Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Monique · May 26, 2006, 11:12 AM

Can you believe it some Christian conservatives threatened Tom Hanks' family because of the Da Vinci Code.

kmkkid · May 26, 2006, 11:14 AM

I guess railroaders prediction was right.

Spliffdaddy · May 26, 2006, 11:15 AM

Actually, they were Christian liberals.

kmkkid · May 26, 2006, 11:16 AM

Were they conservative men? - Ah, of course they were!

Dakar · May 26, 2006, 11:20 AM

I don't think I've ever seen Monique start a thread before.

Dork. · May 26, 2006, 11:22 AM

olePigeon · May 26, 2006, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Actually, they were Christian liberals.

Why would believing in core Chistian values make them liberals?

davesimondotcom · May 26, 2006, 11:38 AM

Some people's overreaction to a fictional book/movie does not represent the entire Christian faith.

I was talking to my wife about these kinds of things - like the Catholic cardinal who condemned the Da Vinci Code and I came to a conclusion of sorts:

It's almost like they "protesteth too much" - and that gives the impression they have something to hide and that there might actually be something to the theory presented in the book. Is that really what they want people to think? I don't think so.

FICTION people. FICTION. The Beatles aren't really Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Eminem isn't really Slim Shady. The Da Vinci Code events didn't really happen. The plane didn't really crash in Lost. There is no Jack Bauer, CTU agent.

chris v · May 26, 2006, 11:46 AM

Dave, dave, dave. Facts are stupid things.

Monique · May 26, 2006, 11:46 AM

Exactly it is fiction and I wish some people would get a life. It is just a hytothesis.

turtle777 · May 26, 2006, 11:50 AM

-t

chris v · May 26, 2006, 11:51 AM

Cuidado! Alla es Llamas!!

::maroma:: · May 26, 2006, 12:11 PM

Damn, and here I thought this thread was about Christian's nuts. I didn't think Christians had nuts, and I was hoping this thread would confirm or deny that. But alas...

Millennium · May 26, 2006, 12:20 PM

Yeah, Monique. Some Christians are, in fact nuts. So are some Jews, some Muslims, some Buddhists, some Unitarians...

turtle777 · May 26, 2006, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Yeah, Monique. Some Christians are, in fact nuts. So are some Jews, some Muslims, some Buddhists, some Unitarians...

Don't forget the Moniquians

-t

KeyLimePi · May 26, 2006, 12:28 PM

I thought she was the last of the Moniquians?

Albert Pujols · May 26, 2006, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

some Unitarians...

more like all of 'em..

Salty · May 26, 2006, 12:30 PM

Me and my friends have been pulling out hair out over this. My parent's pastor is now doing a sermon series to inform his congregation members why the Da Vinci Code is dumb. Honestly Dan Brown is playing the church for some amazing PR! This is freaking sad.
Do Christians not realize that we've had annoying atheistic/deistic/agnostic/muslim/whatever jackasses trying to destroy the church for a good long while already? But now when a best seller book does it, HOLY FRICK WE BETTER FIGHT BACK... badly...

Maflynn · May 26, 2006, 12:36 PM

What I don't get is this is a fictional book yet people (on both sides of the argument) take what is written as gospel (pun intended).

I think the people who threaten Tom Hank's family need their head examined.

Mike

olePigeon · May 26, 2006, 12:43 PM

Llamas son más grandes que las ranas.

kmkkid · May 26, 2006, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Maflynn

What I don't get is this is a fictional book yet people (on both sides of the argument) take what is written as gospel (pun intended).

Mike

Odd isn't it? People did the same with this thing called the Bible.....

turtle777 · May 26, 2006, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Odd isn't it? People did the same with this thing called the Bible.....

Bad comparison.

After all, is there a "religion" whose Holy Book is the "Da Vinci Code" ?

-t

Anand · May 26, 2006, 12:52 PM

So what. People threatened Rushdie for a book. People threatened to kill Deepa Mehta for here movie. Heck, religious hindus killed Ghandi because he wanted equality for all Indians regardless of caste.

The religious extreme are nuts. No matter the religion. They are all nuts. For christ sake, you have religious buddhist fighting in some place. What is up with that!

kmkkid · May 26, 2006, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Bad comparison.

After all, is there a "religion" whose Holy Book is the "Da Vinci Code" ?

-t

meh.

PacHead · May 26, 2006, 12:54 PM

Get back to me when these nuts actually kill somebody, until then this thread is of little interest to me. I'm more concerned about the nuts who do actually kill.

Monique · May 26, 2006, 12:56 PM

But, this is not the same thing; some crazy people are threatening the family of an ACTOR, not the author or a savior named Ghandi.

turtle777 · May 26, 2006, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

meh.

[/end_of_argument] ?

-t

Doofy · May 26, 2006, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

There is no Jack Bauer, CTU agent.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOooooo!!!!

PacHead · May 26, 2006, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

But, this is not the same thing; some crazy people are threatening the family of an ACTOR, not the author or a savior named Ghandi.

So why don't they just arrest them ? Is it anonymous threats ? I haven't heard anything about this story.

Monique · May 26, 2006, 01:09 PM

I guess they are and since when people like that are brave enough to leave their names behind.

Salty · May 26, 2006, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Maflynn

I think the people who threaten Tom Hank's family need their head examined.

I dono... I certainly question their reasons... but not the desire.

BlueSky · May 26, 2006, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

... I certainly question their reasons... but not the desire.

In the context what your religion says, does it make a difference? Yeah, I know, don't tell me...you're not perfect, just forgiven.

Uriel · May 26, 2006, 02:06 PM

I think we should just a agree that a lot of the human race is nuts...period. Religion is many times a catalyst for people are already a little whacky.

Wiskedjak · May 26, 2006, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by PacHead

Get back to me when these nuts actually kill somebody, until then this thread is of little interest to me. I'm more concerned about the nuts who do actually kill.

You would prefer to wait until there is a smoking gun? Threats have been made! Preemptive action must be taken!!!

Wiskedjak · May 26, 2006, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Bad comparison.

After all, is there a "religion" whose Holy Book is the "Da Vinci Code" ?

-t

Depends. There are people who believe it's words are true. These people under-take pilgrimages to follow the passages of the Book. Doesn't sound too different from religion to me.

davesimondotcom · May 26, 2006, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

Do Christians not realize that we've had annoying atheistic/deistic/agnostic/muslim/whatever jackasses trying to destroy the church for a good long while already? But now when a best seller book does it, HOLY FRICK WE BETTER FIGHT BACK... badly...

You do realize that Dan Brown considers himself a Christian and that he is in no way trying to destroy the church at all, right? He's just telling a story.

Actually, I think the movie goes even further than the book in telling "both sides" of the argument.

I would also like to know something else - if Mary Magdaline and Jesus were married and they did have a child, does that mean that somehow Jesus wasn't the great person that he was?

Uriel · May 26, 2006, 02:29 PM

I would also like to know something else - if Mary Magdaline and Jesus were married and they did have a child, does that mean that somehow Jesus wasn't the great person that he was?

I think for a lot of people, this would go against what the Bible said so they would say since this part of the bible is false, then how can we confirm the whole thing.

It becomes a question of is our faith in God relient on a factual basis or fact. I would say someone that relies so heavily on pure factual proof would be devestated by this. However, others may be able to hold steady because of faith.

Hope that's a decent answer.

Salty · May 26, 2006, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

You do realize that Dan Brown considers himself a Christian and that he is in no way trying to destroy the church at all, right? He's just telling a story.

Actually, I think the movie goes even further than the book in telling "both sides" of the argument.

I would also like to know something else - if Mary Magdaline and Jesus were married and they did have a child, does that mean that somehow Jesus wasn't the great person that he was?

No but it does put you in the theological quandary of having a good number of perfect people running around the planet. Since original sin is the responsibility of the father, thus why Jesus had to have no human father. Unless all of Mary and Jesus' children were women then we would have at least for while immediately after have had several people running around without any sin nature.

olePigeon · May 26, 2006, 02:37 PM

I think when Jesus found out he was going to die for all the sins, he shacked up with a hot chick and went for broke.

Kinda like old rich guys and super models.

Salty · May 26, 2006, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I think when Jesus found out he was going to die for all the sins, he shacked up with a hot chick and went for broke.

Kinda like old rich guys and super models.

So basically... you're a slightly more crude Dan Brown?

ambush · May 26, 2006, 02:48 PM

Monique is just having her PMS... oh wait she's menopaused.

Kr0nos · May 26, 2006, 02:53 PM

I don't care what y'all think, but anybody who can turn water into wine is getting some. There's just nothing else to it.

Wiskedjak · May 26, 2006, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

No but it does put you in the theological quandary of having a good number of perfect people running around the planet. Since original sin is the responsibility of the father, thus why Jesus had to have no human father. Unless all of Mary and Jesus' children were women then we would have at least for while immediately after have had several people running around without any sin nature.

You are saying that Christ was sinless because he didn't have a mortal father. That being the case, his perfection would be the result of circumstance (not having a mortal father/immaculate conception) and wouldn't be genetically passed to any children he might have.

And even if it could, I suppose that depends on your interpretation of genetics. If male children are exact clones of their father, then you're right. However, generally, we see traits of both parents in both male and female children. Children of a sinless god (who is sinless because he has no father) and a mortal woman, would not be sinless since they would be sharing trait of the mortal (and not sinless) mother and, more importantly, were not the result of immaculate conception.

Salty · May 26, 2006, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

You are saying that Christ was sinless because he didn't have a mortal father. That being the case, his perfection would be the result of circumstance (not having a mortal father/immaculate conception) and wouldn't be genetically passed to any children he might have.

And even if it could, I suppose that depends on your interpretation of genetics. If male children are exact clones of their father, then you're right. However, generally, we see traits of both parents in both male and female children. Children of a sinless god (who is sinless because he has no father) and a mortal woman, would not be sinless since they would be sharing trait of the mortal (and not sinless) mother and, more importantly, were not the result of immaculate conception.

It's not a biology thing, it's a theology thing.

It also requires an understanding of the doctrine of original sin. If you're interested try reading John Calvin

. Essentially Calvin writes, and it makes sense that the reason Jesus didn't have a Father is because it was Adam's sin that matter for creation. In God fathering Christ as a man, Christ was born as a human through a woman, but sin was not transfered to Him. Christ was born without the inherent drive toward sin that we all have. Now sure gender equality nut jobbies will have a huge problem with it, but it seems to make sense. Ultimately then if Jesus did not have sin to pass on to His offspring, regardless of whether or not He slept with a imperfect woman she would still not be transferring her sin nature to the children, nor would Jesus. Therefore if any men were born we'd have another Jesus who could make even more perfect children.

andi*pandi · May 26, 2006, 03:32 PM

if men are responsible for original sin, why are women always being blamed for it since eve? is this something that came from the separatists?

said laughingly.

olePigeon · May 26, 2006, 03:34 PM

What about a person conceived from two women? In Vitro Fertilization via RNA injection from a doner embryo is possible now. Because the child has 2 mothers, and no father, are they born without sin?