1st Test Quiz Questions To Comparative Religious Studies 101

[crazyhorse1]

I agree with virtually everything you've written here. So, where do we differ?

We differ in that I maintain that there is nothing wrong with scholar and historical research to be conducted which may or may not support the fundamental premises on which the Christian faith is supported. You, on the other hand, give equal credit to a rag that is not only not supported by scholar and historical research to attempt find the TRUTH but it is a deliberate distortion of reality based on fiction with the explicit objective to profit economically.

It also does not matter that Dan Brown speculates that Jesus was married. It's still more likely he was married than that he rose from the dead.

Not as the son of God. And only if speculation and sensationalism is what you are after.

Note: I didn't say he didn't rise from the dead. Considering the world of physics, as we know it today, he might have done both in one reality, neither in another.

Actually, -reality- is one and the same in physics. If -space-time dimensions- or -probabilities- in those dimennsions are the words you are after, that would be quite a different proposition which do not exclude Aristotelian logic and Newtonian physics.

I'm sixty three. These matters seem less interesting the older I get. I don't know why. Maybe because I'll find out for sure soon enough, or maybe I won't.

Advanced age often may bring one of the following two choices:

a) wisdom; or
b) cynicism.

And often both.

By the way, no artifact has ever been found that has supported the divinity of Christ. You could find the robe, the cave, the spear, the crown, the log book of executions, a first-hand account signed by a hundred witnesses and you would still have nothing.

Oh but that is not true. I have two thousand years of Christianity. I have two thousand years of VALUES backing up not only the relevance of the Bible but the work of God and the foundation of an entire civilization.

You know this. And you and both know old myths contain facts that are revelatory of historical periods; it's a bit over the top to claim as much for them as you have in you response.

Oh! the Power of Myth to explain and answer Who? instead of What? I will argue the opposite and suspect that the name Joseph Campbellmay man something to you. And this is central to my argument. The medium is the message. That is why the Bible is so important even if you are not a believer.

Incidently, I was raised a Christian and attend Christian churches; I don't accept the NT literally but embrace the teachings of Christ, which form the core of my valvues, political and otherwise. I won an award as a Christian writer a few years backs and if you've followed my posts here you know that I am anti-war with Iraq, anti-corruption in government, anti-death penalty and abortion, anti-tax breaks for the wealthy, pro union, pro health care, pro most social programs for the poor, hate lying in government, pro-law, pro-honoring geneva conventions, etc.

Well, if this is all true, it is nothing short of amazing that the deliberate distortion of beliefs for profit do not offend you. This debate is about a book fundamentally flawed from the most important ethical perspective.

One thing is the creation of different scholar interpretations and even a different serious historical reconstruction of facts on which the Christian faith is supported. And quite another it is the deliberate distortion of those beliefs based on fiction articulated for profit alone.

It's been a while since I read the book, what Christian beliefs are distorted? I know that Brown believes Christ was married and the church was anti-woman, but see these things as ideas, not distortions. Also, it's a bit harsh to say Brown wrote the book just for money. I believe he thinks he's created a fine book expressing an important finding. Also, do you imagine the writers of the Bible weren't paid for their work? What is your source for that?

[crazyhorse1]

Dear RIC:

You've said I'm trying to create a air of speculation and sensationialism when I say it's more likely Christ was married then that he rose from the dead.

My friend, secret marriages are common and speculating Christ was married is no big deal; saying he rose from the dead is incredible...a flat-out miracle. It's you who are being sensationial. That's about the wildest thing you could possibly say and becomes even wilder when you say that he took all of mankind's sin upon himself on the cross and became the Savior of man and part of the trinity.

[Redskin in Canada]

I believe he thinks he's created a fine book expressing an important finding.

And this is the point of disagreement. The "finding" has been documented to be fiction by all accounts.

[Redskin in Canada]

You've said I'm trying to create a air of speculation and sensationialism when I say it's more likely Christ was married then that he rose from the dead.

No, I did not say you are trying to create an air of sensasionalism and speculation. He did. I said that if that is which you are after you succeeded.

My friend, secret marriages are common and speculating Christ was married is no big deal; saying he rose from the dead is incredible...a flat-out miracle.

You can speculate -all- you wish. It is when a speculation is presented as fact that we have problems.

And the Resurrection of Christ is one of the most important mysteries of faith. One that requires a lot more depth and space than it is required on a Redskins board.

Paradoxically, we Christians see with sadness the failure by some of you to celebrate our redemption. And to be fair, I would understand perfectly the sadness among the followers of other religions if they thought that we Christians fail to see and understand one of the most important elements of their faith through Divine Intervention.

Yes, many elements of the Christian tradition are based on faith. Whenever some of these accounts, which are not elements involved in a parabolae, have been investigated, they reveal the truth of our beliefs.

[Redskin in Canada]

That is so incredibly hypocritical. Christians everywhere support all kinds of fiction and conjecture around the stories in the Bible as long as they support their own world view.

If anybody wanted to take the debate at a lower level, you may have succeeded.

And your biggest contribution to this discussion are a couple of quotes from Jefferson? Let me help you. The history of materialist philosophers and anti-Christian writers is far longer. It goes back to ancient Greek times and runs through many scholars up to the XX century. The least you can do is to bring a few references to their work. Some of it is based on a genuine search for the truth in Christian texts.

But considering the level of the argument tabled, this is probably too much to ask. Go and ask your friends at the nearest Lodge to give you a crash course.

[cvillehog]

That is so incredibly hypocritical. Christians everywhere support all kinds of fiction and conjecture around the stories in the Bible as long as they support their own world view.

If anybody wanted to take the debate at a lower level, you may have succeeded.

And your biggest contribution to this discussion are a couple of quotes from Jefferson? Let me help you. The history of materialist philosophers and anti-Christian writers is far longer. It goes back to ancient Greek times and runs through many scholars up to the XX century. The least you can do is to bring a few references to their work. Some of it is based on a genuine search for the truth in Christian texts.

But considering the level of the argument tabled, this is probably too much to ask. Go and ask your friends at the nearest Lodge to give you a crash course.

Who is taking things to a lower level? I'm very disapointed in this post of yours. It is a low-brow personal attack and does nothing to further the discussion. There is an entire industry built arouund religious literature and film -- with books and movies that create fictionalized accounts of Biblical stories or extend the myths in the Bible in other ways. The only time Christians get mad is when an "unauthorized" fictionalization comes around like DaVinci Code or The Life of Brian or some other such work. It's one thing to say you think DaVinci Code makes your religion look bad, it's quite another to say you object on the fundamental level that no fictional stories can be created around the Bible myth.

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

The past two pages have been an interesting read. Some highs, some lows, but, overall, some good discussion.

However, one of the things that really sticks out amidst the talk about "speculation" and "ridiculous" miracles of Christ, and that is the notion that it is okay to write a book and turn a profit on something that attacks the foundation of the faith of so many people.

I seriously think this highlights the Anti-Christian world view that grows daily. It's hardly unexpected, as it is part of end-time prophecy, but it's really interesting to witness this first-hand.

Should we as Christians not "have a cow" over this type of "fiction" that attacks our faith an creates an environment that belittles our beliefs and values?

I wonder if a fiction novel written in similar vein about Islam would get the same widespread publicity and/or be allowed to make so much money.

Didn't a world war nearly begin over a few editorial cartoons re: Islam not too long ago? I didn't hear too many people saying "what's the big deal" about THAT situation.

Why can't we be extended the same courtesy?

[UK Skins Fan]

Redskin in Canada wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:
Well, RiC, I follow your point. However, in the context of this thread it most certainly does matter. The argument here is not about the values that can be imparted by religion, but the historical voracity of the bible's claim that Christ was the son of God, etc etc etc. I still fail to see why such a conclusion would be reached from reading a book.

First, I am sure you mean veracity as opposed to voracity (a typographic error, no doubt).

Oops. Damn those vowels.

[NikiH]

That is the attitude RIC that makes everyone on this board feel as if you are looking down your nose at us. The man misspelled a word. The intention was obviously conveyed or you would not have further responded to his post.

I refuse to jump into this arguement as I've already stated how I feel and I am a person capable of logic and research. I will say that the bickering is a bit ridiculous. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about this issue.

[UK Skins Fan]

The past two pages have been an interesting read. Some highs, some lows, but, overall, some good discussion.

However, one of the things that really sticks out amidst the talk about "speculation" and "ridiculous" miracles of Christ, and that is the notion that it is okay to write a book and turn a profit on something that attacks the foundation of the faith of so many people.

I seriously think this highlights the Anti-Christian world view that grows daily. It's hardly unexpected, as it is part of end-time prophecy, but it's really interesting to witness this first-hand.

Should we as Christians not "have a cow" over this type of "fiction" that attacks our faith an creates an environment that belittles our beliefs and values?

I wonder if a fiction novel written in similar vein about Islam would get the same widespread publicity and/or be allowed to make so much money.

Didn't a world war nearly begin over a few editorial cartoons re: Islam not too long ago? I didn't hear too many people saying "what's the big deal" about THAT situation.

Why can't we be extended the same courtesy?

Satanic Verses, anybody? Perhaps, a few hundred years ago, a Pope might have pronounced a death sentence on Mr Brown? Of course, it could be argued that the Ayatolla pronounced the death sentence on Salman Rushdie for political reasons rather than religious. One wonders whether George W would pronounce a death sentence on Dan Brown if there was political capital in it. I'll leave Crazyhorse to deal with that one!

As for the cartoons about the prophet, there were plenty of people over this side of the Atlantic, from whom the first response was "big deal". I'd say it was the silent majority, including me.

[cvillehog]

The past two pages have been an interesting read. Some highs, some lows, but, overall, some good discussion.

However, one of the things that really sticks out amidst the talk about "speculation" and "ridiculous" miracles of Christ, and that is the notion that it is okay to write a book and turn a profit on something that attacks the foundation of the faith of so many people.

I seriously think this highlights the Anti-Christian world view that grows daily. It's hardly unexpected, as it is part of end-time prophecy, but it's really interesting to witness this first-hand.

Should we as Christians not "have a cow" over this type of "fiction" that attacks our faith an creates an environment that belittles our beliefs and values?

I wonder if a fiction novel written in similar vein about Islam would get the same widespread publicity and/or be allowed to make so much money.

Didn't a world war nearly begin over a few editorial cartoons re: Islam not too long ago? I didn't hear too many people saying "what's the big deal" about THAT situation.

Why can't we be extended the same courtesy?

I think you are cherry-picking reactions, here.

[redskins12287]

The past two pages have been an interesting read. Some highs, some lows, but, overall, some good discussion.

However, one of the things that really sticks out amidst the talk about "speculation" and "ridiculous" miracles of Christ, and that is the notion that it is okay to write a book and turn a profit on something that attacks the foundation of the faith of so many people.

I seriously think this highlights the Anti-Christian world view that grows daily. It's hardly unexpected, as it is part of end-time prophecy, but it's really interesting to witness this first-hand.

Should we as Christians not "have a cow" over this type of "fiction" that attacks our faith an creates an environment that belittles our beliefs and values?

I wonder if a fiction novel written in similar vein about Islam would get the same widespread publicity and/or be allowed to make so much money.

Didn't a world war nearly begin over a few editorial cartoons re: Islam not too long ago? I didn't hear too many people saying "what's the big deal" about THAT situation.

Why can't we be extended the same courtesy?

I for one, thinks this is a very good point.

Not to say that writers or anyone else for that matter should not be able to freely express their ideas and views, even if it does make a mockery of the Christian faith, but it would be interseting to see what would happen if say a similar book were to come out but directed at Islam.

My firends and I were talking last night about how this is what the American church considers persecution, and how foolish that is when you think about it. Peter, Paul, etc. were in and out of prison, their lives contantly threatened for proclaimng the gospel. In China, missionaries are trained how to flee a place, to jump from buildings, windows. And the American church considers a work of fiction persecution!

[Deadskins]

The past two pages have been an interesting read. Some highs, some lows, but, overall, some good discussion.

However, one of the things that really sticks out amidst the talk about "speculation" and "ridiculous" miracles of Christ, and that is the notion that it is okay to write a book and turn a profit on something that attacks the foundation of the faith of so many people.

I seriously think this highlights the Anti-Christian world view that grows daily. It's hardly unexpected, as it is part of end-time prophecy, but it's really interesting to witness this first-hand.

Should we as Christians not "have a cow" over this type of "fiction" that attacks our faith an creates an environment that belittles our beliefs and values?

I wonder if a fiction novel written in similar vein about Islam would get the same widespread publicity and/or be allowed to make so much money.

Didn't a world war nearly begin over a few editorial cartoons re: Islam not too long ago? I didn't hear too many people saying "what's the big deal" about THAT situation.

Why can't we be extended the same courtesy?

I'm sorry, Red, can you tell me how the DaVinci code attacks your faith or creates an environment that belittles your beliefs and values?

All he says in the book is that Christ was married, as any Jewish man of his age would have been at this time. Further, he makes the leap that Christ had children, and that the line of his ancestry has been protected by a secret organization of which, DaVinci, and many other historically famous people, was the leader. His claim is that the Roman Catholic Church has been covering up this "fact" for centuries. Nowhere does he say that Christ was not the Messiah, or that His teachings are false. In fact, the book would actually reinforce those ideas, if anything. So I ask again, how can this rock your faith? Are you even a Roman Catholic? I am guessing not, based only on your born-again status. Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation to address the departure of the RC church from Christ's teachings. This book may be an attack on the RC church, but it is certainly not an attack on Christianity.

Personally, I did not even respond to the poll in this thread, because there was no "Why would this book shake my faith? It has nothing to do with my faith in God, and is only about man corrupting God's message for his own personal gain/power." selection.

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

I'm sorry, Red, can you tell me how the DaVinci code attacks your faith or creates an environment that belittles your beliefs and values?

40+ million copies of the book sold.

Second largest movie opening since Star Wars: Ep. III.

Let's say 20% of the people who either read the book or watched the movie are completely turned off from the Christian faith or belief in God at all.

That's at least 2 million people that are shut off from ever hearing the gospel and the true accounts of Jesus Christ.

That's pretty alarming to me and other believers around the world.

Believe what you may about The Gospel, religion, et. al., but, you've had your chance to hear the Gospel and make your decision. What about those who will not have a chance to hear it, on account of their minds being infected by something that tells 'em it's not true?

[Deadskins]

Nowhere does he say that Christ was not the Messiah, or that His teachings are false. In fact, the book would actually reinforce those ideas, if anything. So I ask again, how can this rock your faith? Are you even a Roman Catholic? I am guessing not, based only on your born-again status. Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation to address the departure of the RC church from Christ's teachings. This book may be an attack on the RC church, but it is certainly not an attack on Christianity.

40+ million copies of the book sold.

Second largest movie opening since Star Wars: Ep. III.

Let's say 20% of the people who either read the book or watched the movie are completely turned off from the Christian faith or belief in God at all.

That's at least 2 million people that are shut off from ever hearing the gospel and the true accounts of Jesus Christ.

That's pretty alarming to me and other believers around the world.

Believe what you may about The Gospel, religion, et. al., but, you've had your chance to hear the Gospel and make your decision. What about those who will not have a chance to hear it, on account of their minds being infected by something that tells 'em it's not true?

I contest your perception that the book, or movie, would turn people off from religion since it takes as it's premise that Jesus was the son of God and that his line is still alive today, and that the second coming will be one of his ancestors. How can that be anti-Christian? Have you read the book, or are you basing your views about it based on what you have been told by others?



P.S. I can pull numbers out of my butt, too. I say 99.9% of people who would denounce this book as anti-Christian, haven't read the book, or are basing their views around some ulterior motive.

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

Nowhere does he say that Christ was not the Messiah, or that His teachings are false. In fact, the book would actually reinforce those ideas, if anything. So I ask again, how can this rock your faith? Are you even a Roman Catholic? I am guessing not, based only on your born-again status. Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation to address the departure of the RC church from Christ's teachings. This book may be an attack on the RC church, but it is certainly not an attack on Christianity.

40+ million copies of the book sold.

Second largest movie opening since Star Wars: Ep. III.

Let's say 20% of the people who either read the book or watched the movie are completely turned off from the Christian faith or belief in God at all.

That's at least 2 million people that are shut off from ever hearing the gospel and the true accounts of Jesus Christ.

That's pretty alarming to me and other believers around the world.

Believe what you may about The Gospel, religion, et. al., but, you've had your chance to hear the Gospel and make your decision. What about those who will not have a chance to hear it, on account of their minds being infected by something that tells 'em it's not true?

I contest your perception that the book, or movie, would turn people off from religion since it takes as it's premise that Jesus was the son of God and that his line is still alive today, and that the second coming will be one of his ancestors. How can that be anti-Christian? Have you read the book, or are you basing your views about it based on what you have been told by others?

You seriously want me to believe that the book/movie is Pro-Christianity?

[Deadskins]

Nowhere does he say that Christ was not the Messiah, or that His teachings are false. In fact, the book would actually reinforce those ideas, if anything. So I ask again, how can this rock your faith? Are you even a Roman Catholic? I am guessing not, based only on your born-again status. Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation to address the departure of the RC church from Christ's teachings. This book may be an attack on the RC church, but it is certainly not an attack on Christianity.

40+ million copies of the book sold.

Second largest movie opening since Star Wars: Ep. III.

Let's say 20% of the people who either read the book or watched the movie are completely turned off from the Christian faith or belief in God at all.

That's at least 2 million people that are shut off from ever hearing the gospel and the true accounts of Jesus Christ.

That's pretty alarming to me and other believers around the world.

Believe what you may about The Gospel, religion, et. al., but, you've had your chance to hear the Gospel and make your decision. What about those who will not have a chance to hear it, on account of their minds being infected by something that tells 'em it's not true?

I contest your perception that the book, or movie, would turn people off from religion since it takes as it's premise that Jesus was the son of God and that his line is still alive today, and that the second coming will be one of his ancestors. How can that be anti-Christian? Have you read the book, or are you basing your views about it based on what you have been told by others?

You seriously want me to believe that the book/movie is Pro-Christianity?

I do. Please point out to me how it is not?

[Redskin in Canada]

That is the attitude RIC that makes everyone on this board feel as if you are looking down your nose at us. The man misspelled a word. The intention was obviously conveyed or you would not have further responded to his post.

1) I do not think I sent a signal to put the UK Skins Fan post or himself down because he misspelled one word.

But most importantly,

2) I do not feel that the poster at which the response was aimed at ever had the feeling that I was trying to put him down.

But if he did, I would be more than willing to stand to be corrected by him. In fact, I invite a response in this regard.

Why do you have to resort to the "being looked down upon" argument every time you feel thratened with an opinion different than your own? I am convinced that you are a self-assured person who does not need to remind everybody that each person is entitled to its own opinion, because that goes without saying.

I know you are frustrated in view of some of our recent discussions. I can understand that. But do not make an allegation about a post with a misspelled word that was not sent or received at the two ends of the message with no relation to that derogatory interpretation.

In fact, if you really wanted to pick a post that had a better chance to make your point, you could have picked other posts where I challenged other posters to raise the intellectual substance of their posts.

Make no mistake about it: Better informed, better documented and better thought out arguments carry more weight and respect in my book -even- if I may disagree with their substance.

[NikiH]

I have had this argument already. And this was more about the demeanor in which you carry yourself then the actual arguement itself.

I do not have time to read each and every thread that people create in the off season to kill time. I know how I feel and I also know that religion and the choice to believe in one or not is not one that should be based upon back and forth bickering on a message board.

I am not going to take an hour to present you with reasons why your responses are condescending.

[Redskin in Canada]

I am not going to take an hour to present you with reasons why your responses are condescending.

Thank you very much. I guess we will take your word on pure FAITH alone from now on.

[Deadskins]

Can we get back on topic now? RiC and NikiH, care to comment on the discussion Redeemed and I were having?

[Redskin in Canada]

Can we get back on topic now? RiC and NikiH, care to comment on the discussion Redeemed and I were having?

The temptation to target the poster rather than his/her posts is irresistible sometimes. Exchanges can become personal as opposed to an exchange of ideas. The issue at hand involves beliefs that are obviously close to the heart of more than one poster. So, it is obvious that emotions might be strong even if this is an issue that could and should be addressed from a cool headed perspective.

If the question is:

Does this book represent an assault on the Christian faith?

The answer is in my view not at all. The book lacks any real substance or research to be considered a threat in doctrinal terms.

If, on the other hand, the question is:

Does this book represent a libel and an insult to Christians?

The answer is in my view definitely yes.

It should not be surprising then that the followers of any one religion that it is the subject of irreverent allegations treat them as such. This is not peculiar to any one religion. The response could be equally expected from the followers of ALL of them. In fact, even if a person feels that a newspaper or a magazine is distorting the truth, or its reputation is being mistreated. has every right to demand a correction of the record under the laws of most countries.

Do books like this rag contribute to the establishment of a constructive dialogue between believers and non-believers? Do books like this are written with an aim of true scholarly discovery? Do books like this one contribute to gain a greater understanding of the historical accounts surrounding all the relevant events in Christianity?

The answers are simply: NO, NO and NO.

It should not be surprising then that this book generates an environment of confrontation and resentment on all sides.

[UK Skins Fan]

Redskin in Canada wrote:

1) I do not think I sent a signal to put the UK Skins Fan post or himself down because he misspelled one word.

But most importantly,

2) I do not feel that the poster at which the response was aimed at ever had the feeling that I was trying to put him down.

But if he did, I would be more than willing to stand to be corrected by him. In fact, I invite a response in this regard.

Oh, I had typed a long and meaningful answer to this, and then decided to delete it and provide the concise version:
RiC (and any other poster on this site); if I ever feel that I've been hit with a cheapshot, or that somebody is being an arsehole in my general direction, I'll let people know. On this occasion, I chose to open a dictionary, and ensure that I knew the meaning of voracity, since I'd already displayed an ability to spell it (albeit accidentally).

[Deadskins]

Does this book represent a libel and an insult to Christians?

The answer is in my view definitely yes.

How so? I'm not definitely disagreeing, I just want to hear your explanation of this comment. In my opinion, this openly acknowledged work of FICTION, only attacks those in the highest echelons of the Roman Catholic church, in particular, the Popes from the Middle Ages. This has nothing to do with your average Christian, or Christianity in general.

[NikiH]

I was not attacking anyone. I was merely pointing out the 'post' was made in a belittling manner.

I actually have posted a bit in this thread JSP. I've gone down the same road with Redeemed that you are heading and believe me when I say he has blind faith and he will not listen to reason or logic. I do no share his view on the bible or biblical history and I have done my own research to come up with my own answers as to what happened to cause someone to edit actual history.

The Catholic Church benefited long ago from excluding women in a equal or dominant role in religious history. The church, much like society at the time required that a women be uneducated and beneath her spouse. It also benefited from the idea of stable marriage and union of man and women. The book (the bible) was edited to keep the majority of those that chose to follow it in line. It does it's job, to this day.

I can tell you that if you need a book to tell you not to rob, murder, or maim then you have issues way beyond a simple movie. I have a conscience and as such know right from wrong. I do not believe that what binds me to my husband is the piece of paper issued by the government and approved by various religious groups. My emotions and my history tie me to him and him to me.

Like everything that is motivated by money and power the Catholic religion is, in my opinion, corrupt. As is any religious deriviative of it. Money makes the world go around and people like Redeemed go put their money in the collection plate every month for fellowship and guidance. I am not in need of either of those services and when I am, I turn to someone whom I know more then just sharing the same reading preferences with them.

No disrespect is intended to anyone here. I actually have a lot of respect for Redeemed to fight this battle that not many bother with on these boards. I also respect that he believes enough to be a faithful church goer. I, however, do not believe what he believes and though that makes me different it does NOT make me better.