At the worst of it, my son was suicidal (at eight years old) and did try to hang himself.

My son's life was (and IS) worth fighting for... and forgive me for putting it this way, but... screw anyone who tried to keep him down. I have no compassion for a system that almost killed him physically and darn near emotionally.

So, while I believe in compassionate care as a first line response... and hope and pray it *works*... if it doesn't... I go into fight mode.

I'm not totally comfortable with it, obviously, or I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.

Still, I wouldn't change a thing in the way I handled my son... except maybe to have gone into fight mode MUCH SOONER.

Sometimes compassion is enabling. I've seen the results of it.

Yo 2long.

Instead of bantering on this thread, I went to Mars to check on your fav rover.

No one can prove I didn't.

WAT

To me, discussing religious beliefs is so interesting.

It shows how different we all are.

Take me, for example.

Yes. I have been going through somewhat of a spiritual crisis since discovering my H's affair..a lot of my beliefs have been trampled on...especially I have turned away from institutionalized religion..which has been a major part of my life since I can remember...

However, I have never turned away from Jesus with whom I have a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP as MM describes. I FEEL the SPIRIT often. I FEEL that I have personally been touched by HIM and continue to do so as HE grants me HIS BLESSINGS as I remain righteous in my belief in HIM...Just part of my personal testimony..not necessary to recount here now. Let's just say I fully believe in miracles...

For me, MBers has been a Blessing. I believe that God led me here. The teachings from Forever and the teachings and counseling of MM have actually strengthened my faith. MM kept encouraging me to FIGHT EVIL and to maintain my trust in the Lord as I struggled with my H's infidelity. It was the Lord that was with me during my darkest hours..as has been true throughout my entire life. I was a little girl who loved the song.."Jesus Loves Me This I Know..for the Bible tells me so..." LOVE THAT SONG!!!

More importantly, FH and MM have helped me to continue to grow in my LOVE AND ACCEPTANCE of others..regardless of their beliefs, religion, color, gender....

For me, GOD IS LOVE... so I am more open than ever to other viewpoints that are different than mine..open to hearing and learning from WAT and 2Long and Mulan and even Lemonman <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> who look at the world differently than I do...

Interesting....

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Oh, as what it teaches...I agree. It doesnt diminish the story. The issue I have is that so many do not take the literal parts of the Bible literally. The Bible has a very distinct way of setting apart stories/parables/etc, from fact. About 5 yearsa ago, I took a whole two day study just on how the Bible is written and how that works.

Which, when I read the accounting of the Great Flood, I do not see the writing style that told us that it was just a story. So, for now...since the Bible reads as a literal event, and no one has yet proven it did not happen...I must accept on faith that this is true. But my faith is not without factual basis and reason. It is NOT a leap into the dark, as many suggest.

Where di all of the water go? Dunno. I do know that God is not confined by His laws. He is not confined by time, or gravity, or matter. He transcends all of that. So, if there is a God, and He did create the Earth...isnt it within His skill set to be able to create enough water to flood the Earth? Sure.

Again, the HOW of this is not written in the Bible. And sicne we have yet to get scientific fact concerning the veracity of this event, then we are just left with the Biblical accounting.

Just as many said there were no Baths of Bethesda...until they were discovered recently...the veracity of what we know about the Bible lends credence to my faith that the parts we do not know are indeed factual.

Hope I explained how I view this well enough.

In His arms.

Very true, Pep. But to me, the difference is that this fiction held true to the nature of God, to who Jesus was and is. This current movie and book do not.

In His arms.

Oh, thanks UVA. I do try to do that, as my faith is not based on just make believe.

Anyone who knows me knows I hate being wrong. So, if I am...I want to know it so I can change what I am thinking or doing. So, I am always questioning my position on things. On everything.

That is why I actual enjoy all sides of these debates. It challenges me...it makes me search for the truth.

Thanks UVA.

In His arms.

I DID read the book, but it has been so long ago... Can someone who is familiar with Christianity AND who read the DVC remind me...

What are the fundamental differences being purported in DVC compared to what is in the Bible?

I just want to be clear what we are "discussing".

Mortarman, I know you haven't seen the movie, but did you read the book (DVC)?

Simply asking because I'm curious. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Lori

Well, I typoed the "wife"...it was supposed to be "wide." Personally, I am non-denominational. I only attend church where they teach the Bible...and nothing else. I dont get into the arguments about "immersion" baptism versus sprinkling. Or whether the deacons control the church or the pastor. All not of my concern. My concern is what God has to say. Period. I will let you know this...if it were "Mortarman's path," I would have chosen one much different than the one outlined by God.

I attended a baptist church for many years. Then one day, another couple we are good friends with sat together in service one day. The pastor came in and said we were going to have a joint-faith service the next Sunday at a local park. We were like "great!!" But, then we found out what faiths we were joining with. Sure, there were the baptists, and Assembly of God, and the Catholic church, and the Methodists, etc. But then we saw on the list the Universalist unitarians, who are distinctly not Christian.

We approached the pastor afterwards and asked why we were havign a prayer vigil with a non-Christian church. And we asked that they be un-invited or that our church pull out of the service (even though our church set it all up). He would not do that...so we left that church.

Why? Because the Bible is very clear on such things. So, I do not care what some Baptist church says, or what ForeverHers says, or what Weaver says...I care what Scripture says. So, if someone tells me that something is of God, I will go and research it. I will find out if it is indeed in line with what He has written. If it is, then great. If it isnt, then it is clearly not of God.


No proof?? There is much proof! Even Scripture says that just the Earth and Heavens speak to who He is. But you question about freewill is answered like this: just because God gave usa freewill, did not mean He gave up His freewill. He is God. He is the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe. In the end, we are created beings. We belong to Him, and He has every right to make up the rules as He deems fit.

ultimately, we are given the narrow path because He wants to know that we love Him. That is why we were created in the first place. But love assumes that the person has the choice NOT to love. God has set forth the rules on how we are to love Him. Just as we set forth the rules on how our spouses love us (such as...you cant have sex with someone else!!). As He said, if we love Him, then we will obey His commands. It is that simple.


Because He loves us! Because He loves us enough to have given us a way out of the predicament that we got ourselves into do to freewill. If God just accepted us no matter what we have done, no matter if we obeyed His rules...then He would be unjust and unholy. He still loves those in ******. He loved them enough to let them choose ******.

And we all get that choice to make.


I never ask anyone to accept MY views on this. I ALWAYS point people to Scripture and to God. I am not the author of the book, and I am not God. This is not my universe and not my show. And I think Fh will tell you the same thing. But I do believe if you considered completely what God has done, what we have done...and how He went the extra mile out of love to save all of us...I think you would understand that he did the only loving thing He could for those that turned their backs on Him right from the beginning.


What is your definition of a Christian?


I am on no such mission. I have not the power to convert even one person. Were I to think that, I would be placing on me a power I do not possess.

No person on this planet converted me. Sure, there were people that planted the seeds, that introduced me to Scripture...to a loving God. But they didnt convert me. They didnt even try. They jsut told me the truth, showed me why it is the truth...and left me to make up my own mind. "Come, let us reason together."

I was converted by Jesus Christ Himself. Before that happened, I was doubtful. I didnt know Him, so I believed much of what you do. But then one day He choose to meet me. You see, it wasnt me finding Jesus, as if He was the one who was lost. It was Jesus finding me, for I was VERY lost! And in love, He put out His hand and asked me to follow Him. To lay everything down and put my life in His hands.

He gave me a choice. And He respected my choice to love Him, just as He will respect those that choose not to love Him. And as I said before, He has said that the only way to love Him is to obey His commands. We do not get to choose how to love Him. He is God...it is His show.

I know the doubts you have concerning what Scripture says. but as FH is always saying on here...that really isnt the question that we should be asking ourselves. Those questions can be answered, once we have the answer to THE question:

Who do you say Jesus is?

And make no mistake, EVERYONE will choose who they think He is. I have no say in that. I am only called to speak what He has asked me to speak. The rest is the responsibility of each individual.

My daughter and youngest son are saved. My oldest is not yet. he asks many questions...he is Thomas, he wants proof. And we have continued to reason together.

But I dont force it down his throat. It is his life, and his relationship with Jesus...not mine. In the end, if I do my part by teaching him the Word and showing him what God expects...then if He chooses not to love Jesus, then that is not my concern. Sure, I would be sad. As I am sad with many that I will not see in Heaven. But if God respects their choice...I must also.

Again, I cannto speak for FH or anyone else. But when you write these things about me, I wonder if you actually read what I am saying...or if you are jsut reacting to content that you dont agree with. I do not force anythign on anyone. I speak what Jesus has told me to speak, and leave it up to you to decide.

Knowing, that when you do coem face-to-face with Him, that you will be without excuse. As we all are.

As always, I remain:
In His arms.

Read the book...not going to see the movie.

In His arms.

Thanks! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Lori

Do you think Jesus would have refused to sit next to the non-believers or do you think he would have invited them in? Really, to me your behavior was very selfish, fearful, and the very opposite of humble. I don't doubt you are a nice person, but wouldn't it have been better to model your faith to others than to protest being in their presence? What else won't you do or support around people of other faiths?

Great question, Hobbs! And I did not want you to get the idea that this is how I am.

Would I want to sit next to unbelievers? Sure!! Would I want to witness to them? Yes! Do I want a service where unbelievers led the service and say prayers that God does not hear? No.

A worship service is for those that believe in Him to worship Him. I have no problem with the unitarians coming in and being a part of the service in the audience, as long as they are not running the service. Only the truth should be spoken in a Christian worship service.

Our contention with our pastor was that the leaders of the unitarian church would be a part of the service, would offer prayers and preach. And that is clearly NOT allowed by Scripture!

Hope that clears up what I meant.

In His arms.

One more thing Hobbs, as I dont think I answered your questions fully.


I think Jesus hung out where unbelievers were. I think it was the unbeliever that he was trying to reach.

I also know He walked into the church and began dumping over tables and whipping people who had turned His Father's house into something that was clearly NOT in keeping with His Father's commands.

So, what do I think Jesus would do in that situation? I think my ex-pastor and the other leaders responsible for this would possibly be very close to being "whipped" themselves.

In His arms.

Thought I would share what I found concerning at least part of the objections with Dan Brown and what Dan has shown he believes in his writings:


In His arms.

I respect your rational, Mortarman. Thanks for clarifying that!

YES! YES!

MM:

This is why you and I speak the same language!!!

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> It is why I can call you my sister!

In His arms.

Do you think Dante's Inferno holds true to the nature of how the damned have their bodies split in two and are left with their entrails hanging out?

Do you think because JK Rawling wrote a series of books this indicates she is a believer in witchcraft / sorcery?

Do you think Stephen King reveals a core belief in telekinesis because he wrote Carrie?

Do you believe Steven Spielberg has been visited by extra terrestrials, or that he ~thinks~ he has?

When Ron Howard goes to the beach, does he keep an eye open for mermaids?

There must be some fictional books written that may very well draw from one's beliefs more than their imagination .... but how do YOU know when that is the case?

Did you know that Lewis Carroll wrote sections of Through The Looking Glass based on his migraine auras? In fact, there is an unusual aura called 'The Alice In Wonderland' phenomenon !!!

The human imagination is a wonderous thing.

Pep

Hi NBII. I think maybe you're confusing being compassionate and being "nice."

Compassion, in my view, has very little to do with "nice." Mortarman and I had a good discussion about it on his thread a few weeks ago. The best example was one that MM gave. MM was having a lot of trouble, when he was a boy, learning that stealing isn't okay. Eventually he got caught lifting some candy from a store, and then the trouble began. If I remember correctly, MM went back to the store with his father, where he was taken into custody by a policeman of MM's father's acquaintance. He was handcuffed and put in the back of a police car, taken to a holding cell at the police station, and allowed to sit there for what felt like an eternity to a small boy and was really about 15 minutes.

After that, he got a stern talking-to about the likely consequences of further thefts.

MM suffered all the way through that experience. There was fear, terror, a sense of abandonment probably, and a whole lot of tears.

I personally think that's an excellent example of compassion that is not at all nice.

I think, too, that taking action to protect your son is an act of compassion. It's not about being nice and cooperative and working within the system -at all-. It's about making a clear, rational evaluation of what is truly best for everyone in a situation, and then taking non-harmful action to make that happen. If a child is not being treated appropriately in a school setting, that is, most assuredly, harmful for everyone involved. Not just the child, but everyone. When there is harm like that, I believe that the most appropriate response is to end the harm. Get the kid out of the situation and into one that does work. If there are longer-standing issues with the school system, then it might also be compassionate to help them improve their system. But not while further harm continues.

When you originally posted about it, NBII, you made the distinction between fighting and compassion. By that, I assumed you meant deciding to drive toward your goal without
regard for the potential harm that might come to others. It sounds to me like I'm basically accurate, and it also sounds to me that perhaps you're creating a dichotomy that isn't necessarily there. It almost sounds like you're talking about action versus inaction, and about making the choice to be cooperative in a situation where there is ongoing harm.

I do not consider those to be compassionate, ethical choices. They're very common choices, and you pegged them very well when you mentioned being a doormat.

Being a doormat, whether it's in a marriage or when you're trying to get good support for a child, allows harm to continue. When I say that I don't fight, I absolutely do NOT mean that I allow harm to continue.

Here's another example of what I mean.

More than a year ago, my ex decided that she wanted to have a naming ceremony for our daughter. This is a fairly common Jewish ceremony where a girl-child is brought before the congregation of her synagogue and introduced. She is formally named, not only to the congregation, but also to God. Normally, the name is structured as "Jane, daughter of Judy and Bob."

My ex decided that she was going to omit my name from it altogether. The excuse I was given was that the words would "only be in Hebrew, so no one would know." I thought that was particularly odd, since if you're Jewish, you speak Hebrew when you're talking to God. If God knows, surely there is SOMEONE who knows.

My first reaction was desperation and horror. Did I have to put up with this? And then fight. "NO. This is not right. This is not okay with me. NO."

And then I took two hours and sometime in that two-hour timeframe, I finally made it through a profound transformation that I had needed to make ever since my ex started the insanity with my daughter.

I became grounded.

It came in the form of lines from a children's book, one that was my daughter's favorite at the time. She made me read it to her at least twice each day back then.

I am your parent; you are my child. I am your quiet place; you are my wild. I am your calm face; you are my giggle. I am your wait; you are my wiggle....I am your favorite book; you are my new lines. I am your night-light; you are my starshine. I am your lullaby; you are my peekaboo. I am your good-night kiss; you are my I love you.


(from You Are My I Love You, by MaryAnn K Cusimano)


Loving, compassionate, and clear. I am my DD's parent. There is no question about it anymore. Completely grounded and firmly KNOWING that, then I was finally free to act in a way that protected me and my daughter -- and my ex -- from my ex's harmful choice.

At 1am, I wrote to our parenting coordinator. I wrote to my attorney. I wrote to both rabbis who are associated with the synagogue in question. I wrote to a member of the rabbinical committee at the synagogue. And I wrote to the congregational mailing list.

The next morning, I was on the phone to my attorney. Ten minutes later, she was on the phone to my ex's attorney. I called one of the rabbis. I called the member of the committee. And I was clear. This is not going to happen this way. It is absolutely and without question harmful to me and my daughter, it violates the spirit and the letter of our parenting agreement, and we will take the necessary action to prevent this harm.

My ex was absolutely horrified and humiliated that I broadcast her choice so far and wide. By the end of the day, we had a solution that was workable, though not entirely satisfying. (My daughter was named as herself alone, daughter of neither me nor my ex.)

And the next day, we had a lovely ceremony. My family came in force and held their heads high. My ex's family was also there, and not one of them could meet our eyes. They knew they'd done something foolish.

And that night, I got a call from my ex. How about if DD just stays overnight with you and spends some time with you and your family? You see, I had asked for a little extra time with DD, since my family had flown in for the event and they wanted to see her. My ex had originally refused. And I suspect that someone, probably her attorney and maybe her parents as well, had sat her down and explained to her in no uncertain terms that what she was trying to do had significant consequences and was NOT all right.

Just like with MM when he was a little boy, I suspect that the experience created a great deal of suffering for my ex. And overall, it had the best possible outcome that I could want. That event changed my relationship with my ex -- significantly for the better. It also strengthened my own sense of being a parent, and created more solidity for the structure of our daughter's life.

You might look at it and say that I "fought" for what I believed to be right. The difference is that I was not acting from afflictive emotion. No hurt, no fear, no "I'm not good enough," no feeling of being powerless.

I knew that the outcome might not be what I wanted. I also knew that I would explore every alternative that I could find in the short time that I had to make sure that the ceremony happened, and happened in a way that was beneficial to everyone.

Okay, that was a long example. I hope it helps.


Here again, I would go back to what I wrote to Mortarman. Allowing abuse to continue is NOT compassionate. It is harmful to both the victim and the abuser. If I am a victim of abuse, then my compassionate response is this: "I am removing myself from this harmful situation so that I can protect both of us from your actions. I love you enough that I will not allow you to continue to harm yourself by the things you are doing to me." And then I take clear, firm, grounded action to protect myself from the abuse.

The best reference I know of for compassionate responses to abuse is (and most of the material I use when I'm talking about it comes from ) You Don't Have to Take It Anymore by Steven Stosny.

Every Bible I have ever read, every bible I own, has been the product of man and not God. Have you ever played telephone where you hear something from the person to your left and repeat it to your right? As a phrases passes from one end of the chain to the other, the meaning changes completely.

If God himself wrote the Bible, it's still one big game of telephone between the creator and you. It's passed through a lot of people to get to the Revised Standard Version that I use. The question of whether or not God wrote the Bible becomes academic, because no one can point to the Bible that God himself wrote.

As to the presence of a selection process regarding the composition of the current Bible, I can only refer you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha. There are quite a few also-rans when it comes to potential books of the Bible and given that the selection process did not always produce the same results, we can at best conclude that God does not bother to tell the non-chosen they are wrong.

Can you provide a Scriptural reference for this, MM? Thanks!

I LOVED Dante's Inferno - even though I "had 2" read it for a course in folklore and mythology (parts of the Bible, 2).

And then there's C. S. Lewis' trilogy, "Out of the Silent Planet", "Perelandra", and "That Hideous Strength".

Do you think that Hrossa really exist? Or that Venus is a waterworld with it's own Adam and Eve ready 2 be tempted out of their garden paradise?

-ol' 2long

Well, no, ac2ally. I'm pretty sure I've never read it more than once! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Read parts of it many times, though.

-ol' 2long

Yeah wiki can be trusted. BTW the link is dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Oh it's all the slaughter that gets to me. Especially the slaughter of innocent animals. The slaughter prescribed by Moses is particularly obnoxious.

But hey! That's part of it. And probably part of that world.

I can get through the long geneologies, because the names are so whacko and fun to pronounce. Plus you make some odd connections -- like the three generations to cover 450 years in Matthew 1. I think there are some other errors, but it wasn't important enough to check out. All probably passed on verbally till someone had the thought to write it all down.

I agree, though it's clear that many (most?) people have a difficult time making the distinction.


but...


I think that God IS his/her/its laws.


I would think that, rather, he/she/it INCLUDES all that, plus the spiri2al stuff that we all really strive for as thinking/feeling human beings. The physical laws are "easy" - they just are. How we feel about our place in all of it is another thing al2gether.


Sure enough. But if he/she/it were 2 deem 2 flood a planet by doubling or tripling it's water budget for 40 days, why bother 2 erase the evidence of that? Really, why set aside all the physical laws that would quickly produce deep-sea sediments, strand lines, and sea cliffs at high elevations all over the world?

2 me, it's far more likely that the Noah flood is a myth, possibly extrapolated from a real (but certainly not global) flood, intended 2 convey a great truth, which it does famously.


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.


The Baths were very localized structures. The landforms that would have been produced by a global flood would have been... ...well, global! They'd be in our faces everywhere we 2rn - but they're not.

-ol' 2long

I think I'm the first one who mentioned an opinion that the Bible is mythology. Though I said that was different from fiction, I didn't expand on it and I suspect that many people view mythology as, basically, fiction that people used to believe was true a long time ago.

There are many examples of times when mythology has turned out to have a solid basis in reality. The maze and the Minotaur, for example, were though to be mythological until archaeologists discovered the maze on an island in the Mediterranean.

Similarly, I think there's fairly good evidence for a huge flood in the ancient Middle East, one that was larger than just the run of the mill river flooding that happened along the Tigris and Euphrates. Global? Not exactly. And did it include Israel? Not clear. But I bet it covered pretty much all of what the people there thought was of the world, in the area that it happened.

So it becomes mythology over the course of eight or ten thousand years. It's mythology that appears not only in the Old Testament, but in various other ancient accounts of that area.

But, as something that I read said, I sincerely doubt that there were no rainbows before that. To use the rainbow as a symbol of God's love and promise is wonderful. I just have doubts that there weren't any rainbows before that time. God's pretty good about keeping the natural laws constant, near as I can tell.

Well, it doesn't really say there was no rainbow before that, does it Just J?

It says that the rainbow will mark a covenant, etc. -- but it doesn't say it's the first one.

For example, when I gave a wedding ring to my husband, I meant it to be a symbol of my love -- but it wasn't the first such ring given anywhere.

2long: I love that Lewis trilogy, too! We seem to have similar tastes in literature.

This is a fascinating read, and I feel very fortunate to be reading it.

MM,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me, it helps me to understand where you are coming from, and when you respond with respect and kindness my eyes do not shut and my hands do not leap to cover my ears.

AM,

Yes, the brutality.

Thanks for the link pointer, somehow the . got into the link. Here's the better one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

I find wikipedia pretty informative. Checked out the Spaghetti link. I've got to say those folks have some pretty serious satire going on but I don't think wikipedia is misrepresenting what they think. For example, I think that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Is a pretty good historic account of Jesus and was informative to me about different beliefs surrounding him

But all that's off point. Bottom line, the whole thing is not so simple as: "God wrote the bible through person X and here's the master copy." My Bible has had man's hand in it because there were lots of different inspired authors and none of the originals wrote in English.

Have y'all ever heard of the Washington Scablands?

It was the result of a breach in an ice dam from a glacier.

http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/scabland.html

Weaver, let me try to tackle a theological point. I think you (or whoever posted, no longer sure it was you) about why God would exclude everybody else from this narrow path, and what a narrow-minded God that would be, etc., are tackling this from a modern human-rights kind of perspective.

If I were God, and something had gone terribly wrong with the world (i.e., the Fall), and I had a unique remedy of fixing it by coming down myself, enduring the worst that mankind could offer, dying as some sort of sacrifice, and punching some sort of hole in time and space -- and then saying, "Come on everyone! Climb this bridge! You can get free of all this if you climb this bridge! Just do as I say!"

Wouldn't it be kind of wrong-headed to turn and say, "What about all these other bridges? Why do you think this is the only bridge that works? What about all the other people who never heard of your bridge?" If you were drowning in the ocean after the Titanic, and someone throws you a lifesaver, would you refuse it saying, "That's not fair. What about all these other people who are drowning?" Wouldn't you figure your chances were better of helping once you were not drowning yourself?

I'm sure my metaphor can be picked apart (assume an infinite liferaft, with many extra spaces), but from a theological basis, the questions all become different if looked at this way. And whether the Zorastrians, etc., are going to heaven is simply not my problem. We have to trust a higher power to work out the details.

From this point of view, it's a miracle it was done at all. Once, somewhere. So the question of "why didn't God choose China, where there are more people?" becomes not only irrelevant, but a tad ungrateful.

Again, I'm not saying anyone has to accept this perspective -- and certainly opinions differ on what jumping on the liferaft means (do I have to join Mortarman's church? Or is it okay to stay in my local snake cult?) But theologically, I think that's what the standard, traditional P.O.V. is.

I like your metaphor, A.M. I just see that there is more than one life preserver design. I'm really glad they get tossed to us, though. Otherwise the swimming is pretty hard. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

OK, I am sorry, but I just have to lecture for a moment.

Almost all ancient cultures have a flood story. They are from the times at the end of the last ice age.

For example, geologists have proved, yes proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the second largest lake in the world at the time was Glacial Lake Missoula in Idaho, Montana and Southern Canada. The ice dam at Pend Orelle last broke about 9K years ago. The physical evidence is indisputable – it can be proven – and I mean PROVEN – you can even see the ancient shorelines as the lake changed depth between summer and winter for yourself.

The ice dam broke many times - 110 to be exact. The last and greatest produced the scablands, Jameson canyon and deposited huge boulders, from the Canadian Rockies and trapped in icebergs, where Portland is now. (It has been proved – geologists even know exactly where in Canada the boulders came from by their composition.)

The resulting flood covered Washington and Oregon for about a month as it drained through Wallula Gap. Again, you can see the erosion marks high up the hillsides for yourself.

Native Americans in the area carried oral stories of this huge flood right up until the last century.

Protestant missionaries made the Indians stop telling the stories. Told them they were evil lies. Forced Indian children into missionary schools and deprived them of these oral traditions.

The geologist ( I can’t remember his name off the top of my head, but I can look it up – his biography is very interesting - Pardee, I think) who first correlated all this flood evidence and native traditions was at first hounded out of symposia by religious fanatics for teaching against the bible. It wasn’t until after his death that the incontrovertible science became common knowledge.

So, there was a flood of biblical proportions in western North America almost 9K years ago. It has been proven.

OK, the first thing a fundamentalist is going to question is the proof. They will close their eyes. They will refuse to see. They will harden their heart against God’s own physical laws. There is not much anyone can do about this but be sad for them. Here is provable evidence of God’s glory and wonder they refuse to accept. I bet He is irked at them, for their refusals to believe.

Anyway, this is getting long, so let me jump quickly to the Eastern Mediterranean about 7K years ago (I need to check this - it may be 12K years ago - my memory isn't what it used to be). Again, incontrovertible evidence shows the largest ice dam and glacial lake of that entire era was in central Russian near Novgorod. It was at least 20 times the size of Lake Missoula. Again, you can go see the shorelines on the hills for yourself. (It’s not the same lake/flood half a world away because it’s known beyond the shadow of a doubt to be 2K years separated in time from when Lake Missoula drained.

Also, the current basin of the Black Sea was mostly empty and dry at that time. A ridge existed across the Bosporus (it has been proved.) Sea level was around 300 ft lower because of the ice caps. It has been proved.

The Russian ice dam broke catastrophically and drained into the basin of the black sea. It took maybe six weeks. There were farming people living there. Side–scan sonar has detected entire villages, with buildings, at 100 meter depths in the Black Sea. In more than one place. There is also a discernable, now submerged, old shoreline at that depth in many places. Not long after, sea level rose as the ice caps melted and the Mediterranean spilled over the Bosporus ridge eroding it down to it’s current level (it can be proven, yes, proven – the erosion pattern is still on the bottom.)

The oral traditions of these Black Sea floods survived until the Epic of Gilgamesh was written down. Then Noah was written down even later.

Does this prove the bible wrong? That God does not exist? Heavens no. It demonstrates just the opposite. It demonstrates a degree of historical accuracy, in fact. Well, historical accuracy with some exaggeration for effect.

BTW, the same thing happened to the Mediterranean Sea itself with repeated flooding through the pillars of Hercules and later evaporation. It can be proven. The salt layers are on the bottom of the Mediterranean basin like tree rings and the erosion patterns are on the bottom between Africa and Spain. The difference here is the floods are much older and due to continental drift slowly opening the gap between northwest Africa and Western Europe.

These floods of biblical proportions (there were others in East Asia and along the St Lawrence) all really happened. Each incidence has been proven as firmly as 1 + 1 = 2. But, there are none so blind as he who will not see.

With prayers,

Thank you, Aphelion! That was the stuff I was thinking of. Can you point me to a good scientific account of the ice dam flooding -- one that points out flaws and weakenesses in the theories, as well as documenting the evidence for the floods?

AMM,

God is alive and well in my life, as is Jesus...but not the way anyone else on here might understand (as far as the Jesus part goes anyway).

I do understand what you are saying, all of it... but for me, I have this unshakable faith in God's goodness, complete and for ALL, and sometimes I am so alive with this love (God) I can barely contain myself.

However my faith, love and belief did not come from the Bible, although it may have started there, it was only until I no longer believed and begged God to show me something, to give me something that I found ACIM and that was when I knew, or at least so much closer than I was before.

I will not ever believe that one way is the only way.

And if we believe (those of us who do) that God created us then God is a part of us, each and every single one of us regardless of whether we believe in Him or not, or in Jesus or in the Bible or in anything for that matter...regardless of what we want to call it, name it, do with it.

Creation leaves not it's source.

Whomever or whatever that creator may be and to whom.

Weaver:

I am not at all questioning your beliefs. Because I feel the same way as you say here..very often:



However, I'm wondering about this that you say...just trying to understand you better...



Are you separating GOD and JESUS? That's what is different than what is written in the New Testament...



Where did your faith, love and belief come from..it seems like it needs to have some basis? Forgive me..this coming from a person who had daily Bible study with my Grandmother..from the "Word of God" as she used to say... before my nap as a toddler... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

What is ACIM?



I wholeheartedly agree with you on this.

What about Satan? Do you believe in Satan and/or Evil Spirits?

Wondering...

Well, weaver, the nice thing is, I don't have to pretend to know all the answers. This is where I go to the Buddhist, "Work out your own salvation with diligence."

As T.S. Eliot said, "The rest is not our business."

AM and Weaver:

Do you guys realize that I am having a hard time understanding what you are feeling and saying on this thread?

I live in a different world according to my thought process.

[color:"red"] Creation leaves not it's source.
[/color]

boy this is poetic!

Pep

I guess in my own puny life I have had so many crimes that can be laid at my doorstep -- not always crimes because I was selfish and bad, but often from the best intentions, working from my highest understanding -- that I have difficulty in telling people how it all is.

I have been wrong so many times. (Sometimes by being too narrow-minded, sometimes by being too "liberal.")

It makes it hard for me to understand how people can come down, Bible-thumping, and tell me how it all is. All we can do is say, with humility, how it looks to us at the moment. Knowing our understanding changes from year to year -- even how we see the words change, from year to year.

All we can do is give it our best shot. And I'm very glad so much is not my business.

Mimi,

With the exception of a few minor details, we do believe the same, but you are operating from a mindset of separation and I am operating from a mindset of connectedness.

I do not believe Jesus is God, at least not in any different sense than we all our. Jesus to me, was a son of God, but not the one true son...we are all the son of God, we are the sonship so to speak.

Jesus was just the first in our culture to obtain total enlightenment, and I believe he was able to do this because he was never that separate from God to begin with. He never had an ego.

To me satan/evil is the ego. We all have this dualty (and it can be broken down even more but I can't remember the psychological terms right now), but Jesus did not.

He never really saw through eyes that were not holy, because he had no unholiness in him (no ego, or separation from God in other terms) and I do believe his purpose now in our lives is to act as the holy spirit, (our link to God through understanding, because he can understand God and communicate with him, we are not evolved enough to do so).

I can't go into it all here as far as my beliefs, Mimi...but I do think we feel the same way, we use different terminology and we might think a little bit differently, but only as far as the symbols/symbolism goes... I think I see them as symbols more so than you do.

And that is why it is so very hard to talk about this stuff using words, even when in our hearts we know the same thing.

And I also believe as AM believes that it is up to each and every one of us to determine how best the understanding and relationship with God works for us.

I'm sorry to post these radical beliefs on here, and I know you don't understand them Mimi, but I don't see things the way most others on here do.

And I am sure that someone biblically intelligent could show how this all ties into the biblical teachings, and I have books that do.

I am not trying to prove anything, I only state my beliefs because it works for me, and maybe someone out there is struggling and can find some use of it.

We all need to find God, not that we ever lost him, but life sure is dark without.

You believe like MM does because that is what speaks to your heart, but it doesn't speak to mine...so I had to go looking, and I have read over the course of my adulthood many, many spiritual books from different religions.

Forgiveness and Jesus, by Kenneth Wapnick Jr as well as The Journey Home by the same author, and most all of Marianne Williamsons writings, are my favorites. Williamson is a lecturer and spiritual leader who follows ACIM (A Course in Miracles). I also attended a 6 week workshop based on the above teachings which changed the course of my religious beliefs when I found out my ex was already married and had a breakdown.

I'm sorry to everyone else who might take offense to what I have written regarding Jesus.

Weaver:

I don't take offense to you at all.

I really appreciate your post and will read it again, process it more and respond to you later when I have more time.

AM:

I got lost again...in trying to understand what you were saying.

I will try again later.

Off to exercise...YUCK...

JJ,

Here's just one easy to read book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0878424...ce&n=283155

I have hiked through the giant ripple-waves that fill the Camas valley and I have stood on a mountain sized gravel bar nearJocko where one arm of the Missoula flood came rushing through. I grew up watching the seasons change along the ancient shorelines ringing the hilltops. I have fished in one of the giant kolks at the summit of Rainbow Pass.

It is all so amazing. I have thanked God many times for the opportunity to see and understand these wonders of His.

With prayers,

Just J,

As you know, I have lived my life striving for compassion (and yes, at times I have confused it with nice-ness)... and in many cases I do have it in abundance. When I see someone in pain, I'm all about compassion.

With others - especially those who lash out at me or those I care about? Not so much.

Does it come naturally? No.

When I said 'fight' I do mean FIGHT. You did not misunderstand me. Life is sometimes a battle.

I read about how you reacted to your ex, especially about how you came from a place of groundedness and then things started moving in a positive way... and I think that it (your ex's reaction) could have gone either way.

There's always two or more people in a conflict and you just can't guage how the other person will react. Is it the ethical thing to always come from a place of groundedness and calm? Probably. Will it always get the desired result? Maybe. Maybe not. Will you be able to hold your head high? Yes, I believe you will. You are doing what you think is ethical (I have absolutely no doubt of that - not that you need my kudos).

Do I think that fighting for the rights of my son, even when it got heated and ugly, was ethical? Yes, I do. Even when I lost my temper.

So, I guess my question(s) now become(s): Is it possible to be out of your groundedness and still be ethical? Is it possible to get really mad and even make some mistakes in delivery but still have an ethical message?

NBII, you ask some really good questions. I'll answer a couple of different ways. First, a biological perspective. Anger's major purpose, biologically speaking, is not to protect or defend ourselves, but rather to defend and protect our children. We are biologically forced to protect our children from harm, and that's one of the few kinds of anger that can, in fact, arise out of a grounded knowledge of our own value, and that of our children.

And.... Anger is a biological drive that creates in us the ability to ignore compassion and ethics in order to achieve an immediately necessary goal -- like saving little Johnny from the sabre-tooth tiger that's out to get him. It was very, very useful to us when we were actually out there fighting the tigers for our survival. It's best not to care, in that moment, about whether the tiger has cubs that it needs to feed or whether it had a rotten day hunting and really needs to eat Johnny for lunch.

And yet.

What of the harm we might do to others when we are protecting our children? What of the intent of our actions?

The Dalai Lama indicates that compassion should be considered on multiple levels. An action can be viewed on its surface as compassionate or not. Let's say that I reach out and slap HoFS on the face. Is that compassionate? It doesn't appear so on the surface, does it?

But yet if you see what I see, you realize that a spider has just landed on HoFS, and I'm slapping him not because I want to harm or upset him, but instead to prevent a possibly dangerous spider bite.

That goes to the intent of the action. It's important because the action, the outer-world result of my intent, can't be fully known to me when I act. Perhaps it's HoFS' pet spider (Charlotte) and the last thing he wants is to have her killed. Then my intended act of compassion will actually cause harm.

Underneath that is my state of mind, my overall level of existence, as either grounded or not, either compassionate or not. The thought here is that if my state of mind is compassionate, then the intentions that will arise out of it will also be compassionate, and my actions will be more likely to be compassionate.

By that token, your path of becoming angry, things getting heated and ugly, and protecting your son in the course of doing so, is probably compassionate in terms of the view of the outcome (protecting your son and the people who weren't treating him well), somewhat harmful in its execution (in that you became angry and there were hurtful words said all the way around), compassionate in its intent (get help for your son), and possibly not grounded, and thus coming from a state of mind that was not able to be fully compassionate in that instance. Is that a complex enough answer for you? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Going back to the biochemical side of things, since anger creates in us a situation where our ethical, rational thought processes are set aside, I would say that it's not possible to make ethical -choices- in such an environment because the brain isn't working that way. (See the research on how the frontal lobe shuts down when you're angry.)

On the other hand, making a choice is often a split-second thing. After that, it's a matter of implementing those choices. Righteous anger mixed in with the implementation of ethical choices? There's some chance, I think, that such a situation could very well lead to compassionate action. It's not grounded action, though, and as such there may certainly be harm.

Yep. My PhD was going 2 be on the Porcupine River flood of 26,000 years ago. Very similar 2, though smaller than the Missoula Flood, about the same size as the Bonneville flood.

-ol' 2long

Appy:

Harlan Bretz.

-ol' 2long

I thought that this article presents the debate in a rational way, perhaps some of you will too.

The Truth at the Heart of 'The Da Vinci Code'
by Elaine Pagels

Archbishop Angelo Amato, a top Vatican official, recently railed against The Da Vinci Code as a work "full of calumnies, offenses and historical and theological errors.'' As a historian, I would agree that no reputable scholar has ever found evidence of author Dan Brown's assertion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child, and no scholar would take seriously Brown's conspiracy theories about the Catholic group Opus Dei.

But what is compelling about Brown's work of fiction, and part of what may be worrying Catholic and evangelical leaders, is not the book's many falsehoods.

What has kept Brown on the bestseller list for years and inspired a movie is, instead, what is true – that some views of Christian history were buried for centuries because leaders of the early Catholic Church wanted to present one version of Jesus' life: theirs.

Some of the alternative views of who Jesus was and what he taught were discovered in 1945 when a farmer in Egypt accidentally dug up an ancient jar containing more than 50 ancient writings. These documents include gospels that were banned by early church leaders, who declared them blasphemous.

It is not surprising that The Da Vinci Code builds on the idea that many early gospels were hidden and previously unknown. Brown has said that part of his inspiration was one of these so-called Gnostic Gospels as presented in a book I wrote on the subject. It took only three lines from the Gospel of Philip to send Brown off to write his novel:

The companion of the savior is Mary Magdalene. And Jesus loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often... The rest of the disciples were jealous, and said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?''

Those who have studied the Gospel of Philip see it as a mystical text and don't take the suggestion that Jesus had a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene literally.

Still, by homing in on that passage and building a book around it, Brown brought up subjects that the Catholic Church would like to avoid. He raised the big what-ifs: What if the version of Jesus' life that Christians are taught isn't the right one? And perhaps as troubling in a still-patriarchal church: What if Mary Magdalene played a more important role in Jesus' life than we've been led to believe, not as his wife perhaps, but as a beloved and valued disciple?

In other words, what Brown did with his runaway hit was popularize awareness of the discovery of many other secret gospels, including the Gospel of Judas that was published in April.

There have long been hints that the New Testament wasn't the only version of Jesus' life that existed, and that even the gospels presented there were subject to misinterpretation. In 1969, for instance, the Catholic Church ruled that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, as many people had been taught. The church blamed the error on Pope Gregory the Great, who in 591 A.D. gave a sermon in which he apparently conflated several women in the Bible, including Mary Magdalene and an unnamed sinner who washes Jesus' feet with her tears.

But even that news didn't reach all Christians, and it is the rare religious leader who now works hard to spread the word that the New Testament is just one version of events crafted in the intellectual free-for-all after Christ's death. At that time, church leaders were competing with each other to figure out what Christ said, what he meant -- and perhaps most important, what writings would best support the emerging church.

What we know now is that the scholars who championed the "Gnostic'' gospels are among the ones who lost the battle.

In the decades after Jesus' death, these texts and many others were circulating widely among Christian groups from Egypt to Rome, Africa to Spain, and from today's Turkey and Syria to France. So many Christians throughout the world knew and revered these books that it took more than 200 years for hardworking church leaders who denounced the texts to successfully suppress them.

The copies discovered in 1945, for example, were taken from the sacred library of one of the earliest monasteries in Egypt, founded about 10 years after the conversion of Constantine, the first Roman emperor to join the fledgling church. For the first time, Christians were no longer treated as members of a dangerous and seditious group and could form open communities in which many lived together. Like monks today, they kept in their monastery libraries a very wide range of books they read aloud for inspiration.

But these particular texts appeared to upset Athanasius, then archbishop of Alexandria; in the year 367 he sent out an Easter Letter to monks all over Egypt ordering them to reject what he called "illegitimate and secret books.'' Apparently, some monks at the Egyptian monastery defied the archbishop's order and took more than 50 of the books out of the library, sealed them in a heavy jar and buried them under the cliff where they were found 1,600 years later.

In ordering the books destroyed, Athanasius was continuing the battle against the "Gnostic'' gospels begun 200 years earlier by his revered predecessor, Bishop Irenaeus, who was so distressed that certain Christians in his congregations in rural Gaul (present day France) treasured such "illegitimate and secret writing'' that he labeled them heretics. Irenaeus insisted that of the dozens of writings revered by various Christians, only four were genuine -- and these, as you guessed already, are those now in the New Testament, called by the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Irenaeus said there could be only four gospels because, according to the science of the time, there were four principal winds and four pillars that hold up the sky. Why these four gospels? He explained that only they were actually written by eyewitnesses of the events they describe -- Jesus' disciples Matthew and John, or by Luke and Mark, who were disciples of the disciples.

Few scholars today would agree with Irenaeus. We cannot verify who actually wrote any of these accounts, and many scholars agree that the disciples themselves are not likely to be their authors. Beyond that, nearly all the gospels that Irenaeus detested are also attributed to disciples -- some, including the Gospel of Thomas, to the original 12 apostles. Nonetheless, Athanasius and other church leaders succeeded in suppressing the gospels they (and Irenaeus) called illegitimate, won the emperor's favor and succeeded in dominating the church.

What, then, do these texts say, and why did certain leaders find them so threatening?

First, they suggest that the way to God can be found by anyone who seeks. According to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus suggests that when we come to know ourselves at the deepest level, we come to know God: "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you.'' This message – to seek for oneself – was not one that bishops like Irenaeus appreciated: Instead, he insisted, one must come to God through the church, "outside of which,'' he said, "there is no salvation.''

Second, in texts that the bishops called "heresy,'' Jesus appears as human, yet one through whom the light of God now shines. So, according to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said, "I am the light that is before all things; I am all things; all things come forth from me; all things return to me. Split a piece of wood, and I am there; lift up a rock, and you will find me there.'' To Irenaeus, the thought of the divine energy manifested through all creation, even rocks and logs, sounded dangerously like pantheism. People might end up thinking that they could be like Jesus themselves and, in fact, the Gospel of Philip says,

"Do not seek to become a Christian, but a Christ.'' As Irenaeus read this, it was not mystical language, but "an abyss of madness, and blasphemy against Christ.''

Worst of all, perhaps, was that many of these secret texts speak of God not only in masculine images, but also in feminine images. The Secret Book of John tells how the disciple John, grieving after Jesus was crucified, suddenly saw a vision of a brilliant light, from which he heard Jesus' voice speaking to him: "John, John, why do you weep? Don't you recognize who I am? I am the Father; I am the Mother; and I am the Son.'' After a moment of shock, John realizes that the divine Trinity includes not only Father and Son but also the divine Mother, which John sees as the Holy Spirit, the feminine manifestation of the divine.

But the Gospel of Mary Magdalene -- along with the Gospel of Thomas, the Dialogue of the Savior, and the Gospel of Philip -– all show Peter, the leader of the disciples, challenging the presence of women among the disciples. We hear Peter saying to Jesus, "Tell Mary to leave us, because women are not worthy of (spiritual) life.'' Peter complains that Mary talks too much, displacing the role of the male disciples. But Jesus tells Peter to stop, not Mary! No wonder these texts were not admitted into the canon of a church that would be ruled by an all-male clergy for 2,000 years.

Those possibilities opened by the "Gnostic'' gospels -- that God could have a feminine side and that Jesus could be human -- are key ideas that Dan Brown explored in "The Da Vinci Code,'' and are no doubt part of what made the book so alluring. But the truth is that the texts he based his novel upon contain much deeper and more important mysteries than the ones Tom Hanks tries to solve in the movie version that opened this weekend.

The real mystery is what Christianity and Western civilization would look like had the "Gnostic'' gospels never been banned. Because of the discovery by that Egyptian farmer in 1945, we now at least have the chance to hear what the "heretics'' were saying, and imagine what might have been.

Elaine Pagels, author of The Gnostic Gospels and Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, is a professor of religion at Princeton. She wrote this article for the Perspective section of the San Jose Mercury News.

And for those of you in gc's campfire country - there was a catastrophic flood THERE, 2!


...well, in Saskatchewan and North Dakota, that is. But it all wound up in the Mississippi River basin. Must have made a mess!

Look up Glacial Lake Regina and the Souris Spillway for articles about this one.

It's been a while, but you can clearly see these spillways in Landsat, and probably terraserver air photos, if you know where 2 look.

-ol' 2long

If you want to read what the Gnostic gospels actually say, the ones found in 1945, here they are:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

No offense to Bob and other Europeans, but what does that say about Europe. As Bob eluded to in another post, most of the information was stolen from another book "Holy Cup, Holy Grail". The DaVinci Code is wrought with misinformation and rewriting history that would make even most fogged out FWS's look truthful.

I do not personally agree with the precept of Holy Cup, Holy Grail but at least they got their historical dates correct. The DaVinci Code seemed to just put together certain historical events in whatever timeframe was needed to support their point. Regardless of your beliefs, it is hard for me to give much credit to an author (Dan Brown) is says that this book is based on historical fact but he often gets the years off by more than 200 years on certain historical events. He brushes this off as saying that those items are insignificant. Kind of like saying that talking about Jesus living 200 years after he was crucified was not historically significant.

I have no problem with those who are enthralled by this book as a work of fiction that robbed certain historical events in order to make the fiction more realistic. However, as a Christian and a Catholic who has seen faith diminish significantly over my lifetime, especially in Europe, I wish those that were able to take the huge leap of faith and logic to this fiction could have taken the same leap in trying to find a true faith in God.

NT

Good post, NT. I haven't read the book, but I have a question for you: apparently, the exception taken to the book is based, in part, on the idea that it refutes the divinity of Christ. He was just another nice guy, saying nice things, until the Council of Nicea made him a big deal. Am I correct?

Then why is his "wife" suddenly the Holy Grail, Holy Cup, whatever? Why is she of any importance at all? Why is her role mystical, if Christ is just another nice guy saying nice things?

There seems to be an inherent contradiction. Is it explained?

It said the Council of Nicea barely voted divinity status for Jesus. I guess the implication could be that he was or wasn't, but to me it was just the results of a vote that may have been politically motivated. Again, understanding that this is a work of fiction, I see nothing blasphemous in saying that humans can have less than pure motivations.

The burning question in my mind is whether Lem had a specific date in mind for the movie. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Well, my understanding of the book is that it goes on firmly on the side of the Arian Heresy, which is the nondivinity of Christ. So far, so good.

But if so, why is the bloodline of Christ such a big deal? Why is Mary Magdalene elevated to Holy Grail status?

Wow, this is interesting isn't it CN?

I'll postulate that because, divinity or not, Christ was a big deal. Thus, Mary M was a big deal - especially if she was his mate and bore his child.

WAT

Wasn't there something about JC being of royal bloodline, and the fear that the people would try to put this popular eccentric, non-conformist thinker on the throne? I may be off-base (for that matter, I usually am!) )

NT:

If you are listening, I want to say that I, for one, think that this is a GOOD POINT that was very well said.

Faith is not only diminishing in Europe..but also in my small, Southern USA town !!

Thanks!

Ah yes, but if you've read your Malory, the Holy Grail was a very very big deal.

And the Merovingians were a distinctly little deal.

So Christ moves from being the Son of God and salvation of the world to spawning a bunch of bumbling Merovingian despots?

I like the original better.

A.M., I think you might do better to read the book than to ask questions here. You might or might not like it, but you'll at least get an accurate picture that way.

As for me, I think I like the original -- as presented by ALL of the gospels we have -- quite well as well. Peter against Mary Magdalene? He and his followers win for 2,000 years, and only now we begin to realize what happened? Fascinating. Now there's a novel that would really bring in the crowds and bring the talking heads to light.

Ooo, ooo, I know!! I could write it!

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

Oh dear. Someone please send me back to writing my little policy treatise on how to make the US Federal Government more efficient. Eeek.

Wishful thinking is the downfall of good scholarship.

Right now I'm reading Czeslaw Milosz's "Native Realm." He says we live in a "culture of suspicion," where we are taught to believe that nothing is as it seems, that there are things hidden from us that must be found out. This is the legacy of Freud and Nietzsche and Marx. I recommend anything by him.

They don't give out Nobel prizes for nuthin'.

If you buy that version.

You understand that not all do, right?

For those that don't, another fictional story can be just as plausible, if not much more so.

WAT

NT
No offense taken !

GB is now a wholly secularly-governed country, along with Germany, France, the Nordics, the netherlands, Switzerland and Austria.

Religious faith is barely tolerated, sometimes openly mocked, yet even the most weird conspiracy theories are eagerly swallowed down.

DVC is a conspiracy theory AND anti-religious, so its great fodder for the arrogant humanists of the emerging new Europe.

I expect a secular search for the ark of the covenant next. Really.

Yo bOb - what's more arrogant - belief that you're no better and have no more right to be here than a cockroach, or belief that you're the chosen ones of the universe?

I have no intention of debating this, just wanted to provide another perspective.

When's your vacation?

WAT

WAT, my two words were deliberately linked to qualify a section of european humanists, not to infer all humanists are arrogant.

I despise arrogance in faith be it religious or agnostic.

There is a particularly evangelical branch of humanists, almost neo-pagans in fact who sit in high office in Europe, centered in France. A real cabal.

Its those, and only those that my comment was directed at.

I spent the first 27 years of my life as a rationalist WAT, I have no axe to grind, honestly !

Re holiday we go at Christmas to petit Bacaye on Grenada on 17th December. Ordered a room with a fridge for bait and beer. Don't need anything else ! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm booking us an Island hopping holiday in Greece for August sometime this week <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> hyuk !

And what else is a frig for?

Good bait in Grenada - chicken skin. Guaranteed.

WAT

And imagination is the heart of a good story.

And beer leads to heroin.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
WAT

Not GOOD beer, WAT!

When a man finds "his" beer, there's no need 2 move on 2 more harmful things!

Stone beers for ol' 2long!

-ol' 2long <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

My SIL's family is Welsh. His dad sent over some Bishop's Finger, among other nice ales. But that one is tasty! Wish I could find it here in SoCal.

-ol' 2long

Hmmmmmmm. Sounds a bit scary.

Where's that finger been?

In Provo last summer I tried some Polygamy Porter. "Take some home for the wives." - and, "When you're having more than one." Funny. Beer was just OK.

WAT

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.