Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Answerer · 06-14-2005, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lenrek

:banghead:

Don't tell me you actually watched it?

Well, I initially thought that it was non-biased. But I was so wrong!!!!!

The atheists' arguments are practically fucked in that show. :down: :down:

John A. Broussard · 06-14-2005, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Fiction should not be a vehicle for spreading untruths.

I'm shocked at what Shakespeare did to MacBeth, Hamlet, Henry VI and a host of other historical figures--shocked at how he spread untruths about them.

Shakespeare should be banned.

Tristan C. · 06-14-2005, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Answerer

Guys, in the recent weeks, the media network in my country had been showing the documentaries on the refutation of Da Vinci code and the 'evil' alternate history theories that the book had been trying to spread.

After that, they switch immediately to some documentaries about the Historical Verification of the Jesus Resurrection!!!! OH mY GOD!!!!!!

They showed lots of 'evidences' ranging from claims Bibical scholars, priests, Bishops, etc.

In short, they showed how wrong Atheists/Skeptics arguments were, are and would be. The documentary ended with the conclusion that Da Vinci Code is one of the 'traditional' atheists' failed attempt to disprove Christianity and Jesus, which, in fact, existed.

:banghead: :banghead:

I think the media in my country will not be showing any skeptic point of view since its already shown or 'proved' to be rubbish...... :banghead:

Yeah, I got a copy of those documentaries through a friend, and they were very... interesting... to say the least. If you look closely enough, you can see that the so called atheists in the documentary are wearing all sorts of christian symbols. You may not notice it, but they are there. It just goes to show that the church was trying to pass off atheists as retarded pieces of crap and further strengthen its control in singapore and any other places that showed that documentary.

NOGO · 06-14-2005, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by artdude

Wrong. The "book" doesn't say that. Characters in the book say something.

Please read my above post regarding the NYT Science desk cut outs. It may shed some light on your confusion.

Isn't it ironic.
This forum very often discusses the Gospels.
Are they history or are they fiction?
How much time has been spent on this very question.

Now some of you are trying to convince me that it is obvious what is fiction and what is real.

Wow! ... and I am the now that's confused.

By the way I am not "up-in-arms" I am just stating an opinion.

The character making the statement about Constantine is not some panhandler, he is someone who is dressedup as very knowledgeable and educated. Someone who has researched the subject. In fact he dedicated years of his life to the subject at hand, moved to France and flies home once in a while for medical treatment.

What I object to is that the bit about Constatine and others have no direct impact on the story. You can ommit these statements without any loss to the book.

John A. Broussard · 06-14-2005, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Isn't it ironic.
This forum very often discusses the Gospels.
Are they history or are they fiction?
How much time has been spent on this very question.

Now some of you are trying to convince me that it is obvious what is fiction and what is real.

Wow! ... and I am the now that's confused.

Earlier stated by NOGO: "Fiction should not be a vehicle for spreading untruths."

What should be used for spreading untruths?

I am the now that's most confused.

Californian · 06-14-2005, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Earlier stated by NOGO: "Fiction should not be a vehicle for spreading untruths."

What should be used for spreading untruths?

I am the now that's most confused.

As someone already pointed out, we know enough from other sources that Brown is right. But the Constantine issue makes the Catholics/Christians crazy. What they dare not even object to in connection with that, is Browns inferences that Jesus was 100% human.

NOGO · 06-14-2005, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

What should be used for spreading untruths?

I am the now that's most confused.

Religion!

NOGO · 06-14-2005, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Californian

As someone already pointed out, we know enough from other sources that Brown is right. But the Constantine issue makes the Catholics/Christians crazy. What they dare not even object to in connection with that, is Browns inferences that Jesus was 100% human.

What is really bizarre is that the Gospels do not say that Jesus is divine.

Tristan C. · 06-14-2005, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Religion!

:rolling: good one! Of course, you religious nutters out there can't prove that the bible is right, as is demonstrated every time I ask you to. I believe the standard answer goes something like: We don't need to prove it, the bible is always right, because it was written by the hand of god. So I ask, What is the point of debating something that has proof against something that doesn't? For instance, evolution versus creation. Creation has no evidence or proof other than the bible, and evolution has a near complete fossil record, dinosaurs, and radiocarbon dating. OH YEAH... Why don't you fundies actually READ the book before you go spouting off about how untrue it is? Or have you been too brainwashed by the church into thinking it really is the benevolent entity it says it is?

StaticAge · 06-14-2005, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Come now, what I am saying is not rocket science.
Even in a fictional work there many elements which are real and are expected to be real.
Sir Isaac Newton, ... not fiction.
Leonardo Davinci ... not fiction.
Prieuré de Sion ... not fiction
The Catholic church ... not fiction
The dead sea scrolls ... not fiction.
The Last supper by Davinci ... not fiction.
The fact that there really is a woman ... not fiction.

I could go on but you probably get the picture. When you read the Davinci code you expect certain elements to be real.

That last one for example ... did you consider the Last Supper to have a woman or did you consider this fiction?

When the book says that early Christians considered Jesus to be human until Constantine came along and made him into a God some people will consider this real.

That is what I object to. Is this so hard for you guys to understand.

Distortion of facts is not to be confused with creativity.

Fiction should not be a vehicle for spreading untruths.

Come now;
Nazi's… not fiction
Egypt… not fiction
ark of the covenant… not fiction
bullwhips… not fiction

I suppose I should be angry at the way Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark was presented! How dare they distort the truth!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.