DaVinci boycott

[Preferred User]

I did not call Christians intolerant, I did call "the church" (a far different thing) ignorant.

I said the church was afraid of the idea the earth was round. You did not refute that.

I said the church is threatened by gay marriage, you did not refute that.

What you did do was put a lot of words and ideas in my mouth, and refute the words you provided for me.

The DaVinci Code is about Christianity, the established Christian church is upset about it, therefore my comments were aimed at the established Christian church. Never did I say, imply or even daydream that other religions are more tolerant. I agree, all religions are cultures that protect their own turf. Since I don’t see Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists upset about DaVinci, my comments were aimed at those who are.

You have no idea who I am tommyboy, but clearly you want me to be something you can knock down. It might be part of your own "(ethnocentrism - look it up)".

you must follow gods rules of marriage (e.g. men not lying with other men etc.).

I'd be more than happy to review some other "rules" in the Old Testiment, in fact in Leviticus specifically (the book you referred to) if you'd really like to use that as your guidepost.

 

[tommyboy]

For you to bring up one example of when the church was afraid of change, and calling them ignorant for it in fact makes you ignorant.

1. I believe that I was more than aware that you called the church "ignorant" (case and point - see above). I do not deny that there are many cases where the "church" elders/pastors may have been ignorant, and I'm sure that there will be many times to come where the "church" elders/pastors will be ignorant. You simply based the "churches" ignorance on fear of change and I demonstrated to you that every culture fears change and fears being wrong about what they believe. Thus, if fear of change makes one ignorant, than aren't we all ignorant, including yourself??

I said the church was afraid of the idea the earth was round. You did not refute that.

I said the church is threatened by gay marriage, you did not refute that.

2. Your right, I did not refute that. Why do you want me to prove either of those wrong, when i agree with you? I agreed with you that the church is afraid of change and has made its fair share of mistakes. What I was trying to prove to you, kind sir, was that yes the church is afraid of change along with every culture and religion in the world, especially when they feel that their culture is being threatened. The point it seems that you were trying to make, my friend, is that the church is ignorant for following what it believes to be true. What is wrong with that? For you to say there is anything wrong with what any culture believes or that your own beliefs are superior to those cultures IS ethnocentrism.

3. As for putting words in your mouth. I was not aware of that happening, but if i misconstrewed anything you said or put words in your mouth that you did not mean, than i apologize. That was not my intent.

the established Christian church is upset about it

4. As for this statment, what is the established christian church? Are you talking about the roman catholic church?? Church as described in the Bible is not Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish. It is not denominational, interdenominational, or sectarian. It is not a political organization. It is not a social organization. It is not a building.

You have no idea who I am tommyboy, but clearly you want me to be something you can knock down. It might be part of your own "(ethnocentrism - look it up)".

5. a. you have no idea who I am
b. quit putting words into my mouth ("you clearly want me to be something you can knock down"). Looks like you need to practice what you prech.
b. I don't care who you are
c. I was not trying to knock you down, and could care less about whether I insulted you or not, but I'm not just going to lay down and agree with you.

 

[Preferred User]

Why do you want me to prove either of those wrong, when i agree with you?

That's kind of my whole point tommy. You agree with what I said, but disagree with whatever you think I was holding back or with what I "really" meant to say. When you say things like "Others (like yourself i'm sure) want to call christians intolerant..." you're arguing with who you think I might be, not with what I said.

And yes, I thought it was obvious I was referring to the Roman Catholic Church here, but didn't want to offend people by being too direct about it.

I respect God, but not religion. That goes for all of religions. Look at all the shit going on in the world right now in the name of someone's religion? And they are all VERY sure they're right.

 

[The Young One]

Let me be honest, I didn't read this thread. But anyone who is thinking about a boycott of the davinci code just because of what they have heard is wrong, nieve and retarded. How can you possibly form an educated opinion on something you havent seen/read. Now, people anti-code who have seen it or read it is ok, its a controversial book, but people, read it or see it before you condemn it.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

"Moviegoers gave their blessing to the "The Da Vinci Code" over the weekend, spending an estimated $77 million to see the Tom Hanks flick"

Well it did beat out the opening week of "8 Mile" but fell short of the medias estimate of 100 mil plus. Damn good earnings and it did 20 mil better than i figured. Sigh the good ol media, better luck next time woooooooo

 

[Karifan]

The Christians trying to boycott a movie that has been well stated as being fictional is idiotic. Then again, we are talking about christians....so im not surprised.

 

[Red Horse]

Read The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail to look at all of this from an historical perspective. Of course, it's still bullshit
Better yet, watch The Real Da Vinci Code hosted by Tony Robinson (Baldrick in Blackadder).
Even better still, watch Blackadder...it has the same historical credibility as these books

 

[Cman]

The Christians trying to boycott a movie that has been well stated as being fictional is idiotic. Then again, we are talking about christians....so im not surprised.

its not the movie they're worried about, its the idiots watching the movie that has them concerned. i've spent more than enough time online, to realize how many retards there are in the world lol

 

[stu2906]

5. a. you have no idea who I am
b. I don't care who you are
c. I was not trying to knock you down, and could care less about whether I insulted you or not, but I'm not just going to lay down and agree with you.

In response to your statements i have concluded that you are:

a. The Right Honourable Reverend Iain Paisley MP
b. Quite rude (See also conclusion a)
c. Obviously wrong about whatever drivel you were on about (i, in a time honoured TYO fashion, did not read a word you said but noticed your rather amazing parting shots i quoted above, and concluded it could only have been better said as "i'm, right you are wrong so there!!:angryrazz")

And i would ask your reverendship why he comes to this site? Has he perhaps not read the scriptures fully. I would have thought your morality would have guided you to this:

Matt 5:28
but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

So are you married or do you have a girlfriend? If so......:angelwing :chainsaw: :breathefi

Or did you not notice the tits and ass.

 

[moxdevil]

Read The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail to look at all of this from an historical perspective. Of course, it's still bullshit
Better yet, watch The Real Da Vinci Code hosted by Tony Robinson (Baldrick in Blackadder).
Even better still, watch Blackadder...it has the same historical credibility as these books

I've written essays at Uni. based on 'research' from the likes of Blackadder. Hope you're not trying to diminish it as a valuable historical source by comparing it to these novels.

 

[RichieTBaum]

Wow Stu, you must be on Preferred User's nuts to have given a response like that (to posts that you didn't even read). While that may be a bit harsh, I can't help but draw parallels to TYO's comments about the topic and his idea of "reading it before condemning it."

Also, are bible passages supposed to be looked at (by Christians) as being factual? Seriously, I'm not even sure haha. If anyone answers, forget the whole literal/metaphorical meaning debate; I don't even want to get started on that...

 

[stu2906]

Tommyboy was being a cock.

I let him have my opinion on people who come all religious sounding and sanctimonious on a site that deals in high quality tits and ass.

I also didn't like his general attitude to a member of this site who is well regarded and would have responded with equal vigour had his diatribe been directed at any of the regulars.

Stu

PS If there pare parts of the bible which are not true then how does one know which to believe. I prefer to be the lapsed anti-pagan athiest i am, it's easier.:angelwing

Also i read the bits i needed to, i skimmed the shit

 

[Karifan]

its not the movie they're worried about, its the idiots watching the movie that has them concerned. i've spent more than enough time online, to realize how many retards there are in the world lol

Very true.

but if i may say...the only people they should be worried about are kids under the age of 12, who have been told their whole life not to question their faith and religion by both their parents and church.

In my opinion, they have bigger things to worry about. Like the constant barrage of molestations from priests.

 

[Cman]

In my opinion, they have bigger things to worry about. Like the constant barrage of molestations from priests.

I think that has been blown out of proportion in the same way the movie has been. I'm not defending the priests and I'm not saying that its right, but think about how many priests there are in the world and how many of those are child molesters. Its probably less than 1%

 

[Preferred User]

I'm not defending the priests and I'm not saying that its right, but think about how many priests there are in the world and how many of those are child molesters. Its probably less than 1%

It's rare that I defend the Catholic Church, but I have read studies that suggest pedophilia is as prevalent in other denominations. I think what the RCC is particularly guilty of is the way they have burried their problems. It seems to be an institutional attitude that you just ship these guys to some new boys and keep it quiet. That is not What Jesus Would Do.

 

[Cman]

It's rare that I defend the Catholic Church, but I have read studies that suggest pedophilia is as prevalent in other denominations. I think what the RCC is particularly guilty of is the way they have burried their problems. It seems to be an institutional attitude that you just ship these guys to some new boys and keep it quiet. That is not What Jesus Would Do.

Technically it is what Jesus would do, because they are forgiving them for their sins. Although I personally think they should go to jail

 

[Texan]

Technically it is what Jesus would do, because they are forgiving them for their sins. Although I personally think they should go to jail

Jail is too good for them, a bullet sounds better.

I just dont see what the problem is with suggesting that Jesus was married like all other jewish men his age where at that time in history.

 

[mindido]

Technically it is what Jesus would do, because they are forgiving them for their sins.

Cman,

Are you sure of that? I'm certainly no jesus freak but it would seem there must be some limits to compassion. Sexually assaulting little kids, I believe, is way out of bounds in most cultures that I'm aware of.

And Tex,

Jail is too good for them, a bullet sounds better.

If there is NO doubt of their guilt, I'd agree with that.

I just dont see what the problem is with suggesting that Jesus was married like all other jewish men his age where at that time in history.

I'd agree here also. Again, this isn't a period of history that I've studied very well, but I have seen several documentaries recently which suggest that an unmarried 30 year old male would be highly unlikely given that human lifespans at the time were only between 45 to 50 years. Most males were married between 15 to 20 years of age. And since there is, apparently, so little data on jesus' life before 30, it makes complete sense that he would have been married.

 

[Preferred User]

Technically it is what Jesus would do, because they are forgiving them for their sins. Although I personally think they should go to jail

Hmmmm....he might forgive them, but I also don't think he would keep that sort of information from other parents. Forgive them? Fine if you can. But that's different from pretending it never happened.

If Jesus got pissed at the moneychangers in His temple, I think He'd go ballistic at people pretending to be on His side and using that authority while getting their jollies on an innocent kid.

 

[Red Horse]

You may have heard this before, but here goes...
The Catholic church, and after the schism, the Protestant church, are Pauline. St. Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was the first "evangelical" to go and spread the word, as he saw it, to the heathens. Almost all of Christian doctrine comes from his letters.
Jesus was Jewish (there's a surprise ) and kept the rites of a Jew. Whether or not he wanted a religion in his own name, I think only he knows.