1st Test Quiz Questions To Comparative Religious Studies 101

[Redskin in Canada]

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

And this was more about the demeanor in which you carry yourself then the actual arguement itself.

[redskins12287]

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.

What kind of research did you do? You made a similar statement about doing research and then decidning for yourself, or something like that earlier in this thread, and I asked you to explain this and you never did. I am again. If you want to talk about women's roles in the church, read the book of acts and of the early chruches, please don't base your view of christianity on something the catholic church did long ago.

[Redskin in Canada]

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.

How so? Because, actually, this is an inaccurate and incomplete portrayal of the main arguments presented in this book.

Please see some of the links provided in some of my posts made earlier in this thread on the research conducted by 60 minutes, CNN and other non-Christian and Christian sources documenting the falacies relating to the life of Jesus, the creation of criminal Christian orders, and on and on.

No, this is not only about fiction on "highest echelons" of the Roman Catholic Church. It is much broader than that.

[NikiH]

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... vinci+code

That explains a lot. That was during my reading process and since I've researched more into a lot of the referenced materials.

[Deadskins]

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.

How so? Because, actually, this is an inaccurate and incomplete portrayal of the main arguments presented in this book.

There are no "arguments" presented by the book. It is a work of FICTION. That is my point. I also stated that this was my opinion after having read the book. You said that, in your opinion, it "represents a libel and an insult to Christians." As a Christian, I disagree. I wanted you to make your argument to the contrary. I confess that I didn't feel like wading through the entire thread, so if you think you have already made this argument effectively, please provide me a link.

[Redskin in Canada]

There are no "arguments" presented by the book. It is a work of FICTION. That is my point.

Point taken.

The question arises now as to whether could FICTION alone be interpreted by some as a form of insult? My answer to this is yes. The National Enquirer makes a handsome living doing so on a regular basis. But I would also be satisfied with a response that such works of FICTION do not even deserve to be taken that seriously.

Point taken again.

[cvillehog]

By the way, I went and saw this movie last night, and I can tell you that, from my perspective, the movie comes off pro-Christian, not anti-Christian. The two main characters start off seemingly atheistic (though they don't really come out and say it), and in the end re-evaluate their faith. It may not prescribe to the theological views of most Christians, but I don't think lines like (bit of a paraphrase here) "would the true decendent of Jesus use that knowlege to destroy the church, or to help humanity." (Something like that.)

[Deadskins]

There are no "arguments" presented by the book. It is a work of FICTION. That is my point.

Point taken.

The question arises now as to whether could FICTION alone be interpreted by some as a form of insult? My answer to this is yes. The National Enquirer makes a handsome living doing so on a regular basis. But I would also be satisfied with a response that such works of FICTION do not even deserve to be taken that seriously.

Point taken again.

See, I just can't let it go at that. Mainly since you said to NikiH:

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.

I want you to back up your statement that this book/movie "represents a libel and an insult to Christians."


You also said that my portrayal of the book as being about a conspiracy in the upper echelons of the Roman Catholic church to hide the "fact" that Jesus not only had a wife, but has a line of descendants that are still alive today, was "an inaccurate and incomplete portrayal of the main arguments presented in this book."
The author plainly states in the foreword to the book that it is a work of fiction. The National Enquirer does not present itself as fiction, no matter your perceptions of the veracity of its contents (A perception I happen to share!).
Specifically, I want to know where you think I was inaccurate or incomplete. Or did your "point taken" comment denote that you no longer considered this to be the case?

[Redskin in Canada]

Do not take my word for it. See, for example:

One of those alleged facts is featured prominently at the beginning of "The Da Vinci Code." On a page headed "Fact," Dan Brown says that the Priory of Sion, which is central to the secret at the heart of his book, is a real organization. He says that at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris — the French National Library — you can find proof that it was founded in Jerusalem at the time of the Crusades. That proof is in some documents known as the Dossiers Secrets or Secret Files.

and

Brown's opening page begins with the word "FACT" and asserts that all descriptions of documents "are accurate."

"It's a book about big ideas, you can love them or you can hate them," Brown said in a speech last week. "But we're all talking about them, and that's really the point."

[NikiH]

The story line is FICTION! The theories in the book are however, based on facts represented in historical literature similar to the bible! If you researched this on the internet or any where else you could find supporting literature for either side, like every other topic under the sun. The choice is yours to make.

The funny thing about this arguement is that I had the same arguement with Daniel (FFA) and we did not agree completely on the subject, as a matter of fact his believes are complete opposites of mine, yet we managed to have a civil conversation regarding this same topic.

[Deadskins]

Do not take my word for it. See, for example:

One of those alleged facts is featured prominently at the beginning of "The Da Vinci Code." On a page headed "Fact," Dan Brown says that the Priory of Sion, which is central to the secret at the heart of his book, is a real organization. He says that at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris — the French National Library — you can find proof that it was founded in Jerusalem at the time of the Crusades. That proof is in some documents known as the Dossiers Secrets or Secret Files.

and

Brown's opening page begins with the word "FACT" and asserts that all descriptions of documents "are accurate."

"It's a book about big ideas, you can love them or you can hate them," Brown said in a speech last week. "But we're all talking about them, and that's really the point."

Absolutely! He also states that all the characters and events in his book are totally fictional. This is what is known as historical fiction. The author uses real people or events in history, and makes up the details to tell a story.
Personally, I liked the book at the start, but found it tedious at the end, and just wanted to get through it. That still doesn't change the fact that nowhere does Dan Brown attack Christianity, or Christians in general, with this book. In fact, as I have pointed out before, the book takes as a given that Jesus was the son of God, and goes from there. This is not only not anti-Christian, it is totally pro-Christian, by its very premise.



And don't think I didn't notice that you still have not backed up your previous comments.

[redskins12287]

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8488&highlight=da+vinci+code

That explains a lot. That was during my reading process and since I've researched more into a lot of the referenced materials.

I'm really not intersted enough to read through 6 pages of messages to pick out yours and the ones where you explain your research.

[NikiH]

Sorry. Basically if you read the book, he references several different books. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the book referring to the witch hunts, paintings and other things. I never just let the facts go as facts, I instead found them for myself and made sure they were FACT.

[ii7-V7]

Sorry. Basically if you read the book, he references several different books. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the book referring to the witch hunts, paintings and other things. I never just let the facts go as facts, I instead found them for myself and made sure they were FACT.

Whoa! Are you sure....check out the Priory of Sion "fact" again....if you keep chasing it down you find a gentleman who was insane and simply falsified a list of members to include people like Leonardo Da Vinci....So this FACT....is in truth FALSE. He created the Organization about 50 years ago along with its history and membership. Because I am interested in what you found I would love for you to cite these resources that you found.

Niki, you can find references to the documents that he cites but have you actually read them yourself? Do you know the context? Do you know who the authors are? Are they credible? Just because a document exists doesn't make it reputable, or verifiable.

And JSPB22 the DaVinci Code is not pro-christian. If what it asserts were true then everything that Christ said was false. You can't have it both ways...in other words Dan Brown can't assume that Christ was the Son of God and then make him a liar in the same message. Also, having a murderous Monk is a pretty blatant attack on Christians....not to mention the slander of Opus Die which is a completely benign and incredibly charitous organization.

Dan Brown states that his book is fiction...and then on the otherhand opens the book up with the word, "FACT." The only reason that he casts this book as fiction is because he knows that he can't prove his assertions. He "asserts that all descriptions of documents are accurate." What does that mean? Does it mean that you can find "reference" to an organization konwn as the Priory of Sion in a French Library..or does it mean that you can find "proof." There is a big difference. And while the Priory of Sion is mentioned in a French document it is later discovered to be a work of fiction by a man who was insane, who fabricated it out of his imagination. So what does Dan Brown want you to believe? I recognize this as my bias, but I fully believe that he wants to cast doubt upon the whole of the christian world and culture....not that he intends to have an open discussion...if that were the case he would easily admit that the facts that he presents are as frail as a snowflake.

Chad

[NikiH]

Just because a document exists doesn't make it reputable, or verifiable.

AHHHHHH Exactly.

I've read what I could on all of the documents. Some have been unavailable but I read some information on the Witches Hammer I believe it's called and on the Pagan religion. The Pagan religion was NOT some crazy folks. It was just competition for the Christian/Catholic faith. Nothing I've read has shown pagan believes to be what they have been represented as for years.

Again read the other thread, it tells you a bit about what I've researched. I'm not retyping the entire debate that FFA and I had.

[ii7-V7]

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.

Niki, the Bible is not about "doing right." If thats what you take out of it then you have missed the entire point. The bible is meant to show us that mans "doing right" is never a successful venture...that we are inherently flawed and often drawn to doing what is wrong. The Bible does not teach that one should "live right" it teaches one to rely on grace, and faith.

While I'm not going to sit here and try to defend the church throughout its entire history, the assertion that you make above regarding the bible being edited is pretty heavyhanded...and if you want to claim that the bible was "edited" to keep its followers in line, thats fine, but I'm certainly not taking that seriously until you find something to support your assertion. In fact the Dead Sea Scrolls give pretty convincing evidence to the contrary.

The Church and Christians in general have done horrible things in the name of Christ. Several Christians still do, i.e. the Westborough Baptist Church. The shame is that God and Christ get saddled with what some of thier dumb follwers have done. I find it strange that people rarely mention the incredible benefits that the church has created for us. No one brings up that it was the clergy who first educated, and advocated for the use of science...it was the church who fought for womens rights, it was the church who brought incredible music and art to our lives.....that people seem to forget.

[ii7-V7]

Just because a document exists doesn't make it reputable, or verifiable.

AHHHHHH Exactly.

I've read what I could on all of the documents. Some have been unavailable but I read some information on the Witches Hammer I believe it's called and on the Pagan religion. The Pagan religion was NOT some crazy folks. It was just competition for the Christian/Catholic faith. Nothing I've read has shown pagan believes to be what they have been represented as for years.

Again read the other thread, it tells you a bit about what I've researched. I'm not retyping the entire debate that FFA and I had.

I did read the other thread...my memory of it is that you said you read some stuff......OK< I just re-read the other thread...the only precise things that you mention oar ethe DC itself and Malleus Maleficarum.

[Deadskins]

And JSPB22 the DaVinci Code is not pro-christian. If what it asserts were true then everything that Christ said was false. You can't have it both ways...in other words Dan Brown can't assume that Christ was the Son of God and then make him a liar in the same message. Also, having a murderous Monk is a pretty blatant attack on Christians....not to mention the slander of Opus Die which is a completely benign and incredibly charitous organization.

No, having a murderous monk is not an attack on Christians. He is a character in a fictional story. How am I trying to have it both ways? Where does Dan Brown make Christ a liar in this book? How do you arrive at the conclusion that "If what it asserts were true then everything that Christ said was false."? To my knowledge, Christ never spoke about what the Roman Catholic church would do a thousand to two thousand years after His resurrection.

[ii7-V7]

And JSPB22 the DaVinci Code is not pro-christian. If what it asserts were true then everything that Christ said was false. You can't have it both ways...in other words Dan Brown can't assume that Christ was the Son of God and then make him a liar in the same message. Also, having a murderous Monk is a pretty blatant attack on Christians....not to mention the slander of Opus Die which is a completely benign and incredibly charitous organization.

No, having a murderous monk is not an attack on Christians. He is a character in a fictional story. How am I trying to have it both ways? Where does Dan Brown make Christ a liar in this book? How do you arrive at the conclusion that "If what it asserts were true then everything that Christ said was false."?

OK, I can concede your assertion that a fictional character is not neccesarily an attack on the faith, but what about the mis-characterization of Opus Dei?

Christ was not married....so, if he therefore had a child with Mary M. then it was a sin thereby completely nullifying the power of the crucifixion...Jesus did indeed claim to be Christ. The Dan Brown would have you believe that Christ was only considered to be unmarried by second century priests, just as he would have you believe that they also invented the virginity of Mary....But the bible prophecy in Isaiah states that Jesus would be born ot a virgin...

Isa 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

While 1st Timothy doens't come right out and say that Christ was unmarried it is often cited as evidence, for it states that those who are unmarried are considered closer to Christ and following in his image. When Christ returns in Mark 16:9 he sees Mary first....it states...

Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Notice it states "out of whom he cast seven devils...not "to whom he was married." Not only that if Christ returned and sought to find a credible witness then the person to whom he was married would have been a poor choice. When Mary sees Jesus she calls him Lord, and Rabboni....not husband....Christ did claim to be God incarnate....and free of sin.....he was not an ordinary man, a married man, or a carnal father of anyone....this is the rub. Christ cannot be a carnal married man and the Christ. This is why you can't say that the book is pro-christianity.

Chad

[ii7-V7]

While I recognize its bias this site does a good job of laying out the inaccuracy of the assertions of Dan Brown.

http://www.souldevice.org/crit_davinci_code.html

He is a pretty unbiased source:
http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/es ... print.html

And by the way, Opus Dei is about as un-secret as it gets!

heres a fun one....

Preliminary Note: Pierre Plantard spent his whole life claiming to be the ‘eminence grise’ of the esoteric world, when in fact he was only a mere "odd-job man" with a Criminal Record – who had spent time in prison during the 1950s – and who had fabricated a ‘connection’ between himself and the bogus Gisors and Rennes-le-Château ‘mysteries’ until 1993, when the perquisition of his house by Judge Thierry Jean-Pierre was responsible for the permanent cessation of his activities relating to his imaginary ‘Priory of Sion’.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041110043514/http://smithpp0.tripod.com/psp/id22.html

[cvillehog]

While I recognize its bias this site does a good job of laying out the inaccuracy of the assertions of Dan Brown.

http://www.souldevice.org/crit_davinci_code.html

And by the way, Opus Dei is about as un-secret as it gets!

The book doesn't claim that Opus Dei is secret. It presents a fictional group called the council of shaddows or some silly stuff that is trying to rub out existence of Jesus's bloodline.

The whole movie is actually pretty silly. It's like a less interesting but much longer version of National Treasure -- using all the same plot and character devices.

[ii7-V7]

And while I'm glad to hear you say that...the danger is that Dan Brown asserts that he builds a fictional story around factual events...Chad

[Deadskins]

And JSPB22 the DaVinci Code is not pro-christian. If what it asserts were true then everything that Christ said was false. You can't have it both ways...in other words Dan Brown can't assume that Christ was the Son of God and then make him a liar in the same message. Also, having a murderous Monk is a pretty blatant attack on Christians....not to mention the slander of Opus Die which is a completely benign and incredibly charitous organization.

No, having a murderous monk is not an attack on Christians. He is a character in a fictional story. How am I trying to have it both ways? Where does Dan Brown make Christ a liar in this book? How do you arrive at the conclusion that "If what it asserts were true then everything that Christ said was false."?

OK, I can concede your assertion that a fictional character is not neccesarily an attack on the faith, but what about the mis-characterization of Opus Dei?

Christ was not married....so, if he therefore had a child with Mary M. then it was a sin thereby completely nullifying the power of the crucifixion...Jesus did indeed claim to be Christ. The Dan Brown would have you believe that Christ was only considered to be unmarried by second century priests, just as he would have you believe that they also invented the virginity of Mary....But the bible prophecy in Isaiah states that Jesus would be born ot a virgin...

Isa 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

While 1st Timothy doens't come right out and say that Christ was unmarried it is often cited as evidence, for it states that those who are unmarried are considered closer to Christ and following in his image. When Christ returns in Mark 16:9 he sees Mary first....it states...

Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Notice it states "out of whom he cast seven devils...not "to whom he was married." Not only that if Christ returned and sought to find a credible witness then the person to whom he was married would have been a poor choice. When Mary sees Jesus she calls him Lord, and Rabboni....not husband....Christ did claim to be God incarnate....and free of sin.....he was not an ordinary man, a married man, or a carnal father of anyone....this is the rub. Christ cannot be a carnal married man and the Christ. This is why you can't say that the book is pro-christianity.

Chad

Again, this is a work of historical fiction, as were the characters that were members of Opus Dei. Even if the Priory of Scion is a complete hoax, that does not change the fact that the book makes no attack on Christianity, and has Christianity's basic premise, that Jesus was the son of God, as the backbone of the story. I can't see any rational way that could be construed as anti-Christian.

[Deadskins]

And while I'm glad to hear you say that...the danger is that Dan Brown asserts that he builds a fictional story around factual events...Chad

What danger? That he is free to write works of historical fiction? It must be the subject matter that has your panties in such a wad.

[Redskin in Canada]

This is what is known as historical fiction.

Thanks for the clue. You seem to try to go out of your way to argue that Christians should not be insulted. The -fact- is that many are no matter how strongly you feel some of us should not.

The same can be said about the Satanic Verses and the Cartoons in the case of Muslims. There have been other instances of insults against other religions and even against that profess to have none.

My view is that the religious beliefs or the choice to have none must be equally respected by ALL. From a cultural perspective, this book does not contribute to a constructive dialogue among believers and non-believers and Christians and non-Christians. That is the one and last point I wish to make.

My first opinion expressed in my first post in this thread stands firmer than ever:

Scandalous allegations + conspiracy theories + greed + sensationalism + fiction = Da Vinci Code

Among ALL the great books and documentary scripts that have been written lately for for non-professional people eager to learn something truly interesting about the religions (e.g., Three religions: One God) and the philosophies (e.g., the Aristotle's Children) that shape the ethical standards of most countries around the world, the Da Vinci Code is a terrible waste of time and a counter-productive search for true historical evidence.

Good to know that smart marketing and morbidity are alive and well kicking around the world. Propaganda sells no doubt.