The Davinci Code - Blasphemous Feminist Garbage

fogghorn · Post by **fogghorn** » Sat May 06, 2006 8:05 am

http://www.culturewars.com/2004/DaVinci.html

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Sat May 06, 2006 12:55 pm

1 - That review is a joke. The pro-religon prejudice of the writer is revealed from the first line.

2 - You should base your opinions on your own beliefs - ie. read it for yourself - rather than those of a pro-catholic zealot.

3 - It's fiction. Get over it.

4 - I like this part...

profoundly corrupt, worse than pornography

Go get laid - christ fucker...

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Sat May 06, 2006 1:01 pm

God help that guy when he finds out about the Gospel of Judas, recently discovered and translated... and that's not fiction.

It is amazing how uptight people get over this stuff.

gr8gazu · Post by **gr8gazu** » Sat May 06, 2006 5:58 pm

altiplano wrote:1 - That review is a joke. The pro-religon prejudice of the writer is revealed from the first line.

2 - You should base your opinions on your own beliefs - ie. read it for yourself - rather than those of a pro-catholic zealot.

3 - It's fiction. Get over it.

4 - I like this part...
profoundly corrupt, worse than pornography
Go get laid - christ fucker...

Yeow! Why the hatred towards Christians altiplano?

I am not a fan of organized religion either, for some of the reasons you stated in another thread, for the hypocrasy of some and the liberalism of others. I have my own beliefs based on christianity but tempered with fact and science. I certainly don't push my thoughts on others nor discuss it too much. I just don't get the "hate" part of your anti-christian dialogue.... well, unless you were an alter boy

fogghorn · Post by **fogghorn** » Sun May 07, 2006 4:32 am

The davinci code is a book of pure fiction. The author claims it is based on historical fact. These facts, when subject to scrutiny, are also proven fiction. For instance, the early Christian Church, prior to the rule of Constantine in the fourth century, was an illegal entity. Christians of the first 3 centuries had no political power whatsoever, as opposed to Brown's many assertions to the contrary, as he maintains they had huge amounts of (hidden) power. Christians of that era were slaughtered at every turn and this practice did not end until Emperor Constantine made Christianity legal. Does that sound like power, being thrown into lions dens for the entertainment of crowds? Brown states in his tome, that the ancient Gnostics believed in the humanity of Christ, but not the deity of Christ. In actual fact, the Gnostics believed exactly the opposite to that, that he was only divine, and never manifested as a human being other than in an illusionist sense. These gnostics were in essence, a band of heretics whose doctrine were more akin to eastern mysticism than Christianity. Gnosticism and the various false Gospels (ex., the gospel of James) that were brought up for inclusion in the Bible, were dismissed as heresy at the council of Nicea. The canons of the scriptures, in particular those of the new testament met qualification that were instated by the apostles, those people who historically knew and followed Christ and wrote the eyewitness accounts contained in the 4 Gospels and New Testament. Davinci code is simply another layer of garbage being thrown at the Christian Church, there is nothing new about that practice. It's radical feminist underpinnings are in the strictest sense, hate literature, directed solely at the Christian Church. To be charitable, davinci code is an anti Christian diatribe, dredged up by Brown using tactics first unveiled in the third century. Talk about your worn out cliches and ideas, this thing is full of them and is about as original as throwing dirt, not a wonder he stands accused of plagiarism.

Springbok 2 · Post by **Springbok 2** » Sun May 07, 2006 6:08 am

Altiplano wrote: Go get laid - christ fucker...

I wouldn`t worry about the Da Vinci code. We have insensitive mindless pricks like Altiplano to worry about. If racism, hate messages and queer bashing is banned from this site, so should comments of this nature.

Sure, you have a strong opinion on the matter but I think your last comment takes it too far! Shame on you!

Sulako · Post by **Sulako** » Sun May 07, 2006 6:57 am

"The Davinci Code - Blasphemous Feminist Garbage"

Wow, when I read that I assumed you were joking. But I guess the joke's on me. Wow. If I were a religious guy I'd worry a lot more about priest sex scandals and outdated views on birth control than a single movie in terms of threats to the church. For example, the catholic church says the following: If a husband has AIDS, he still can't use a condom while having sex with his wife. That's just nuts, but that's another topic for another thread.

Anyhoo...

Altiplano, I'm not a religious guy at all. For all I know, the flying spaghetti monster created the heavens and the earth. That being said, your comment is obviously inflammatory and that's not cool. Don't be doing that again, aight?

Concestor 0 · Post by **Concestor 0** » Sun May 07, 2006 7:15 am

Trying to dredge up facts to support Faith is a fools errand.

Brown's story is entirely possible but I'm sure even he wouldn’t go so far as to claim it is the absolute truth. It matters little anyway, a person of faith will believe just about anything if it makes them feel better. We're all quite gullible but people of faith are especially so.

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Sun May 07, 2006 10:15 am

OKOK -

I just get so mad when you knock porn and orgiastic ritual sex.

The review writer is clearly a shill pushing their agenda with huge prejudices and obvious distaste for anything that doesn't fit their idea of a christian mold. When will these people mind their own business - 2000 years later and they still won't shut up. The author goes to great length to put down Gnosticism - I wish these zealots would go underground with their beliefs and stop pushing it on us.

I guess my comment was meant a little more tongue in cheek as in if Anne Barbeau Gardiner got all this crap out of her head for a moment and went and had some "fun" with her husband maybe the sky would stop falling... She really needs to take a pill because there are lots of books coming "straight out of hell."

costermonger · Post by **costermonger** » Sun May 07, 2006 2:16 pm

If the Catholic Church and by extension it's followers got half as enraged about child abuse within the clergy, maybe I'd start to pay attention to their moaning and griping about a supermarket pulp novel.

But, since they don't, I won't.

TTJJ · Post by **TTJJ** » Sun May 07, 2006 5:05 pm

costermonger wrote:If the Catholic Church and by extension it's followers got half as enraged about child abuse within the clergy, maybe I'd start to pay attention to their moaning and griping about a supermarket pulp novel.

But, since they don't, I won't.

Game, Set, Match......................

... · Post by **...** » Sun May 07, 2006 6:15 pm

Sulako wrote: For example, the catholic church says the following: If a husband has AIDS, he still can't use a condom while having sex with his wife. That's just nuts, but that's another topic for another thread.

No...lets talk about it right now actually...The 10 commandments states thou shall not kill....heck I think it's the first one!!! It's proven that HIV/AIDS kill...what a crock of shit....and I'm Roman Catholic.

Whatever...every religion is phuqued...everyone should be on meds...Pat Quin should have been let a long time ago.

punk · Post by **punk** » Sun May 07, 2006 7:22 pm

w squared · Post by **w squared** » Sun May 07, 2006 7:35 pm

What the phuque does paganism have to do with it? I haven't seen a single thing posted here indicating the presence of any pagans. Agnostics and atheists and nonconforming catholics and miscellaneous other sects of Christianity for sure....but no pagans.

beechy · Post by **beechy** » Sun May 07, 2006 8:31 pm

Ah but Birddog remember that HIV/AIDS is a disease which was to act as "punishment for being gay", according to some christians. I of course don't believe this just to let you know. Similarly that lack of pagans could be attributed to the catholics burning at them at the stake way back. MAybe now that Quinn is gone the leafs can get rid of Antropov and try winning against Ottawa again......haha that will be the day. btw it must have been a good book if people debate it this much.....

Walker · Post by **Walker** » Sun May 07, 2006 9:04 pm

Jesus loves me, but I make him wear a condom……

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Mon May 08, 2006 12:04 am

Walker, you're my hero. My unapologetic, crude, slightly biggoted-yet still funny, hero.

It's interesting that som many of the religious fanatics (I use the term very loosely) freak out over a FICTICOUS book 'attacking the very foundations of thier faith', and yet these same sort of people have no quams about making grave generalizations about Islam etc.

What was that thing about sin and casting the first stone?

niss · Post by **niss** » Mon May 08, 2006 11:33 am

I haven't seen a single thing posted here indicating the presence of any pagans. Agnostics and atheists and nonconforming catholics and miscellaneous other sects of Christianity for sure....but no pagans.

I feel so left out

Clothesliner · Post by **Clothesliner** » Thu May 11, 2006 3:13 pm

Why is it that some serious Christians are so bent out of shape by a piece of fiction? I don't remember any athiests going bananas over any piece of fiction espousing the opposite (of which I'm sure there are many).

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Thu May 11, 2006 3:35 pm

Clothesliner wrote:Why is it that some serious Christians are so bent out of shape by a piece of fiction? I don't remember any athiests going bananas over any piece of fiction.

ROFL, you're kidding right? "global warming" "animal cruelty" "animal rights" "rain forest protection," "greenpeace" "pita" "mumba(?)"sorry, atheists just have different agendas that they do take fits for if the world doesn't go their way...

costermonger · Post by **costermonger** » Thu May 11, 2006 5:03 pm

What, per say, do any of the things you listed have to do with atheism?

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Thu May 11, 2006 5:05 pm

costermonger wrote:What, per say, do any of the things you listed have to do with atheism?

Because atheists don't believe in "god" they believe in some other "useless cause."

IE. They'd go ape sh9t over something else, so they're not so "calm" and "cool headed" as you would have us believe...

Oh, and I'd also like to add, this planet has very very very few atheists, and you can pretty much get them riled up with that very comment....

costermonger · Post by **costermonger** » Thu May 11, 2006 5:17 pm

I see.. I keep forgetting that when you generalize a group of people it's because you've personally interviewed each and every one of them to find out their views, beliefs, opinions, etc, rather than assigning them a meaningless caricature in your mind and asserting it as fact.

Atheism doesn't imply absolute devotion to some other cause any more than devotion to something like Greenpeace or PITA implies atheism.

And yes, I agree that it's perfectly possible to rile up an atheist, just as it's possible to rile up a Christian or a person of any other religion. I'm just pointing out that you're talking out your ass.

The Flyer · Post by **The Flyer** » Fri May 12, 2006 1:24 am

Religion is always a touchy subject, for or against, it doesn't matter.

Clothesliner · Post by **Clothesliner** » Fri May 12, 2006 11:59 am

I believe atheists make up about 5% of the population. Even if it were only 2%, that's still 2% of 6 billion people. That's more than a "very few."