Da Vinci Code provokes protests ahead of premiere

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Iceman

Scandium...you need to learn it seems the difference in meaning between "OLD Testament" and "NEW Testament"....Until you do your comments here are "shredded" and there is NO compairison...The NEW Testament was made by the testator...Jesus Christ. by the shedding of BLOOD, and ALL LAWS are summed up in one command now...Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself.

My point was that christianity, and its bible, includes both the Old and New Testaments and that if you exclude either from the discussion then you are no longer talking about christianity. Skybird does this by seeking to exclude the Old Testament from any discussion to focus instead on Jesus. I don't know what religious faith you guys are, perhaps one of the more obscure christian sects that prints its own dogma, but I've mentioned mine and its book does include the Old Testament.

As to the difference between a christian and a jew, I thought it was that Jews wore funny hats and didn't like pork

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

"Tolerance towards an evil is a crime." (Thomas Mann) Thanks again for that, AL!

An oldie but a goodie.

Originally Posted by Iceman

This is where myself and Avon Lady come into conflict because the Jew sees this as abolishing the laws of old yet what Christ did was FREE us from the curse of the law...curse being that NO FLESH CAN be justified before God by means of the law.

I regret not having the time to show the falacies of this Christian doctrine.

Originally Posted by Scandium

As to the difference between a christian and a jew, I thought it was that Jews wore funny hats and didn't like pork

And just what's so funny about my hats????!!!!!

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by scandium

My point was that christianity, and its bible, includes both the Old and New Testaments and that if you exclude either from the discussion then you are no longer talking about christianity. Skybird does this by seeking to exclude the Old Testament from any discussion to focus instead on Jesus. I don't know what religious faith you guys are, perhaps one of the more obscure christian sects that prints its own dogma, but I've mentioned mine and its book does include the Old Testament.

As to the difference between a christian and a jew, I thought it was that Jews wore funny hats and didn't like pork

Again...you are dead flat wrong....figure out the meaning of "New Testament" and I will speak with you again on this, until then you wander around in the dark not knowing what you are talking about....

God gave moses 10 commandments on the mt. AL and man could not keep 10...do ya think God is a God that would make entry to heaven so obscure and unobtainable that none could pass the tests? or keep all that was required to enter?.. just think about that ..what kind of Sic God do you believe in...I believe in one that had the foresight to see so far ahead in the garden of Eden when the fall of man occurred and His angels told him weeds were now growing amongst the wheat if they should Reap it all then and there he said NO...let them grow together until the end and then he would seperate them.

We need not continue this at all AL because I know exactly what you belive in and where you are...you are a slave in bondage to the LAW until the time appointed when your eyes will be re-opened.The Muslim is slave to his way as well, as is the Christian.But they are as different as can be.

See I quote Genesis there...the Christian does not "Discount" the Old testament it is a teaching tool yet he is not under it's bondage like the Jew chooses to be and it is a choice you make.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Iceman

God gave moses 10 commandments on the mt. AL and man could not keep 10...

Really? Why?

Try it, you'll like it.

do ya think God is a God that would make entry to heaven so obscure and unobtainable that none could pass the tests? or keep all that was required to enter?..

Read your Bible:

• For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.
  
  It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"
  
  Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"
  
  Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.
  - Deuteronomy 30:11-14

God gave us Jews 613 commandments, not 10, plus the obligation to abide by Rabbinical laws as well.

We've been doing it for the most part for 3000 or so years. So, where's this problem you keep on referring to?

just think about that ..what kind of Sic God do you believe in...I believe in one that had the foresight to see so far ahead in the garden of Eden when the fall of man occurred and His angels told him weeds were now growing amongst the wheat if they should Reap it all then and there he said NO...let them grow together until the end and then he would seperate them.

This is very sweet but it's blah-blah.

BTW, if such a G-d is sick, why on earth do Christians even retain copies of the Old Testament? It's all wrong. Oops.....

We need not continue this at all AL because I know exactly what you belive in and where you are...you are a slave in bondage to the LAW until the time appointed when your eyes will be re-opened.The Muslim is slave to his way as well, as is the Christian.But they are as different as can be.

I am a very free person. I make all of my choices in life. Whether they are good or bad choices is up to my conscience and my knowledge.

See I quote Genesis there...the Christian does not "Discount" the Old testament it is a teaching tool yet he is not under it's bondage like the Jew chooses to be and it is a choice you make.

It was G-d's commandment to us. Your newfangled religion at the time was just one of numerous similar offshoots at the time. Jesus was a Jewish born blasphemer and false prophet, plain and simple, about whom the Torah states:

• Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.
  
  If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,
  
  and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"
  
  you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.
  
  You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him.
  
  And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst.
  - Deuteronomy 13:1-6

Similarly:

• But the prophet who intentionally speaks a word in My name, which I did not command him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.
  
  Now if you say to yourself, "How will we know the word that the Lord did not speak?"
  
  If the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, and the thing does not occur and does not come about, that is the thing the Lord did not speak. The prophet has spoken it wantonly; you shall not be afraid of him.
  - Deuteronomy 18:18-20

Enjoy our rejects!

[jumpy]

*yawn*
three pages about a story of a story of a story, which in all probability has no real bearing on anybody or thing now, or then, alive or dead. Nice to see some of you on your usual form though (much more interesting than the film).
As a self proclaimed un-believer, cynic and skeptic, I find the whole premise of the Davinci Code to be a little far fetched (along with the bible etc). Even if it is a blatant fiction masquerading as an interpreted, possible truth, I see no reason to get all worked up by a mere film (press) about a fictional claim of a conspiracy of secrets based upon a ficional book. No doubt the film will be mildy entertaining, but as with all things hollywood there's a load of hype with the aim of selling movies; a point which some of the more fervent believers should take notice of... but I guess if you base your life and integrity on (imho) a work of fiction, albeit an allegorical one, then it's not a great leap of faith to find something contentious in a film who's subject matter is close to your own beliefs.

Can't see what all the fuss is about.
*yawn*

[Skybird]

Scnadium, what is so difficult in understanding that I make a strict differenc between christinaity understood as church/old testament on the one hand, and christinaity understood as Jesus' teachings on the other, which are very much the same what Buddha said, btw, just expressed in different culture-dependent verbal symbols...? Has the church been called "the Christ", or was it Jesus? The third or fourth time I tell this difference now (There is this theory, that Jesus, before he stepped onto the public stage, once travelled to In dia and met with and learned from Siddharta, which would explain a lot of the similiarities in both man's teachings). And like siddharta did not pay much attention to classical Hindu scriptures, Jesus did not pay much attention about the content of the old testament. for the most he was independant from that. Which pi$$ed the pharisees.

And you also compare apples with cherries. You accuse the modern West (partially rightfully) of causing harm in the third world, for his own economical benefit, in the present. well, leaveing out that others do like that, too, you all blame it on modern churches, as if they still are as influential as they were in the medieval. But it is not because of the churches today, but becasue of that thing called democracy and capitalism. I have essayed on the fact myself, that the difference between democracy and totalitarianism is that totalitarianism kills with it's own hands, whereas a democracies indirectly kills by letting others die without caring. I also referred to comprehensive academical works pointing out that statistically democracies of the last 110 years or so have more killed ones in their scorebook than all tyrannies, terror and WWI and WWII have caused together in that time. Statistically. Nevertheless, that is not neither because of the church, nor because Jesus. It is for economical interests understood in the way capitalism does: "the world revolves around the most powerful one". Capitalism has abandoned any religion, btw. It even makes deal with our enemy.

And with Islam you are dealing with someone who does not make a difference between religion and politics, like you don't do concerning the West, but in the West church and politics have separated, remember?. So what you acchieve with your intention to make Jesus' message look as bad as that of Islam, is this. Misunderstanding this thing called freedom of religious practicing, you hear the criticism on Islam as a religion - and compare it to western politics that mainly are intentionally triggered by economics and politics - not the churches, and even less by Jesus anymore. But you blame the latter, nevertheless, putting Islam "into relation" that way, on a 1:1 basis: both Islam and church (too weak!), Jesus (is not the church!) do the same evil, for the same reason. And by that you accept Islam to push through it's own and very different (and very totalitarian!) political agenda, wheresas you ignore the political motive of the Western business world (adding their responsebility to that of the church).

I don't understand you. You mess up categories of definition here, and you mess up western religion (in open retreat: the chruches are empty!) and economical powerpolitics as understood by industry and business. You say "the Christians", but you talk about economical politics and their lobbies and parties. Plus you do not differ between Church, which is christian for you, and the real message of Jesus, that in wide parts is in direct oppositiojn to the churche'S practicing in the past, whereas it has become more tame in the recent decades and centuries, due to the hoistorical develoepment that enforced the loss of power of the church.

BTW, I never said anywhere the blossoming of philosophy and arts and science and culture was because Chrstinaiaty or Jesus or church has been there. It all was, here you are right, DESPITE the church. The reformation was an opposing challange to it, the developement of science, and so on. Protestantism put'S it'S major attention on the new testament, calling it the "Frohe Botschaft", and especially on Jesus' message. It is fair to say that modern christianity has significantly moved beyond the old hate-preachings of the old, blood-dripping testament. But Islam has not, and has also prohibited any develoepemnt that could lead to new thinking and new interpretation. It never had a revolutionizer like Jesus who challenged the orthodoxy (that'S why they were after him). those who tried, were killed or eneded in prison, or submitted. No wonder that it still is stuck in the phase that compares to the Christian churches during the dark medieval or the inquisition, when they had their own political ambitions and also the power to push them through - this power the church has lost for the most. Or maybe think of the tribal religion and Judaism before christ's birth, both had not formed anything like christianity at all but still were stuck with the content of the old testament exclusively (the term "christianity" already directly refers to Jesus, called the "Christ". Withoiut Jesus, Christianity is undefinable. the church corrputed that link when starting to abuse Jesus for their own powerpolitics - an old Muslim critizism of Christian's priest that has been there from islam's beginning, and that - one must admit it - is true). These old societies and this way of thinking compares to that of Islam, because both derive from the same time and era and origin.

You simply oversee almost two millenias of slowly, blood, painful moving on for the Western people, and then compare them to something they had left behind centuries ago!

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I don't understand you. You mess up categories of definition here, and you mess up western religion (in open retreat: the chruches are empty!) and economical powerpolitics as understood by industry and business.

Hmmmm..................

Sounds like something a shill would do.

[Skybird]

Finally I want to know - what is a shill...??? I only know chill, and so does the dictionary.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Finally I want to know - what is a shill...???

I posted the definition here yesterday.

Taken from Dictionary.com.

[Skybird]

I thought that definition was part of a still running joke that I did not understand.

[scandium]

Skybird I guess I haven't explained it as clearly as it seems to me to be. But I'll take another shot at it anyway:

First, I don't think you can really compare Muhammad and Jesus (at least not when accepting both religions at face value for the purpose of comparison). Muhammed, even though central to Islam, was a prophet - a man. Jesus, on the other hand, is generally considered by Christians to be the son of God (and by other Christian faiths to be one and the same as God but that is a theological issue that is irrelevant to our discussion). That recognition of his tie to God is what binds the New Testament to the Old Testament, since if you don't recognize the Old Testament you have no theological basis to recognize either Jesus or the New Testament (doing so would imply a kind of theological paradox). The reverse, of course, is not true, as one does not need to recognize Jesus as being linked to God to accept the Old Testament; its possible to reject him as a false prophet, however to do so would of course mean to reject Christianity as well.

With that out of the way we come to the more intolerant passages of the Old Testament that I quoted previously as examples of Christian intolerance, and which are based in the very doctrine of their faith (and not just the institutional church). In darker times such passages were taken literally and used to justify all manner of terrible things that we no longer see today. Sure it was "the church" (as an institution) that sanctioned, even instigated, many of the things done in its name but they also exist in the Christian doctrine itself as well (the Bible).

Western society has become more progressive since then due, at least in large part, to a corresponding loss of the institutional power of the church (through the ascension of secularism) where it increasingly lost the power to promote the intolerance that is found in the doctrine itself.

My belief is that Islamic theocracies are the way they are largely because theocracies are themselves tyrannical, and that a Christian theocracy likely wouldn't be a whole lot different. It is very easy when one is raised in a society where one is raised with societal beliefs and values instilled in them that include their religion as only one aspect of it; it is very much another when the religion, beliefs, values and the society itself are all intertwined to the extent that they are almost indistinguishable. And when that happens I don't think it makes a lot of difference whether the religion is Christianity or Islam. But its only not possible because our society has evolved past the theocracy stage while Islamic society is still largely stuck in that stage. That's also why I don't see Islamic culture posing the same threat here that many others seem to see.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I thought that definition was part of a still running joke that I did not understand.

It was originally meant kind of tongue in cheek and I even had some fun with my expanded definition of it at one point.

[TteFAboB]

Scandium, a church is made of men, hence, if the men are good, the church will be good, or the contrary.

The point is NOT to ignore the Old Testament, the idea is what you make out of it, what Christians make out of it.

Is it correct for a Christian to use the Old Testament to justify a theocracy?

No.

Because a tyranical theocracy is in conflict with Christianity itself, if we understand it as a religion made of men that must be in accordance to the Christian mystic.

You generalize what cannot be generalized, because to abstract, you'd have to have all individual examples to be equal, and they aren't.

An example, while the Dominicans were burning someone, somewhere, St, Thomas Aquinas was writing his work in the back of their monastery.

What Aquinas wrote is in direct conflict, contradictory, to the inquisition.

Likewise, while a Jesuit was exterminating an indigenous tribe somewhere, another Jesuit was treating another tribe as equal.

What if the church was made only of these kind of men, and not the other kind? Who is right? Who is the Chriistian in better syntony with the Christian theology?

If you take the Christian theology, you'll see that the Catholic Church has not been run by faithfull Christians, and cannot claim to have acted in the name of Christianity, if it was in contradiction to the theology itself, especially Jesus Christ.

So the difference you refuse to accept is, if you pick a random Christian today he'll tell you what he understands from those passages. If you take a random Muslim he'll tell you why Sharia must be implemented in the UK.

I suppose whatever the Christian tells you it will be something far more different and preferable to the ear than the consequences of implementing Sharia.

Or explain why life in Israel is better than in the Islamic nation of your choice, if they are massively Jewish, with all that hate and blood of the Old Testament, yet not a theocracy.

Because it depends on how the people understand the theology, if they are power-hungry opportunists, they'll use a church for political power, if not, the church will remain out of the political scenario. But since you do not recognize the particular scenario of Islam, where political support is intrinsicate, I suppose I speak to a wall.

[Skybird]

I give it up, Scandium. You don't get the difference I think that is most essential.
In the last paragraph you essentially say: since Islam is like it is, and Christianity would be much the same if it only still would be where Islam is, there is no difference anyway, and it doesn't matter, so what's the trouble?
If by a fingersnip'S magic suddenly the next twohundred years would run down in just one minute and then you woudl find yourself in the kind of society Islam has turned Europe into, then even you would see the difference, and you would understand, that all explanations why Islam is like it is does not make the situation more comfortable! But then it will be too late. islam has not changed the last 1000+ years, and there is no reason to assume it will change in the next one or more thousand years.

But that is no world I would like to be reborn in.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Really? Why?

Try it, you'll like it.

Read your Bible:

• For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.
  
  It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"
  
  Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"
  
  Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.
  - Deuteronomy 30:11-14

God gave us Jews 613 commandments, not 10, plus the obligation to abide by Rabbinical laws as well.

We've been doing it for the most part for 3000 or so years. So, where's this problem you keep on referring to?

This is very sweet but it's blah-blah.

BTW, if such a G-d is sick, why on earth do Christians even retain copies of the Old Testament? It's all wrong. Oops.....

I am a very free person. I make all of my choices in life. Whether they are good or bad choices is up to my conscience and my knowledge.

It was G-d's commandment to us. Your newfangled religion at the time was just one of numerous similar offshoots at the time. Jesus was a Jewish born blasphemer and false prophet, plain and simple, about whom the Torah states:

• Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.
  
  If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,
  
  and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"
  
  you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.
  
  You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him.
  
  And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst.
  - Deuteronomy 13:1-6

Similarly:

• But the prophet who intentionally speaks a word in My name, which I did not command him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.
  
  Now if you say to yourself, "How will we know the word that the Lord did not speak?"
  
  If the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, and the thing does not occur and does not come about, that is the thing the Lord did not speak. The prophet has spoken it wantonly; you shall not be afraid of him.
  - Deuteronomy 18:18-20

Enjoy our rejects!

Galatians 3
[1] O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
[2] This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
[3] Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
[4] Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
[5] He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
[6] Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
[7] Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
[8] And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
[9] So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
[10] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
[11] But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
[12] And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
[13] Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
[14] That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

613 huh?....Good Luck with that..I'll take the obscure fishermen/carpenter you can keep Barabbas.