The Shrine

This girl I used to mess with has gone off the deep end religiously(God is great, god is wonderful, praise god for this, that and everything, blah blah blah), and send me this email.

"I think you got it twisted. I am definitely not supporting the Davinci
Code. Somebody would have to kill before I ever agreed to that or even
thought to believe in it. As a matter of fact, I would just be dead because
I still wouldn't believe in it if someone threatened my life. I was telling
you to sign the petition with the guy (Dr. Steve Munsey) that has the
documentary out on exposing the demonic author for the lies he is spreading
about Jesus (Dan Brown). Check out the website, cuz I don't think you read
it all the way through.

http://www.exposingthedavincicode.com/"

So I'm just kinda curious what the big deal is over the book.

I have not read it...I understand it explores some interesting areas of speculation in Christian myth and history, the interpretations of which could easily be offensive to serious God-squadders. Don't know much more than that though.

And, sorry about your friend...I have nothing against religious conversions, but it sucks when a friend gets intolerant off one. Happened to my college roommate sophomore year, he was kind of distressed about it...

The book promotes ideas about Jesus, such as the one that he fathered a child through Mary Magdalene, etc and does so through a fictional story. The book claims to be based off of facts, but it's really not all that factual. That's where the issue lies.

I haven't read The Davinci Code itself, but I have read several responses to it (back when the book first became popular).

I'm not planning on seeing the movie either because I don't want my money to support it. I don't think Dan Brown is "demonic". I disagree with what he wrote (based off of the response writings I've read) and therefore with the movie and won't be giving it my money. Though I will read the book this summer borrowed from the library, so I can get the info firsthand.

I don't really get how you're calling the girl intolerant, Nev. She disagrees with something and is standing up to it so that makes her intolerant? If this were an anti-Bush activist, you'd be praising her. I just find that interesting. I get why you're bitter towards this girl, Eric. Personally, from all of your stories of her she sounds like she doesn't know what she wants to believe. But she doesn't sound crazy to me, as you seem to think.

Lox wrote:The book promotes ideas about Jesus, such as the one that he fathered a child through Mary Magdalene, etc and does so through a fictional story. The book claims to be based off of facts, but it's really not all that factual. That's where the issue lies.

I do not believe the book is marketed as non-fiction... it is a fiction title that uses real life artifacts and writings in a wild entertaining theory that in no way is trying to pass it off as truth.

The book is fiction. It's also a very good read and is now available in paperback for a fairly cheap price.

To: Sony Pictures Entertainment and the director of The DaVinci Code movie, Ron Howard

We the people who have signed this petition respectfully request Sony Entertainment, directors Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsmith as well as staring actors Tom Hanks and Jean Reno to please refrain from promoting, and or releasing the grossly, biblically errant movie The DaVinci Code.

While we agree with the movie's official web site's statement, "Seek the truth," we know that ultimate truth can be found in the Holy Scriptures. Nowhere in the Bible is it even suggested that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, that Jesus was not fully God, and numerous other errors highlighted in author Dan Brown's DaVinci Code book from which this movie is based.

Sadly, many of the ideas that the book and this high profile movie promote are anything but factual and are greatly offensive to the Christian faith and to the heart of God.

Therefore, we request that you reconsider the release of this movie

Sincerely,

Heh, what a retardedly funny petition. I signed it =P

Lox wrote:The book promotes ideas about Jesus, such as the one that he fathered a child through Mary Magdalene, etc and does so through a fictional story. The book claims to be based off of facts, but it's really not all that factual. That's where the issue lies.

The book is clearly fiction. The book no more claims to be fact than X-men does.

Lox wrote:I haven't read The Davinci Code itself, but I have read several responses to it (back when the book first became popular).

It's a good book, one of the best I have read, I highly recommend it to anyone.

Lox wrote:I'm not planning on seeing the movie either because I don't want my money to support it. I don't think Dan Brown is "demonic". I disagree with what he wrote (based off of the response writings I've read) and therefore with the movie and won't be giving it my money. Though I will read the book this summer borrowed from the library, so I can get the info firsthand.

So I guess you won't buy any science books either, Christianity obviously doesn't agree with science, so therefore you probably shouldn't support it.

Wait a minute, do you disagree with magic? It's sinful according to the bible, "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that thy may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts" -Revelation 22:15, you have the same justification. Do you support the magic arts? If so, and you're a Christian, then you are indeed a dog who shall remain outside among the suffering. No Final Fantasy for you!

Oh yeah, read Matthew 7:1-7:5, "you hypocrite!"

Lox wrote:I don't really get how you're calling the girl intolerant, Nev. She disagrees with something and is standing up to it so that makes her intolerant? If this were an anti-Bush activist, you'd be praising her. I just find that interesting. I get why you're bitter towards this girl, Eric. Personally, from all of your stories of her she sounds like she doesn't know what she wants to believe. But she doesn't sound crazy to me, as you seem to think.

She might not be intolerant, but she is being foolish and ignorant for not realizing so obviously that the story is FICTION.

Also,

There is a slight difference between Dan Brown and George Bush. One is leading a regime which has killed tens of thousands of people, enforicing policies which lower personal freedoms in a nation which once claimed to be the most free in the world, economic decline among most of the population of the country which he is President of; he is enforcing a right winged regime, over actual people. The other is an author who wrote a book, not at war with anyone, not president of any nation, not enforcing any form of regime. There is no basis for comparison other than the fact that they both belong to the species of homo-sapien.

Lox wrote:I don't really get how you're calling the girl intolerant, Nev. She disagrees with something and is standing up to it so that makes her intolerant? If this were an anti-Bush activist, you'd be praising her.

Untrue. I'm not a knee-jerk supporter of anything, and I would like to dispute the notion that you think I'd support any damn idiot who hates Bush just because he/she hates Bush. I don't like Michael Moore much, either.

The fact is, it sounds like (as you all have mentioned), the girl is not successfully able to separate the idea of a fictional book that touches on certain areas that correspond to her beliefs from the notions in her actual beliefs. When I saw this happen with my roommate in college, he was very, very distressed, because he felt like he could no longer be himself around his friend without being judged, her trying to convert him, or feeling that he had to defend his own way of living because it was somehow "sinful" or otherwise. Anyway, the thrust of my message was intended to be more sympathetic for Eric than anything else.

Nev, never worry about being judged by a Christian. Christians who judge anythone are hypcrites by their own belief system. Does it not say in the bible "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" and "Do not judge"

Christianianity, as it has been taught by most, for the past 1700 years, is a highly intolerant religion; wrongfully so, because Jesus was supposedly a highly tolerant person.



As for why I am not a Christian: there are many belief systems throughout the world which demand that I praise a God or some form of idol; Christianity is but one of them. I see no more legitimacy to Christianity than I do Scientology or the cult of Dionysus. If indeed there were a God or Gods who demanded worship, then I would think that this world would provide something natural to explain this to us. Something natural rather than words written by other men who, as any Christian would know by the book of Genesis, are all destined to corruption from the time of their very origin in this world.

Errr actually this is a different girl. =D

Alot of black women I've dated tend to become freakin religious. Err through no fault of any actions that took place while I was in the relationship with them ;o

ANYWAY, I don't have anything against her. I just thought her reaction to the book was overly hostile, she's never read it before and she got the link forwarded to her from her other religious friends, like 2 days ago. ;o

Da Vinci Code is an interesting book. Yes it's fictional, but what made it a runaway success is that it weaves in actual historical figures, places, and events around something that's fascinated historians/Christians for centuries - the Holy Grail. And it's all wrapped up in a classic mystery "Whodunit".
It's casued people to start asking questions because they don't know where the real stuff ends and the fiction begins or where Dan Brown has taken creative license to make a more interesting story.

The Seeker wrote:Christianianity, as it has been taught by most, for the past 1700 years, is a highly intolerant religion; wrongfully so, because Jesus was supposedly a highly tolerant person.

This is probably a mistake to post...

I think Jesus brought a lot of wonderful love and tolerance into a world that lacked it. But one thing gets me about him, and that's the fact that people keep saying "He died for your sins." I don't think this is right.

Viewed in the context of a secular belief system, I think it's a mistake for *any* human to claim him/herself as the Son of God, or divine. To me, that tends to say "pride". Now, I'm not a Christian expert, but while I was watching Passion of the Christ (I know it's a movie, but given that the Pope actually said "It is as it was", I submit it as some sort of decent source material, anyway), one thing struck me about the judgement of Jesus by the Pharisees.

They were willing to let him go, at the end, except for the one final question - "Do you believe that you are the Son of God?" "I am, and you will see the Son of Man raised at the right hand of the Lord." (I think I have part of that wrong, and I'd be glad of a correction of anyone has one.)

Interestingly, it was something that someone here posted (can't remember who it was, but I ought to go back through archives and find out) that helped my present view on this, a quote from "Catcher In The Rye" I think - "The immature man is willing to die for his beliefs. The mature man is willing to live for his."

Assuming any of the Jesus story is historical, and ignoring the Son of Man question for a second anyway, it would have cost nothing for Jesus to be humble, and say, "No." - but continue to go and teach, living for his principles in secret, willing to suffer to indignity of never being acclaimed as a prophet, in order to serve the greater good of spreading the kind of love and tolerance that is willing to bend in a storm, and not break, as I feel Jesus did - I do not buy the whole resurrection bit, and I suppose if you do you have to look at it in a different light.

Anyway, to make a long story short, if there was a historical Jesus and the present story is accurate, I do not believe he died for our sins. I believe he died for his own - the sin of pride, manifested as the claim to divinity that no human on Earth, in my opinion, really does possess.

So, I hope we can avoid flame wars on this - I'd love to hear counterpoints, but hopefully I won't get screamed at too loudly - if so, I'll probably just give the discussion up.

Also, regarding the tolerance or intolerance of Christianity, I do have to say I think Jesus, like many religious leaders, probably was a very tolerant man. Muhammad was supposed to be, too, for his time, and sort of a proto-feminist who liked strong, independent women. *THAT* seems to have gone away somewhere in present-day Middle Eastern Islam, for certain.

For whatever reason, intolerance does seem to creep into various religious traditions, but I think this rarely has to do with the founders of said religions.

I guess I'm trying to say that, if I see many manifestations of Christianity as intolerant, this should in no way be construed as to attribute that to Jesus, and similarly for just about any other tradition out there.

Luke 22:67 "If you are the Christ," they said, "tell us."
Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the son of man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."
They all asked, "Are you then the son of God?"
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying that I am,"
So the Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?"
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.



Luke 3:37 "Adam, the son of God."

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son."

Acts 2:29 "Brothers , I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this Day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne."


As for Jesus dying for our sins:

Matthew 26:52 " Put your sword back in its place! Do you think I cannot call on my God and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of Angels?"

Matthew 27:46 "My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?"

I don't think he seemed very eager to die for anyone, even according to the Christian version of Jesus's last minutes.

The Seeker wrote:Luke 22:67 "If you are the Christ," they said, "tell us."
Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the son of man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."
They all asked, "Are you then the son of God?"
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying that I am,"
So the Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?"
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.



Luke 3:37 "Adam, the son of God."

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son."

Acts 2:29 "Brothers , I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this Day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne."


As for Jesus dying for our sins:

Matthew 26:52 " Put your sword back in its place! Do you think I cannot call on my God and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of Angels?"

Matthew 27:46 "My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?"

I don't think he seemed very eager to die for anyone, even according to the Christian version of Jesus's last minutes.

Considering what the dude went through before he died, and considering how well known those methods were back in the day. Yeah I'd say he wasn't eagar to die at all.

Eric wrote:Considering what the dude went through before he died, and considering how well known those methods were back in the day. Yeah I'd say he wasn't eagar to die at all.

Pretty much. It was something like "This is going to suck, so I don't want to go through it, but it's God's will so I want it to happen." And he did, so...yeah.

Eric wrote:Errr actually this is a different girl. =D

It's something about you...you must attract certain types, man.

Nev wrote:Untrue. I'm not a knee-jerk supporter of anything, and I would like to dispute the notion that you think I'd support any damn idiot who hates Bush just because he/she hates Bush. I don't like Michael Moore much, either.

Ok, I'll take back the example of you being a knee-jerk supporter of someone who is anti-Bush. My apologies for that.
But to be honest, my response was based more off of my observations that you do seem to jump at any chance to put down anyone who follows Christianity regardless of the actual facts of the situation. I'm curious why. Did a christian take your candy when you were little?

The Seeker wrote:Nev, never worry about being judged by a Christian. Christians who judge anythone are hypcrites by their own belief system. Does it not say in the bible "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" and "Do not judge"

Christianianity, as it has been taught by most, for the past 1700 years, is a highly intolerant religion; wrongfully so, because Jesus was supposedly a highly tolerant person.

Well, the "cast the fist stone" quote is, imo, partially out of context for what you're referring to. But yeah, I totally agree that the Bible says not to judge when it's referring to a "I'm better than you are because I'm pointing out your failures" kind of judgment. Sadly enough, there are too many people who use christianity as a tool for their pride and hate. I am not a fan of those people just like anyone else here.

I think her reaction is the same as the Catholic's reaction to Dogma, only Dogma was a comedy and this is supposed to be a suspense/thriller.

Barret wrote:I think her reaction is the same as the Catholic's reaction to Dogma, only Dogma was a comedy and this is supposed to be a suspense/thriller.

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head.

Speaking of Dogma, Smith on a possible sequel:

"So weird you should ask this, because ever since 9/11, I have been thinking about a sequel of sorts. I mean, the worst terrorist attack on American soil was religiously bent. In the wake of said attack, the leader of the "Free World" outed himself as pretty damned Christian. In the last election, rather than a quagmire war abroad, the big issue was whether or not gay marriage was moral. Back when I made "Dogma", I always maintained that another movie about religion wouldn't be forthcoming, as "Dogma" was the product of 28 years of religious and spiritual meditation, and I'd kinda shot my wad on the subject. Now? I think I might have more to say. And, yes - the Last Scion would be at the epicenter of it. And She'd have to be played by Alanis. And we'd need a bigger budget - because the entire third act would be the Apocalypse. Scary thing is this: the film would have to touch on Islam. And unlike the Catholic League, when those cats don't like what you do, they issue a death warrant on yer ass (see Rushdie). And now that I've got a family, I'm not as free to stir the shit-pot as I was when I was single, back when I made "Dogma". I mean, now I've gotta think about more than my own safety and well-being. But regardless - yeah, a "Dogma" followup's been swimming around in my head for some time now."

Eric wrote:Errr actually this is a different girl. =D

It's something about you...you must attract certain types, man. [/quote]

Seriously, but when I'm with them they're all so normal. I can count on my hand the number of times religion became a subject with this chick before now. Now every other sentence has a reference to god or the bible, complete with quotes.

First he has to finish Clerks 2, which is out sometime this summer.

The Seeker wrote:First he has to finish Clerks 2, which is out sometime this summer.

August 8 or something, if I'm not mistaken

Yeah...case in point.

"Oh! Okay, but I was acutally talking about the movie. However, it does not
matter. I just would like to point out the fact that it doesn't matter
whether I did the research or another Christian did it, and passed it along
to other believers. The Bible warns us that there will be times when the
evil one will make an unsuccesful atempt to misconstue God's Word and try to
twist it so that we may believe him and not God (2 Peter 2:1-3, Romans
16:17-19). That is why it is not good just to know the Bible, but to also
have a PERSONAL relationship with God so that when the evil one tries to
come and misconstrue God's Word it will become an unsuccessful attempt
PERIOD. You see, the way you are thinking is the way the world thinks. The
world believes that you must hear both sides of the Davinci Code story,
therefore, being a Christian it does not matter what the other point of view
is. We are not to be confromed to this world (Romans 12:2) and we are not of
this world (John 15:19). So you see its not about hearing the other side of
the story. Actually, I think that you might want to examine yourself on the
naive approach behavior. Simply put, Dan Brown is the enemy in the flesh.
Therefore there is nothing more to say, because obviously you have read the
book or something, and your relationship with God is simply not as strong as
it should be. You have obviously considered the fact that Dan Brown is not
telling a factious lie.
You know what my brother, I am still praying for you and I add to my prayer
that you build a personal relatonship with God and come to such an
understanding/experience with Him that you cannot help but spread His Word (
and testimony) to everyone you know.

Not to switch subjects on you, I still love you despite your oppinion.
Continue having a blessed day."

Eric wrote:Yeah...case in point.

"Oh! Okay, but I was acutally talking about the movie. However, it does not
matter. I just would like to point out the fact that it doesn't matter
whether I did the research or another Christian did it, and passed it along
to other believers. The Bible warns us that there will be times when the
evil one will make an unsuccesful atempt to misconstue God's Word and try to
twist it so that we may believe him and not God (2 Peter 2:1-3, Romans
16:17-19). That is why it is not good just to know the Bible, but to also
have a PERSONAL relationship with God so that when the evil one tries to
come and misconstrue God's Word it will become an unsuccessful attempt
PERIOD. You see, the way you are thinking is the way the world thinks. The
world believes that you must hear both sides of the Davinci Code story,
therefore, being a Christian it does not matter what the other point of view
is. We are not to be confromed to this world (Romans 12:2) and we are not of
this world (John 15:19). So you see its not about hearing the other side of
the story. Actually, I think that you might want to examine yourself on the
naive approach behavior. Simply put, Dan Brown is the enemy in the flesh.
Therefore there is nothing more to say, because obviously you have read the
book or something, and your relationship with God is simply not as strong as
it should be. You have obviously considered the fact that Dan Brown is not
telling a factious lie.
You know what my brother, I am still praying for you and I add to my prayer
that you build a personal relatonship with God and come to such an
understanding/experience with Him that you cannot help but spread His Word (
and testimony) to everyone you know.

Not to switch subjects on you, I still love you despite your oppinion.
Continue having a blessed day."

At this point I would definitely add her to the blocked e-mail list.

I'm not anti-religion exclusively, I am anti-belief. I still have beliefs, but I would rather be rid of them all.

Are you sure you don't mean anti-faith? To be anti-belief is pretty, uh, stupid.

I think you may be oversimplifying to say that religious institutions are entirely self-serving. Most of them do a lot of good, as well as a lot of not so good, and in some cases bad.

The Catholic church stands as a pretty good example of all of the good and bad things that religious institutions can do. The Church does a heck of a lot of good in the world, but does seem to milk the faithful, and sometimes acts really atrociously (its opposition to birth control, particularly in places like Africa, for example).

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:Are you sure you don't mean anti-faith? To be anti-belief is pretty, uh, stupid.

I'm anti-Andrew! Prepare to fight to the death, you fool!

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:Are you sure you don't mean anti-faith? To be anti-belief is pretty, uh, stupid.

I don't believe that =)

The fewer your beliefs, the more freedom your mind has to explore new ideas. Of course, some beliefs are very difficult to defeat, such as belief in logic and reason.

Considering the millions of Christians out there, we shouldnt let the few wackos out there form our opinion. For all its unintended faults, Christianity is trying to make good people, you cant argue with that.

Flip wrote:Considering the millions of Christians out there, we shouldnt let the few wackos out there form our opinion. For all its unintended faults, Christianity is trying to make good people, you cant argue with that.

If by good people you mean intolerant white supremisists who hate gays, lesbians, interracial couples, and poor people then sure.

Barret wrote:

Flip wrote:Considering the millions of Christians out there, we shouldnt let the few wackos out there form our opinion. For all its unintended faults, Christianity is trying to make good people, you cant argue with that.

If by good people you mean intolerant white supremisists who hate gays, lesbians, interracial couples, and poor people then sure.

Those would be the wackos, Barret.

If someone has perverted the christian belief system to allow them to hate any person based on their lifestyle or position in life, then they are, imo, very misguided.

Flip wrote:Considering the millions of Christians out there, we shouldnt let the few wackos out there form our opinion. For all its unintended faults, Christianity is trying to make good people, you cant argue with that.

I agree, my girlfriend is incredibly religious, but I have never had any problem with her saying "I won't support the Da Vinci Code" or whatever. She's read the book, enjoyed it, and is looking forward to the movie.

She also doesn't care that I'm not Christian either. I like talking with her about the bible, I still find the bible to be one of the most interesting ancient religious books around. Though only portions of it, I am more interested in the Prophecies than anything; the Torah and the Word are kind of dry and not incredibly interesting, though some sections are alright.

Here we go. I know I shouldn't even bother discussing anything with you because you'll ignore anything so that you think you're right, but I can't help myself.

The Seeker wrote:The book is clearly fiction. The book no more claims to be fact than X-men does.

Yes, it's clearly fiction. But Brown is pretending that it's fiction based off of facts that are not true.

The Seeker wrote:So I guess you won't buy any science books either, Christianity obviously doesn't agree with science, so therefore you probably shouldn't support it.

That's an all encompassing statement that is totally wrong. Christianity does not disagree with all science, which is what you said. There's no way you can say that it does.

The Seeker wrote:Wait a minute, do you disagree with magic? It's sinful according to the bible, "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that thy may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts" -Revelation 22:15, you have the same justification. Do you support the magic arts? If so, and you're a Christian, then you are indeed a dog who shall remain outside among the suffering. No Final Fantasy for you!

First off, you're assuming that the "magical arts" (sorcery in some texts) are equivalent to the magic used in Final Fantasy (or any other) games, which is not the case, imo. You can't make a case that it is. Secondly, how Dan Brown claiming that his book is based off of facts that are untrue and go against my beliefs is the same as a video game that does nothing of the sort is beyond me.

The Seeker wrote:Oh yeah, read Matthew 7:1-7:5, "you hypocrite!"

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you implying that I'm judging someone? If so, I'd love to know who. I made an observation about the girl Eric referred to. I wasn't judging Nev. I was only calling him out on something I believed he was doing wrong. Heck, I didn't even insult Dan Brown. I don't think I'm better than anyone here so feel free to try to make sense of your post.

The Seeker wrote:There is a slight difference between Dan Brown and George Bush. One is leading a regime which has killed tens of thousands of people, enforicing policies which lower personal freedoms in a nation which once claimed to be the most free in the world, economic decline among most of the population of the country which he is President of; he is enforcing a right winged regime, over actual people. The other is an author who wrote a book, not at war with anyone, not president of any nation, not enforcing any form of regime. There is no basis for comparison other than the fact that they both belong to the species of homo-sapien.

You completely missed the point of my comparison, which does not surprise me. The point was that he would look more favorably on someone who agreed with his POV using similar tactics than one who disagreed with his POV. I ended up taking this back however, but my comparison was valid.

Dan Brown is just a hack, really, who has very luckily for himself tapped into a widespread curiousity and ignorance of general (and Christian in particular) history.

For someone that strives to be anti-belief you're a really narrow-minded guy, Seek.

You are really late in replying to this.

Lox wrote:Yes, it's clearly fiction. But Brown is pretending that it's fiction based off of facts that are not true.

Key word is pretending.

Lox wrote:That's an all encompassing statement that is totally wrong. Christianity does not disagree with all science, which is what you said. There's no way you can say that it does.

I can see how my statement could have been perceived as all-inclusive, so I will clarify my statement: Christianity disagrees with several schools of science including: biology, astro-physics, and geology.

Lox wrote:First off, you're assuming that the "magical arts" (sorcery in some texts) are equivalent to the magic used in Final Fantasy (or any other) games, which is not the case, imo. You can't make a case that it is. Secondly, how Dan Brown claiming that his book is based off of facts that are untrue and go against my beliefs is the same as a video game that does nothing of the sort is beyond me.

If summoning a Dragon God is not magic then I don't know what is. What does the bible mean by magic arts/sorcery then? Final Fantasy most certainly does disagree the teachings of the bible.

The Seeker wrote:Oh yeah, read Matthew 7:1-7:5, "you hypocrite!"

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you implying that I'm judging someone? If so, I'd love to know who. I made an observation about the girl Eric referred to. I wasn't judging Nev. I was only calling him out on something I believed he was doing wrong. Heck, I didn't even insult Dan Brown. I don't think I'm better than anyone here so feel free to try to make sense of your post.[/quote]

So you aren't saying that Dan Brown is spreading things counter to Christianity? If not, then why are you so afraid to pay a little money to see a movie? Also, why is it that you are fine with the works of the Final Fantasy which are filled with sinful magic, violence, and not to mention a volume of the series which portrays the Church, the Messiah, and the Apostles, as being very evil? Is that not hypocracy?

Lox wrote:You completely missed the point of my comparison, which does not surprise me. The point was that he would look more favorably on someone who agreed with his POV using similar tactics than one who disagreed with his POV. I ended up taking this back however, but my comparison was valid.

I did not miss your point. I understood your point completely. You are making the claim that Mental is just as intolerant as she is because he disagrees with his government, an authoratative figure over him, in comparison to a work of art which has no authority over anyone. I did not see your point as valid because of how far away the President of Nev's country is on the scale of importance is to an author of a fictional book. Dan Brown is quite trivial compared to George Bush. The comparison is similar to describing your distaste for the author of Final Fantasy (art work), due to the idea that magic is used, compared to anothers distaste to a parent (authoratative), who the person in question felt abused them as a child. Do you really think that the justification for supporting movements to ban Final Fantasy is as justified as supporting movements against an abusive parent? I know I don't, I would say that is ridiculous. You also retracted your statement, so why bother continuing to argue its validity after you yourself had already removed it in this argument?


I don't agree with facism, yet I still read and enjoyed Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, let alone trying to boycot or ban it. I don't agree with religion, but I read plenty which deals with religion, let alone trying to boycot or ban it. And hey, there's much I have read which I dislike as well. I only make judgement on what I have actually read. Never have I stepped to the level of taking steps in an attempt to get a work of literature banned, or supporting someone who would because I disagreed with it.

Yeah, I think the girl is a wacko, I mean COME ON! She's supporting a petition to ban a movie just because she doesn't agree with details in the plot. It quite surprises me that even people here would agree with her.

I was telling you to sign the petition with the guy (Dr. Steve Munsey) that has the documentary out on exposing the demonic author for the lies he is spreading about Jesus (Dan Brown).

What is your view on Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, and Genealogy of Morals? Just out of curiosity.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:Dan Brown is just a hack, really, who has very luckily for himself tapped into a widespread curiousity and ignorance of general (and Christian in particular) history.

You are critisizing people for finding something an interesting and entertaining read, and the author for writing it?

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:For someone that strives to be anti-belief you're a really narrow-minded guy, Seek.

And then you have the audacity to call ME narrow-minded? =)

What is your view on Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, and Genealogy of Morals? Just out of curiosity.

Eh? You asking me that? Or you want me to ask her that? O_o

She kinda stopped talking to me after I told her instead of listening to somebody else she should induldge herself into it and form her own opinion. Meh.

Eric wrote:

What is your view on Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, and Genealogy of Morals? Just out of curiosity.

Eh? You asking me that? Or you want me to ask her that? O_o

She kinda stopped talking to me after I told her instead of listening to somebody else she should induldge herself into it and form her own opinion. Meh.

Nah, I meant the question for Lox, you can answer it if you want though =)

I just pulled the quote down from your post as a reminder of how laughably ridiculous this girls statement is: "exposing the demonic author for the lies he is spreading about Jesus (Dan Brown)."

It's too bad she stopped talking to you just because you don't share her opinion though. Some people are just like that: I call them intolerant =P

The Seeker wrote:You are really late in replying to this.

I somehow missed your reply and just saw it tonight.

The Seeker wrote:

Lox wrote:Yes, it's clearly fiction. But Brown is pretending that it's fiction based off of

facts that are not true.

Key word is pretending.

How is this a rebuttal to my point? Brown is pretending that something is true and it isn't. This is something

children do. The problem is that many people aren't going to know that he's pretending (which is also lying) unless

someone tells them. You're all about people being given all points of view yet you don't seem understand why

there's a group trying to do just that by exposing Brown's lies.

The Seeker wrote:I can see how my statement could have been perceived as all-inclusive, so I will clarify my

statement: Christianity disagrees with several schools of science including: biology, astro-physics, and

geology.

I've never purchased anything related to biology, astro-physics, or geology that was in disagreement with my views. That was your point, wasn't it? Never

had to take courses like those in college so I never had to purchase books. If I'm interested in the knowing more

on the topics, there's always the Internet.

The Seeker wrote:If summoning a Dragon God is not magic then I don't know what is. What does the bible mean by

magic arts/sorcery then? Final Fantasy most certainly does disagree the teachings of the bible.

People playing Final Fantasy games are not practitioners of magic. I should have been more specific to say that the use of magic in video games is not equivalent to the use of magic in real life, imo. Now, there are exceptions to that rule, also, imo. The Bible is clear that your thoughts are just as real as your actions, so if a person is as mentally into the use of video game magic as real magic, then there is a problem there (this relates to why sex in entertainment, for instance, is a problem since I don't know many people who aren't mentally engaged in those scenarios). I don't think that's the case for the majority of people. And FF games aren't promoting magic as something to believe in outside of the video game world. This is common sense stuff. If you don't agree, then there's not much left to discuss in the matter.
Besides, even if I decided to agree that it was magic in the biblical sense, it doesn't matter because I already

discounted your argument in my previous response. I see no need to keep rehashing my words for you.

My problem with this book/movie would not exist if Brown didn't claim to have based his fiction on facts that aren't facts.

The Seeker wrote:So you aren't saying that Dan Brown is spreading things counter to Christianity? If not, then

why are you so afraid to pay a little money to see a movie? Also, why is it that you are fine with the works of the

Final Fantasy which are filled with sinful magic, violence, and not to mention a volume of the series which portrays

the Church, the Messiah, and the Apostles, as being very evil? Is that not hypocracy?

Which volume of the series are you talking about? I can't answer that question until I know that information.
*sigh* Yes, I am saying that he is spreading things counter to christianity. The only true power I have in the

marketplace is where my dollars go. I can't express my disagreement with the subject matter of the movie in any

other form really.
I'm still now sure how those verses on judging others apply in any form though.

The Seeker wrote:I did not miss your point. I understood your point completely. You are making the claim that

Mental is just as intolerant as she is because he disagrees with his government, an authoratative figure over him,

in comparison to a work of art which has no authority over anyone. I did not see your point as valid because of how

far away the President of Nev's country is on the scale of importance is to an author of a fictional book. Dan Brown

is quite trivial compared to George Bush. The comparison is similar to describing your distaste for the author of

Final Fantasy (art work), due to the idea that magic is used, compared to anothers distaste to a parent

(authoratative), who the person in question felt abused them as a child. You also retracted your statement, so why

bother continuing to argue its validity after you yourself had already removed it in this argument?

I'm not sure how to repond to you on this point because your argument is so all over the place that I can barely

make any sense of it. I'll try still.
You obviously did miss my point even after I re-explained it. It has nothing to do with what you just said.

The point, again, was that I felt that Nev was more critical of a PoV that he didn't agree with than one that he

did. I did retract my statement, in regards to Nev specifically. That doesn't change the validity of my statement

in general. I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to grasp this.

The Seeker wrote:Do you really think that the justification for supporting movements to ban Final Fantasy is as

justified as supporting movements against an abusive parent? I know I don't, I would say that is ridiculous.

Try responding without changing my words into a totally different argument.

The Seeker wrote:What is your view on Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, and Genealogy of Morals? Just

out of curiosity.

If you're asking me, you'll have to remain curious. I have no views on those works at all.

On a quick side note, just to prove how much of a geek I am: I dreamt that Don Wang replied to my post and that I had replied to his reply. I just think it's a bit sad that I am having dreams about posting on The Otherworlds Shrine.

Lox wrote:On a quick side note, just to prove how much of a geek I am: I dreamt that Don Wang replied to my post and that I had replied to his reply. I just think it's a bit sad that I am having dreams about posting on The Otherworlds Shrine.

Yeah.

I mean, I dream about underage Mexican girls defecating into toilets openly and willingly in front of me, but your shit is just weird, man.

Also, sorry I haven't replied to your reply to my Jesus comments yet. Been stressed out, and haven't yet mustered up the courage to face the fact that I was most likely an asshole. Planning to get to it.

Lox wrote:How is this a rebuttal to my point? Brown is pretending that something is true and it isn't. This is something children do. The problem is that many people aren't going to know that he's pretending (which is also lying) unless someone tells them. You're all about people being given all points of view yet you don't seem understand why there's a group trying to do just that by exposing Brown's lies.

Pretend things are a necessary part of fictional work.

This group appears to be just a bunch of extremist wackos who are attempting to ban something because they just can't understand that people don't share their beliefs in a society of free expression.

Besides, Brown's theories have the same validity as these extremist groups. They make the claim that history does not back up his theories, historical evidence also does not even back up the existence of Jesus let alone mostly all of what is written in the bible.

Lox wrote:I've never purchased anything related to biology, astro-physics, or geology that was in disagreement with my views. That was your point, wasn't it? Never had to take courses like those in college so I never had to purchase books. If I'm interested in the knowing more on the topics, there's always the Internet.

Considering it is canonical in the Christian religion that the world is only a few thousand years old and for any of these scientific topics to make sense the world would have to be several billion years old. I made the assumption, since you seem to be Christian (who is somewhat quite vocal in supporting people who are attempting to push their beliefs onto society through the attempted banning of a film), that you believed in all of the central beliefs of the religion. I personally would think that the origin of the universe would be of far greater importance than whether or not Jesus had children.

Lox wrote:People playing Final Fantasy games are not practitioners of magic. I should have been more specific to say that the use of magic in video games is not equivalent to the use of magic in real life, imo. Now, there are exceptions to that rule, also, imo. The Bible is clear that your thoughts are just as real as your actions, so if a person is as mentally into the use of video game magic as real magic, then there is a problem there (this relates to why sex in entertainment, for instance, is a problem since I don't know many people who aren't mentally engaged in those scenarios). I don't think that's the case for the majority of people. And FF games aren't promoting magic as something to believe in outside of the video game world. This is common sense stuff. If you don't agree, then there's not much left to discuss in the matter. Besides, even if I decided to agree that it was magic in the biblical sense, it doesn't matter because I already discounted your argument in my previous response. I see no need to keep rehashing my words for you. My problem with this book/movie would not exist if Brown didn't claim to have based his fiction on facts that aren't facts.

Your religion is also claiming to be based on facts which are not facts, I am not supporting any petitions to ban Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other such traditions that I disagree with. Also, within Final Fantasy games, they do claim that the existence of magic is fact as well; I can prove it by pulling out sections of the script if you would like? Both Final Fantasy and Dan Brown's books are sold as FICTION, as opposed to NON-FICTION. You are unable to separate the difference between the two.

Lox wrote:Which volume of the series are you talking about? I can't answer that question until I know that information.

Final Fantasy Tactics.

Lox wrote:*sigh* Yes, I am saying that he is spreading things counter to christianity. The only true power I have in the marketplace is where my dollars go. I can't express my disagreement with the subject matter of the movie in any other form really. I'm still now sure how those verses on judging others apply in any form though.

I am alright if you disagree with what is in there; I disagree with it too. I do think that cutting yourself off of one of the most interesting and entertaining books written in the past 20 years, because you read that it has a different version of what you believe in, is fairly silly in my opinion. Lastly, it appears as if you are verbally supporting a group that outright wants to ban expression of literature in the form of a movie. Freedom of speech and expression is one of the core traditions of American society, and groups like this spit all over it.

Lox wrote:I'm not sure how to repond to you on this point because your argument is so all over the place that I can barely make any sense of it. I'll try still.You obviously did miss my point even after I re-explained it. It has nothing to do with what you just said. The point, again, was that I felt that Nev was more critical of a PoV that he didn't agree with than one that he did. I did retract my statement, in regards to Nev specifically. That doesn't change the validity of my statement in general. I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to grasp this.

Yeah, I did sort of jumble that. So In short:

1) Why retract a statement if it is valid? You did not answer that

2) The point of view towards an authoratative figure is a different subject than a point of view of an artist. Can you see why the argument is not a valid one now?


To sum things up; if you read the book and disagree with the material, fine, I have no further problem. If you refuse to buy the book because you don't think you'll enjoy it, fine: again, no further problem. If you refuse to buy the book because you don't want to support the author because some of the stuff he writes about disagrees with your belief system, even if you think you could enjoy the book: fine, but I will consider you fairly silly and that's about it. If you, in any way, support wacko groups (well groups that I consider wacko) that try to ban literature or expression of literature: that's fine too, but I will probably consider you to be confused or brainwashed (considering that you were produced by American society, which I always assumed was against suppression of literature; so long as it is not hate literature). I have a strong problem with any groups who would attempt to ban such things (not so much in the US, but certainly if they were in Canada; and more so in the US than European countries.).

I'm actually just waiting for Zeus to come in and ask how I can hold this view and continue to support age regulation on videogames =P

Lox wrote:On a quick side note, just to prove how much of a geek I am: I dreamt that Don Wang replied to my post and that I had replied to his reply. I just think it's a bit sad that I am having dreams about posting on The Otherworlds Shrine.

I sincerely love this place. Despite our argument now, and no matter how it ends, you're still a fellow gamer and Shriner in the end. That's how it always is..... unless your name is Red Leader =P

The Seeker wrote:I sincerely love this place. Despite our argument now, and no matter how it ends, you're still a fellow gamer and Shriner in the end. That's how it always is..... unless your name is Red Leader =P

Quoted for truth.

Nev wrote:Yeah.

I mean, I dream about underage Mexican girls defecating into toilets openly and willingly in front of me, but your shit is just weird, man.

I...er....um...........I have no response to that.

Nev wrote:Also, sorry I haven't replied to your reply to my Jesus comments yet. Been stressed out, and haven't yet mustered up the courage to face the fact that I was most likely an asshole. Planning to get to it.

I don't think you were an a-hole and I hope you don't think I thought you were based off of my reply. I hope you saw that I retracted my comment about you being a knee-jerk supporter. I'm just curious about your PoV. If anything, you're a fellow Kingdom Hearts 2 addict.

You are critisizing people for finding something an interesting and entertaining read, and the author for writing it?

I'm not sure I'm criticising. I just think Dan Brown is a poor author (have you read any of his other books? I've tried to :\). I don't think that people enjoying his books makes them bad people, just that I don't think they would as much if they had a greater awareness of history.

And then you have the audacity to call ME narrow-minded? =)

I don't feel that I'm being audacious. You have a clear suspicion of religion and it's colouring your arguments in this thread and a bunch of others. You have a clear Nintendo bias and that colours a lot of your gaming threads, also. I myself am also generally suspicious of religious institutions and have a strong Nintendo bias, but at least I'm honest about it .