Posted on 05/16/2006 7:12:29 AM PDT by Grendel9
"Yep. Sad thing is, some have bought into it being 'historical but suppressed fact'."
Probably the same folk who take bigfoot, the yeti, Nessie, and the Beale cypher as historical fact. Those who do not know the truth simply need teaching.
Cheers,
Please see post 42.
Some don't want to be taught. I was having a conversation with a fellow the other day who had set out to convince me that the DaVinci Code is true. I pointed out all the historical errors to him, and his response was 'oh you are just brainwashed.'
He did not wish to know the truth.
yep, and your responsibility and authority ended with his exercise of volition. He didn't change your knowledge of the truth, and you didn't change his. Next...
Seriously, one can do one's best, but ultimately we are all responsible for exercising our own volition.
Exactly the point. Will this movie make them think all the information about Jesus is correct? Or, will it make them doubt any future information on Jesus?
If they don't come to church, they will not receive the teaching and this movie will cause many, many to disregard any biblical teaching.
But, hey, that is the purpose of the movie and why it must be promoted.
When you consider the vastness of space and time, and the infinitesimal nature of that which surrounds us, which constructs us, it is truly a miracle.
So, at one point, after God created the universe, he create the Earth. Then, after a while, he created Adam. Now THAT was a miracle, was it not? Then, from Adam, he created Eve. Zounds - two humans created, neither born of natural parents, and neither born of a "virgin." But - created!
Now you would think that with the creation of two perfect beings, Adam and Eve, the path to eternal life would have been sufficiently explained and none of us would be paying taxes to the IRS. But something went wrong.
Fast forward to the birth of Jesus. Born of a "virgin" mother. Well, ok. But to a God that created the vastness, and smallness, of this universe, that was pretty small potatoes.
Jesus had a life, and a message. Now somewhere during that life it doesn't matter if he had a wife, and children. It doesn't matter if he himself lived and died as a virgin. None of these things matter when you consider that he was born flesh and blood, overcame the base instincts that plague us all, and was resurrected. The message was that since HE did it, we could too!
So somewhere between Adam and Jesus this message didn't get across. Oh, I know that God favored a certain people, and even communicated with their leaders. You would think that God would also give them the same message that Jesus gave.. Maybe he did, and maybe he didn't. Evidently, whatever God told his people, it wasn't enough, or their own religious leaders didn't preach the truth. It seems that Jesus had to come to the Earth to give us the truth. He either added something to the body of religious beliefs, or he changed something. (You know, the oddity here is that at one point God himself gave his message, and the people ignored it. Then, he decided that Jesus should become as a man, and try to get the message across THAT way. You know, talk to the people in their own language, but as a mortal, not a God. That didn't seem to work for some people either!)
The message of Jesus? Believe in him, and you too can escape from Penal Colony Earth and live in Paradise.
Some people will believe anything except the truth and Da vinci isn't it.
I agree. See post #66.
It's not necessary to see the movie, which you pass off as "dumb" despite not reading it or seeing it personally yourself. This means you are basing your opinion on what others have told you. And perhaps they embellished.... perhaps not. But you made your decision to not read or see it, but it seems that basis is due to faith, not because it's "dumb".
And I didn't see anything on the news or in my mailbox saying the movie was necessary to be seen. The only "havoc" I've observed are those who are screaming NOT to see it.
What makes you think I'm going to "snicker" at Christians? What makes you think I'm not a Christian?
As to the writer and his wealth, that's the way it is. Same as the Harry Potter author, Tom Clancy, Grisham and so many others. You write a work of fiction, someone in Hollywood decides to make a movie of it and pays you for the rights. Welcome to Capitalism.
Yes it's fiction! But I still object to the subject matter, especially as it's promoted as the pseudo-truth.
If someone madeup a story about my Dad or my brothers which claimed that their friends had falsified their history, thereby insinuating that they were not as good as they really were), I would be livid. Then, even more so am I offended by such treatment of the menory and the mission of my Lord and Savior, Jeus Christ.
To offend Jesus Chirst is, IMHO, the worst thing that can happen, and causes me both pain and indignation. Even more so than if they had slandered my parents. After all, my parents gave me life, but my Savior gave me eternal life.
Yes it's fiction! But I still object to the subject matter, especially as it's promoted as the pseudo-truth.
If someone madeup a story about my Dad or my brothers which claimed that their friends had falsified their history, thereby insinuating that they were not as good as they really were), I would be livid. Then, even more so am I offended by such treatment of the menory and the mission of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
To offend Jesus Chirst is, IMHO, the worst thing that can happen, and causes me both pain and indignation. Even more so than if they had slandered my parents. After all, my parents gave me life, but my Savior gave me eternal life.
Your post reminded me of our recent seminar by John Clayton, a retired physics, chemistry and earth science instructor from the public schools in South Bend, Indiana.
He was an atheist who worked with Madelyn O'Hair and set out to prove that the Bible was a farce and that Bible and science were not compatible.
But, instead, he found that science and the Bible did not disagree.
http://www.doesgodexist.org/
The information on "Flatland" by Edwin Abbot was a great explanation of the reason we cannot comprehend the being of God. We see things though our earthly existence and framework. God is outside of that existence and we do not have the ability to comprehend under the framework of life on earth.
All of the seminar information is on the website and can be seen there.
Actually, if you read Dan Brown's own web site, those are Dan's real interpretation. Brown believes it to be the truth. He clearly says he disagrees with the scholars who debunk his book.
"God is outside of that existence and we do not have the ability to comprehend under the framework of life on earth."
Sounds logical to me. So it would be natural for God to communicate to us via another human, since "we do not have the ability to comprehend under the framework of life on earth."
Please see post 73.
Again, I have explained my feelings about the movie, how it makes me feel and why I am not interested in it.
I am not trying to indicate others should feel the same. But, that may have come across as I feel pretty strongly that I resent the disrespect of Jesus after all He has given for us.
You may not see the extreme promotion of this film - but I do. Of course, they promote all films but there is an ongoing assault against Christianity in this country and this is just another of their tools. So, of course, those seeking to destroy God will use this one.
Sorry we disagree but there is no need for me to conform to your view either. If you feel great going to see the movie - enjoy it.
I'm sorry - I did not at all think you were an atheist. Your post of the creation, Adam and Eve, and the following events just reminded me of Clayton's seminar.
I did not realize how science had progressed since my days of school and it gave me a catch-up course on the developments. The man is brilliant and reminded me of a Rush Limbaugh brain.
For one thing - I found out that a comet will not hit the earth as it is heading to the sun and the placement of the other planets prevents it hitting earth (except in extreme rare instances).
He also gave 10 criteria needed for earth to have been created and the probability of getting even one of them right. Scientifically this meant that the probability of earth having just merely 10 (when there were really 100's of criteria) would have been in the billions - 000,000,000,000,000. (Don't remember the number).
So interesting.
Cannes Festival useda be a place where they showed art, not exploitative porno pulp. Roll over Fellini and tell Renoir the news!
Then I am the one to apologize. I shouldn't have posted that line. It wasn't relevant anyway.
Yes, there's another religious group that does things like that over depictions they don't like. Great example to emulate! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.