# The Da Vinci Code



## CurliDiva (May 18, 2006)

Does anyone plan to BOYCOTT this movie due to religious convictions?

Many Christian groups including the Catholic church is calling for a boycott because of the film depiction of Jesus and the Church. What do you think?

TIA


----------



## sithembile (May 18, 2006)

I'm certainly not going to see it.


----------



## Allandra (May 18, 2006)

CurliDiva said:
			
		

> Does anyone plan to BOYCOTT this movie due to religious convictions?
> 
> Many Christian groups including the Catholic church is calling for a boycott because of the film depiction of Jesus and the Church. What do you think?
> 
> TIA


I have no intentions of boycotting this movie.  I plan to see it, but not the weekend that it's released (too crowded).


----------



## star (May 18, 2006)

I encourage Christians not to sow seeds into something that mocks God. Why would a Christian take money God gave them and hand it over to the devil so they can prosper? Makes not sense to me this movie in my opinion is not even worth talking about.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (May 18, 2006)

I don't plan to see it because I feel like I have to guard my mind from things that are so subversive to the truth of God.  Even though I know it's fiction and would probably be a very good movie, I don't want to see it.


----------



## LovelyZ (May 18, 2006)

I don't think I will see it, but not because of a religious conviction. I'm just not interested. 

My faith would not be challenged by a movie or anything else that superficial and I don't have a problem with the persons who created the movie expressing a belief different from my own.


----------



## trinigul (May 18, 2006)

I can't wait to see it.  Enjoyed the book.  It was a thriller and nothing more to me.


----------



## mkh_77 (May 18, 2006)

star said:
			
		

> I encourage Christians not to sow seeds into something that mocks God. Why would a Christian take money God gave them and hand it over to the devil so they can prosper? Makes not sense to me this movie in my opinion is not even worth talking about.



It's fiction, and I don't believe it "mock God." 

If someone's faith is challenged by a work of fiction, then that person needs to re-evaluate their belief system.


----------



## CurliDiva (May 18, 2006)

I don't think this movie will change a believer's faith, but the agrument is that lay people may be swayed by the mix history, facts and fiiction. 

I had no desire to see the "gay" cowboy movie that was the hype last year, but I am undecided about see this movie. 

For now, I'll plan to see XMen III!


----------



## prettywhitty (May 18, 2006)

The issue is not that it is a work of fiction, it is that the author is claiming that the background for which the story is based is true-that Jesus was married, and the Church tried to hide it. The story is an attack on the deity of Jesus and I don't want to support that.


----------



## mkh_77 (May 18, 2006)

Miz Jackson said:
			
		

> The issue is not that it is a work of fiction, it is that the author is claiming that the background for which the story is based is true-that Jesus was married, and the Church tried to hide it. The story is an attack on the deity of Jesus and I don't want to support that.



The author's claim is what makes the issue of this book/movie a work of fiction.  If he had solid facts, it would be non-fiction and would be presented in another fashion.


----------



## star (May 18, 2006)

Miz Jackson said:
			
		

> The issue is not that it is a work of fiction, it is that the author is claiming that the background for which the story is based is true-that Jesus was married, and the Church tried to hide it. The story is an attack on the deity of Jesus and I don't want to support that.


This is the point exactly. The idea is to put the thought in someone's mind especailly if it is a weak mind or someone who does not have all the facts. If it was so fictional why did they use real characters names? They call it fiction to avoid lawsuits and controversary from the Church. The devil always throws out a bone to see who will chase it. It think the new movie "Akeleha and Bee" by Larry Fishborne is worth seeing.


----------



## mkh_77 (May 18, 2006)

star said:
			
		

> This is the point exactly. The idea is to put the thought in someone's mind especailly if it is a weak mind or someone who does not have all the facts. If it was so fictional why did they use real characters names? They call it fiction to avoid lawsuits and controversary from the Church. The devil always throws out a bone to see who will chase it. It think the new movie "Akeleha and Bee" by Larry Fishborne is worth seeing.



The book and movie and for entertainment purposes, plain and simple.  The only people I've seen making a big deal out of them and making more out of the situation than what it is are church folk.


----------



## Niara (May 18, 2006)

classimami713 said:
			
		

> I don't plan to see it because I feel like I have to guard my mind from things that are so subversive to the truth of God. Even though I know it's fiction and would probably be a very good movie, I don't want to see it.


 

It's so important as Christians that we guard our senses from things that may seem harmless and entertaining but can have far reaching effects. The devil uses our five senses to tempt us into sin. I find the premise of the movie insulting to Jesus and I would not support something that puts my savior in an untruthful light.


----------



## hallcust (May 18, 2006)

Amen dear sister. I totally agree!


----------



## mkh_77 (May 18, 2006)

Niara said:
			
		

> It's so important as Christians that we guard our senses from things that may seem harmless and entertaining but can have far reaching effects. The devil uses our five senses to tempt us into sin. I find the premise of the movie insulting to Jesus and I would not support something that puts my savior in an untruthful light.



Then I guess we should just all stay in our homes and never turn on the tv or read a newspaper or magazine.  You should also give away ALL of your money considering all of the ungodly symbols and whatnot that cover all those bills and coins!


----------



## redeemed516 (May 18, 2006)

I think that all christians should see it. If you don't want to give your money to theatres fine, but we have to walk circumspectly (sp). We should not be afraid to see what is out there. Lies are being put in motion everyday and i believe that we should be aware of what's being said.


----------



## Zeal (May 18, 2006)

I am not boycotting -- just not going. 

I refuse to see anything that is going to clash with my spirit.  Harry Potter, movies dealing with demons.  They all are on the same boat.

I consider good fiction, books like Left Behind.

This is just me personally.  If you choose to see it, do not insult those who choose not to. This is how I'm living.

For the babes in Christ I just say, *be careful of the milk that you are drinking*.  Seasoned Saints -  *be careful of how you season your meat.*


I will not entertain my spirit with these types of things. We must be very careful what we entertain.  Satan wants to sift us like wheat, and even destroy us.  If Jesus is in you, why would you want to force him to watch foolishness?  We already subject him to enough foolishness as it is.  We must protect our gates.  Ear, Eye, and memory.  Allowing certain things to enter into our gates may  hurt us in the long run.  These things hang around in the mind . 

Do you know how powerful the mind is.  We have  sub-subconscious.  Garbage in, garbage stays.  How many times have you had a flash back of some foolishness that went down in your life/past that you would rather forget?  We should protect our spirits.  Don’t think that you are so strong that it can not be infiltrated.  Protect the entrance to your gates.  The gates are doorways for unclean spirits.

I said all of this to say no.  I will not be going to see this movie.  IF you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.


----------



## Trini"T" (May 18, 2006)

I will not be watching this crap.  It's not about being afraid to see it or being close-minded.  I'm fully aware of the evil that is circulating today and I just don't understand why I should support it by going to watch the movie.  I'm not going to put my money in the pockets of those who are *trying* to make my Jesus look like a damn fool.


----------



## mkh_77 (May 18, 2006)

iiBlackBarbieii said:
			
		

> I'm not going to put my money in the pockets of those who are *trying* to make my Jesus look like a damn fool.



Have you looked at the *symbols* on *your money* lately?  I ask because those symbols tie into points made in the book.  And my point is that some of what is dealt with in the book we physically TOUCH daily.  Those things are put into our subconscious early on.  Don't think you aren't already a participant.

And, for the record, I am NOT belittling anyone who chooses not to see this movie--that's your choice and I respect that.  I just don't think misinformation about the content of the movie or book should be spread to encourage others not to see the movie or read the book.  How will you know how to defend your beliefs if you don't know what you are defending them against?


----------



## Trini"T" (May 18, 2006)

mkh_77 said:
			
		

> Have you looked at the *symbols* on *your money* lately? I ask because those symbols tie into points made in the book. And my point is that some of what is dealt with in the book we physically TOUCH daily. Those things are put into our subconscious early on. Don't think you aren't already a participant.
> 
> And, for the record, I am NOT belittling anyone who chooses not to see this movie--that's your choice and I respect that. I just don't think misinformation about the content of the movie or book should be spread to encourage others not to see the movie or read the book. How will you know how to defend your beliefs if you don't know what you are defending them against?


 I don't care about the symbols on money and I don't care how it ties into the book.  I'm supposed to stop using money because of the symbols it has on it?  I use money to buy things I need.  A ticket to see The Da Vinci Code is not one of the things I need.  I'm not going to support anything I don't agree with by contributing money to it.  This movie is not a necessity so I'll pass.


----------



## mkh_77 (May 18, 2006)

iiBlackBarbieii said:
			
		

> I don't care about the symbols on money and I don't care how it ties into the book.  I'm supposed to stop using money because of the symbols it has on it?



Exactly.  So why decide that some "ungodly" things are ok while others aren't?  

Like I previously wrote, do what you will, but some people's rationales have me confused.  That's all.


----------



## Trini"T" (May 18, 2006)

mkh_77 said:
			
		

> Exactly. So why decide that some "ungodly" things are ok while others aren't?
> 
> Like I previously wrote, do what you will, but some people's rationales have me confused. That's all.


Yup well I just said that I do need money to buy my necessities.  Do I need this movie for anything?? Is it a necessity??  Why should I waste money on something I don't support just so they can continue creating junk like this...especially if I don't need to?


----------



## Belle Du Jour (May 18, 2006)

I don't think it's necessary to understand another person's rationale.  If someone states that she doesn't want to see the movie and gives her reasoning, that should be enough.


----------



## mkh_77 (May 18, 2006)

classimami713 said:
			
		

> I don't think it's necessary to understand another person's rationale.  If someone states that she doesn't want to see the movie and gives her reasoning, that should be enough.



I think it is important to understand someone's rationale when they are telling you that it's ok to use something with ungodly symbols but it's not ok to read or watch something with those same ungodly symbols.  That's contradictory and it doesn't make sense.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (May 18, 2006)

Ok, if you're referring to money, there's no need to explain why we all use it.  I'm sorry, but needing an explanation for _that _makes no sense to me.  You can't not use money.  You can choose to not see a movie if you don't want to.


----------



## mkh_77 (May 18, 2006)

classimami713 said:
			
		

> Ok, if you're referring to money, there's no need to explain why we all use it.  I'm sorry, but needing an explanation for _that _makes no sense to me.  You can't not use money.  You can choose to not see a movie if you don't want to.



My point is broader than that, money was just an example.  There are many things that we do as Christians that aren't Christ-centered, and it's just interesting to me when people begin to harp on certain things while overlooking the others.


----------



## Zeal (May 18, 2006)

...Umm. I am not trying to start anything, but what do the symbols on Money have to do with Jesus' ministry.  What does it have to do with his life? I know the true story.

What is the big deal? Some people do not wish to see it. For those of you who are going, fine. 

All I ask is that people protect their gates. *NOT JUST FROM THIS MOVIE* protect it from what you can.  I am not saying stay locked in your house.  However being like the "desert fathers" ain't a bad idea.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (May 18, 2006)

mkh77, Well, isn't that a bit judgemental?  What convicts me might not convict you and vice versa.  If I think something is wrong and you don't, why does one of us have to be right?  We just have a difference of opinions.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (May 18, 2006)

Zeal said:
			
		

> What is the big deal? Some people do not wish to see it. For those of you who are going, fine.



That's what I'm getting at: some people said yes and gave their reasons.  Some people said no and gave their reasons.  Why can't we leave it at that instead of saying there are other things that could be considered wrong but we still do?


----------



## mkh_77 (May 18, 2006)

classimami713 said:
			
		

> mkh77, Well, isn't that a bit judgemental?  What convicts me might not convict you and vice versa.  If I think something is wrong and you don't, why does one of us have to be right?  We just have a difference of opinions.



Actually, I've posted several times that I am not being judgmental and that I respect other's rights to do and think as they feel, so, no, I don't think I'm being judgmental.  I've also stated that I'm just not understanding the train of thought of some of the posters, and I don't see anything wrong in trying to understand what someone is thinking.  I'm not trying to be right, I'm trying to understand.


----------



## mkh_77 (May 18, 2006)

Zeal said:
			
		

> ...Umm. I am not trying to start anything, but what do the symbols on Money have to do with Jesus' ministry.  What does it have to do with his life?



Someone posted that they wouldn't support something that mocks Jesus, but there are plenty of things we use in our everday lives that mock Jesus, and the symbols on money are an example.  They surely aren't "Christian" symbols.



			
				Zeal said:
			
		

> I know the true story.



Yes, I know--you seem to like to remind me of this whenever I post in this forum.


----------



## Keen (May 18, 2006)

star said:
			
		

> I encourage Christians not to sow seeds into something that mocks God. Why would a Christian take money God gave them and hand it over to the devil so they can prosper? Makes not sense to me this movie in my opinion is not even worth talking about.


 
Although I do not plan on seing that movie, I disagree with your arguement. Any christians who chooses not to sow seeds into something mocking God would hardly go to the movies. These days television and the movies glorify greed, pre-marital-sex, killing and all that stuff that is not suppose to be of Christain behavior.


----------



## BerrySweet (May 19, 2006)

I'm undecided.  I'd like to see what all the fuss is about.  I'm not one of the weak minded ones, and I know what's right in my heart. But I do think seeing ho wother people percived religion interesting.  And it's also fiction-Dan Brown said it himself.


----------



## CurliDiva (May 19, 2006)

I agree that as Christians we should "try" to avoid in deeds and assoications things, people or situations that is not Faith lifting.

However, we live in an imperfect world of choices ---good and bad. Even within the Church- people make choices of how they practice their faith.

I agree that you can watch regular TV and see plenty examples of sex, homosexuality, violence, hate and abuse- this does not mean that we should all give up and start watching porn.

Money is man-made invention and is a medium for payment/exchange-- it is unrealistic to claim that we have a choice to not use it, so I'm not understanding the point that using money is some kind sign of supporting un-Godly symbols.

A symbol is only a symbol by the meaning mutually assigned to it. If 

I don't agree that as a Christain I need to know "what's" out there- we are not longer "of" the world.

We all fall short, but GOD loves us anyway. His Grace is not won by our actions or deeds, but his Love.


----------



## SoniT (May 19, 2006)

trinigul said:
			
		

> I can't wait to see it.  Enjoyed the book.  It was a thriller and nothing more to me.



Me too. I'm going to see it tonight.


----------



## hallcust (May 19, 2006)

I believe it's important to remember that it's not a matter of being open minded or narrow-minded when it comes to our decisions as true believers to act, speak, or think on situations we're confronted with in this world. What is important with this issue and all other issues with the beleiver is to be single-minded as the scriptures tell us. It all goes back to what does God have to say about this and is there anything in the scriptures that tell us of the nature and character of Christ Jesus and God the Father that would clear up how all believers should view this issue of the DaVinci Code movie. I can find several scriptures that tell me that the theme of this movie is outright blasphemy because it disregards the Divine authority of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and outright introduces lies about certain aspects of His life when he was here on earth. It clearly sends the message that He was not Divine, nor the Son of God; which is clear blasphemy.

It matters not what I feel or you feel if it doesn't line up with what our Heavenly Father feels (for those of you who are in Christ). We have the right to speak our thoughts according to our Christian convictions. I for one beleive this film is just the beginning of a mastermind working to eliminate the authority of the name of Jesus Christ from our society. The scriptures predict that in the last days men would be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers... without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.... And from such people turn away." 2 Timothy 3:1-14

It clearly tells Christians that there will be blasphemers and all the other manifestations of the rebelliousness of those who refused the love of the truth; and we are to shun these things in any form in which they manifest themselves. It is possible to live in this world no matter how corrupt it becomes and not be of it because we have the Divine nature of Christ Jesus living on the inside of us, and that makes us overcomers. 

I felt that Niara's testimony greatly reflected my view as this movie being a a blasphemous movie. As long as we continue to try and pass off OUR opinions to others we will have many pages of opinions growing from this thread. But once we hit the truth from God's perspective and how He feels about it, there is nothing left but the truth; and it's up to us what we do with that as Christians.


----------



## Trini"T" (May 19, 2006)

hallcust said:
			
		

> I believe it's important to remember that it's not a matter of being open minded or narrow-minded when it comes to our decisions as true believers to act, speak, or think on situations we're confronted with in this world. What is important with this issue and all other issues with the beleiver is to be single-minded as the scriptures tell us. It all goes back to what does God have to say about this and is there anything in the scriptures that tell us of the nature and character of Christ Jesus and God the Father that would clear up how all believers should view this issue of the DaVinci Code movie. *I can find several scriptures that tell me that the theme of this movie is outright blasphemy because it disregards the Divine authority of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and outright introduces lies about certain aspects of His life when he was here on earth. It clearly sends the message that He was not Divine, nor the Son of God; which is clear blasphemy.*
> 
> It matters not what I feel or you feel if it doesn't line up with what our Heavenly Father feels (for those of you who are in Christ). We have the right to speak our thoughts according to our Christian convictions. I for one beleive this film is just the beginning of a mastermind working to eliminate the authority of the name of Jesus Christ from our society. The scriptures predict that in the last days men would be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers... without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.... And from such people turn away." 2 Timothy 3:1-14
> 
> ...


 Yup this is why I'm not going to put money in the pocket of another who does this.  People are saying most things in this world are ungodly.  Okay but I see this as *direct attack* on Jesus...totally disregarding His divine authority(like you said).  A lot of the ungodly things out there don't actually mention Jesus' name but this is so bold-faced that it mentions His name and questions the whole purpose of his life and being


----------



## Trini"T" (May 19, 2006)

mkh_77 said:
			
		

> I think it is important to understand someone's rationale when they are telling you that it's ok to use something with ungodly symbols but it's not ok to read or watch something with those same ungodly symbols. That's contradictory and it doesn't make sense.


I'm not understanding how that's contradictory if I said I need money to buy necessities but I don't need this movie for anything.  I don't think I have much choice on whether or not I have to use money to buy food, clothes, or shelter.  So how can you even compare the two?  Again, I don't care about the symbols in the movie and how it ties itself to money.  I have a problem with the way they portray Jesus.


----------



## Starian (May 19, 2006)

I'm not saying whether the movie is wrong or right to go see.

But a lot of people I know are not going to see this movie, but have no problem with seeing a movie that glorifies gratuitous violence. Some people are not going to see this movie, but give no thought to the pagan origins behind what they do in everyday life.

Shun it all, or shut up (not directed to anyone here).

We all have a God given conscience. Some things may perturb the spirit of one, but may be okay to others. It all comes down to our faith and what we know in our heart is right.

If seeing this movie will stumble you, you're well within your rights to choose not to see it.

If this movie is pure fiction to you, and you know the truth about Jesus, than by all means go and see it.

If something as simple as a movie will cause you to question your faith in the Lord, then you should honestly ask re-evaluate yourself, as someone stated.

I've been reared in religion since birth. Ain't no movie gonna make me believe that Jesus was married, anymore than a scientist can convince me I came from an ape.

That said, Satan does use certain tactics to draw out the weak. All I'm saying is do what your heart and faith tells you to do.


----------



## mkh_77 (May 19, 2006)

iiBlackBarbieii said:
			
		

> I'm not understanding how that's contradictory if I said I need money to buy necessities but I don't need this movie for anything.  I don't think I have much choice on whether or not I have to use money to buy food, clothes, or shelter.  So how can you even compare the two?  Again, I don't care about the symbols in the movie and how it ties itself to money.  I have a problem with the way they portray Jesus.



Why are you stuck on the one example I made when I also posted this comment?



			
				mkh_77 said:
			
		

> My point is broader than that, money was just an example. There are many things that we do as Christians that aren't Christ-centered, and it's just interesting to me when people begin to harp on certain things while overlooking the others.


----------



## silverflyt (May 19, 2006)

I can't even bear to read most of the posts in this thread...


----------



## hallcust (May 19, 2006)

My spirit grieves over the increasing liberal opinions that I witness among those professing Christianity today, although it's something that the scriptures predicted would happen. May those with eyes to see and ears to hear hold to the truth of what the Word says as we begin to see these vicious attacks on Christianity. I will say that there seems to be a sad tolerance for the antichristian values that are being pushed into our society. Whose name are putting on morals now? Is it ours or the name of Christ? Are we giving Him the authority to speak to us through His word, or are we making our own assumptions? Satan doesn't care about us speaking OUR opinions on morals, he only cares that the name of Jesus Christ is left out. Sisters, please wake up. We are living in the last days. When we become tolerant of someone attacking the diety of Christ Jesus who is God in the flesh then we are left with nothing but a world that awaits coming judgment. It's time to renew our commitment as Christians for what has been lost. 
I'm sorry if what I say offends others, but I feel committed to speak on these matters reflected by the authority of the word. It is better to speak the truth than to sweep the truth under the rug just to pacify the conscience. We in Christianity today are in need of a serious faith when we say that we have a living faith in Jesus Christ and feel that truth is relative rather than absolute. 
I seek to be a wise virgin ready when my Lord comes. I don't want to be found as having given in to the lie of relative truth. I pray and hope to see more contending for the faith. 
I came to this forum looking for such, and am grateful to the Lord for the few I've seen. I came to this forum seeking to fellowship. I don't think it is wise to be involved in endless debating, so this will be my last comment.


----------



## hallcust (May 20, 2006)

There is one more thing I want to share with those on this thread. Just to show more of what we can expect to see in the entertainment industry, I am including below another antichristian movie that is to be released in June, 6, 2006 (666) called the Beast. The Lord's soon return is a reality, and until He comes, this will be a society that will grow less and less tolerant of the Christian faith. I truly beleive that the Lord is doing a work of separating at the present of all of those who are truly His from those who merely profess to know Him, but who truly do not. True Christians are beginning to experience the beginnings of spiritual persecution and will experience greater spiritual persecution to come in this country just before the Lord comes in rapture as we see this antichristian spirit begin to permeate society. But the Lord has given us the grace to stand through it all. After the true Church is removed in rapture, the world will face judgment for rejecting God's Son. Please be on the side contending for the faith when Christ comes. We have redemption and a blessed hope to look for who are truly in Christ. Christ Jesus is Lord, and one day all will confess this truth, and bow the knee. We can be confident that despite the enemy's efforts to crowd out His name, the glorious truth of the gospel will continue to go foward saving those whom it is meant to save. 

God's love to you all

_________________________________________________________________

Anti-Christian Film ‘The Beast’ To Be Released On 06-06-06  


The makers of a virulently anti-Christian film The Beast have deliberately chosen to release it on 6th June 2006 (06-06-06). 

The film is being made in the US by VIVID films, and has a powerfully anti-Christian plot line. A publicity blurb claims that there is ‘increasing historical proof that Christ never existed,’ a theory which they add is ‘gaining popularity’. 

The plot involves a fundamentalist Christian pastor who disappears after he ‘stumbles across incontrovertible factual evidence that Christ never existed’. In searching for him, the films shows his daughter Danielle ‘struggling with her own need to believe that Christ existed’ and also combating ‘a band of fundamentalist Christians who will stop at nothing to suppress the truth’. In the film, they are portrayed as ‘trying to cover up Christianity’s best-kept secret’.

HIDDEN 

The film, it is said by its makers, is founded on ‘factual material normally hidden from public view by the efforts of Bible‑believing Christians’.  It adds ‑ conveniently ignoring the historical testimony of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonus, Phlegon and many other historians and writers ‑ that ‘there is no non‑Christian confirmation that Jesus Christ ever existed’. 

The cast and film crew, have been ‘legally sworn to secrecy’ about other aspects of the film, which will be released on Tuesday 6th June in the US and will then come to Britain.  
See The Beast forum, (website www.thebeastmovie.com/, and The Beast movie trailer, http://www.thebeastmovie.com/trailer/index.html

The website has a popular form for public comment which has been swamped by the most vile abusive references to Christ and to Christians.  However, one Christian, Austin Smith, wrote in to say: “This website and movie is nothing but a work of Satan.  The release date is 6/6/06 and I know it was put like that on purpose.  But it may work against you, considering that 666 is the devils’ number.  It’s no surprise to me that Satan himself inspired this movie to lie and deceive others.  Whoever made this movie is my enemy.  But I love them all the same because I learned to love my enemies”. 

The film’s Director, Brian Flemming’s previous work has been called ‘jaggedly imaginative’ by the New York Times, ‘a parallel universe’ by the BBC and ‘immensely satisfying’ by USA Today.  His films are said to have “a unique ability to spark cult‑like devotion in his fans”.  He wrote and produced a popular musical, Bat Boy, featuring a creature that was half bat and half man.  That has since been staged thousands of times throughout the world, in several languages.  The musical has been called ‘a self‑contained religion’, and does indeed have thousands of cult adherents.  He followed this up with a film about the murder of Bill Gates, the founder of the computer firm Microsoft.  Gates had said through a spokesman: “I am very disappointed that a movie maker would do something like this”. 

The Beast was carefully timed so that it took exactly 666  days to make.  One prominent Wiccan high priestess in the US recently said: “Finally, a film that proves Jesus Christ never existed.  I can’t wait”. 

“…the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time” – Rev 12:12


----------



## silverflyt (May 20, 2006)

Sounds creepy, but then again, I was never into movies like that. Personally, just like the Davinci Code, I am not moved one bit by the release of such a movie. I'm sure the intent is to enrage and stir up the fanatics and the Vatican and perhaps, and here is where the conspiracy theorist in me comes out, convert the people who are still "trying to decide" which side of the fence they are on. I say the film makers should be treated like children trying to get undue attention. Ignore them and eventually they go away.


----------



## trinigul (May 20, 2006)

Saw it!  Actually, chuckled through quite a few scenes - they mention Jesus but this is so NOT based on anything biblical.  Pure fiction!  Enjoyed the book more.


----------



## Trini"T" (May 23, 2006)

Haaaaaaa my boyfriend said he saw it and fell asleep.  He said it was so wack I'm sure the book was way better tho...it had everyone all stirred up


----------



## Bublnbrnsuga (May 23, 2006)

Niara said:
			
		

> It's so important as Christians that we guard our senses from things that may seem harmless and entertaining but can have far reaching effects. The devil uses our five senses to tempt us into sin. I find the premise of the movie insulting to Jesus and I would not support something that puts my savior in an untruthful light.



Who could disagree with this? Beautifully written.


----------



## Trini"T" (May 23, 2006)

mkh_77 said:
			
		

> Why are you stuck on the one example I made when I also posted this comment?


 True True.  I guess I chose to skip over that bcuz it wasn't directed at me but my point still stands.  The movie or subject matter is a direct attack on Jesus, his life, and his divine nature.  Yes other movies have violence and all kinds of ungodly themes but they don't say "Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene and made babies with her thereby making Him undivine and unworthy of worship".  Anyway, did you see the movie?  Did you like it?


----------



## Bublnbrnsuga (May 23, 2006)

CurliDiva said:
			
		

> I agree that as Christians we should "try" to avoid in deeds and assoications things, people or situations that is not Faith lifting.
> 
> However, we live in an imperfect world of choices ---good and bad. Even within the Church- people make choices of how they practice their faith.
> 
> ...



Excellent-this has been a great discussion!


----------



## Trini"T" (May 24, 2006)

OT-Hallcust, I visited those links you posted and the same holds true...The Devil is a Liar!


----------



## cocoberry10 (May 24, 2006)

redeemed516 said:
			
		

> I think that all christians should see it. If you don't want to give your money to theatres fine, but we have to walk circumspectly (sp). We should not be afraid to see what is out there. Lies are being put in motion everyday and i believe that we should be aware of what's being said.



I completely agree.  I don't feel that Christians need to hide from films like this.  I'm not boycotting, and I certainly don't think a fictional movie or book could ever change my view of God (He's just too mighty for that).  However, while Christians stand around boycotting the movie and telling people from a pulpit not to go see this film, non-believers are probably viewing this film and leaving with an even greater sense of why they don't believe in God.

God's people need to start being involved in every aspect of society IMO.  We can no longer stand in the church and talk about being saved and saving others, but avoiding people who aren't Christian.  If you want something to change, you have to be involved in the environment.  If you want to get something from the store, do you just stand there in your house and say, oh I wish I could have this, but never go to the environment where you know what you need is?  Of course not.  And I don't believe that this movie or any other issue is different.  Christians need to stop being distant from society...especially since we are living in society.  You don't have to be of the world...but whether we like it or not, we do live in this world.  Sorry for soapbox, but I just had to vent!


----------



## klassykutie (May 24, 2006)

I can understand everyone's view point and this was discussed in the off topic discussions, but more based on personal opinion of the movie rather than personal convictions based on religion.

I would just like to know exactly from a neutral party exactly what the movie was about. I keep hearing that Jesus is being mocked in the movie based on the theory he may have been married. If this is so then how is this a mockery? I was brought up that a marriage IS sacred and is a gift from Him. I am rather confused because I was never taught in the Church that Jesus was never supposed to be married. Can someone offer some light on this? I feel as though I could be missing something....


----------



## Zeal (May 24, 2006)

mkh_77 said:
			
		

> Someone posted that they wouldn't support something that mocks Jesus, but there are plenty of things we use in our everday lives that mock Jesus, and the symbols on money are an example. They surely aren't "Christian" symbols.
> 
> *I know the true story*
> 
> Yes, I know--you seem to like to remind me of this whenever I post in this forum.


 
I am just reading this.  I am flattered that you remember my name because I don't remember posting to you personally.  If I offended you, I apologize.  However, I can't take my testimony back.  So it still stands that I know the true story of my savior. No rock is going to cry out for me!


----------



## mkh_77 (May 24, 2006)

klassykutie said:
			
		

> I would just like to know exactly from a neutral party exactly what the movie was about. I keep hearing that Jesus is being mocked in the movie based on the theory he may have been married. If this is so then how is this a mockery? I was brought up that a marriage IS sacred and is a gift from Him. I am rather confused because I was never taught in the Church that Jesus was never supposed to be married. Can someone offer some light on this? I feel as though I could be missing something....



In a nutshell, the novel is a *FICTIONAL* story about a group's (the Priory of Sion's) quest to keep secret and protect from the destruction of the church (church used in it's universal sense, hence the lower case "c") the truth about the Holy Grail.  It is this group's assertion that the Holy Grail is actually the bloodline of Jesus (so, the Holy Grail is this sense is a person and not an object), and consequently that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen and fathered children with her.  This secret is thought to be "the greatest con of man" because if this knowledge were made public it might weaken the church's power over humanity.

I have read all of Dan Brown's books and he is a good author, in my opinon.  All of the books were a quick read for me and I enjoyed the suspense they provided.


----------



## mkh_77 (May 24, 2006)

Zeal said:
			
		

> I am just reading this.  I am flattered that you remember my name because I don't remember posting to you personally.  If I offended you, I apologize.



Apology accepted.



			
				Zeal said:
			
		

> However, I can't take my testimony back.  So it still stands that I know the true story of my savior. No rock is going to cry out for me!



If that's the case, then a measly fiction novel shouldn't bother you.  In fact, it shouldn't bother any Christian who is secure in their faith, and it should hopefully serve to encourage those who aren't to do a little research to find out the truth for themselves.


----------



## klassykutie (May 24, 2006)

mkh_77 said:
			
		

> In a nutshell, the novel is a *FICTIONAL* story about a group's (the Priory of Sion's) quest to keep secret and protect from the destruction of the church (church used in it's universal sense, hence the lower case "c") the truth about the Holy Grail.  It is this group's assertion that the Holy Grail is actually the bloodline of Jesus (so, the Holy Grail is this sense is a person and not an object), and consequently that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen and fathered children with her.  This secret is thought to be "the greatest con of man" because if this knowledge were made public it might weaken the church's power over humanity.
> 
> I have read all of Dan Brown's books and he is a good author, in my opinon.  All of the books were a quick read for me and I enjoyed the suspense they provided.



Thank you, sweetie!!!


----------



## Spidergul (May 24, 2006)

I probably will not see the movie.  I read and loved the book and I am afraid the film adaptation may not live up to the book.  For me, reading the book has done nothing to shake my faith or belief, but it has made me want to learn more about faith and Christ, than what has been taught in Sunday school and put out by the Catholic church.  I find it all very interesting.  The History channels has done some great stuff on these topics the past year.  I watch them and draw my own conclusions.  Besides it is a good story...


----------



## Spidergul (May 24, 2006)

mkh_77 said:
			
		

> In a nutshell, the novel is a *FICTIONAL* story about a group's (the Priory of Sion's) quest to keep secret and protect from the destruction of the church (church used in it's universal sense, hence the lower case "c") the truth about the Holy Grail.  It is this group's assertion that the Holy Grail is actually the bloodline of Jesus (so, the Holy Grail is this sense is a person and not an object), and consequently that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen and fathered children with her.  This secret is thought to be "the greatest con of man" because if this knowledge were made public it might weaken the church's power over humanity.
> 
> I have read all of Dan Brown's books and he is a good author, in my opinon.  All of the books were a quick read for me and I enjoyed the suspense they provided.




Well put! Well put!  I could not have put it better myself.   I watched a show on the history channel where they talked about how the Catholic church *sold* 'indulgences' to absob your sins, if that aint a con job what is?
I loved a show PBS did a while back on Martin Luther, not MLK just ML-he was a German priest that went up againt the Catholic church back in the 1500's I believe, and had the Bible translated for all to read.  Good story.


----------



## TrustMeLove (May 24, 2006)

I liked a couple of Dan Brown books, definitely quick reads.

Won't be going to see the movie. Scared about what else could be in the theater with me. Which is the least of the reasons why I am not going. But, yea I just don't do scary movies at all. More and More movies are becoming about demons, heaven, hell, etc..I soo good.

And for those who think that seeing such a movie could affect/effect your faith in a negative way, feel free to PM me we could pray. I don't see how you can re-evualate your faith, believing in Christ to me isn't something logical. If it were everyone would do it. So just continue to read your word (getting to know God), pray, and praise him. I am sure your faith will grow tremendously.

Hallcust, you are speaking the truth and I see what you are saying beneath the post. If you know what I mean.
Continue to be a soldier on the battlefied for the Lord. I pray for your protection and ministry.


----------



## EbonyEyes (May 25, 2006)

There's this show called "Jack Van Impre Presents" that's on right now.   Jack is saying that The Da Vinci Code is blaspehmy and Christians should avoid this book and the movie at all costs.

He's saying that Dan Brown told many lies in the book.


----------



## Starian (May 25, 2006)

EbonyEyes said:
			
		

> There's this show called "Jack Van Impre Presents" that's on right now. Jack is saying that The Da Vinci Code is blaspehmy and Christians should avoid this book and the movie at all costs.
> 
> He's saying that Dan Brown told many lies in the book.


 
 , of course he told many lies in the book. That's the nature of fiction, isn't it? 

I'm finding it kind of funny that so many people or up in arms over this book and movie, when no one said anything about other movies...

Like Bruce Almighty, for example. God giving his powers to a human? Blasphemy if I've ever heard it. Yet, no one picketed that movie. There are many other examples, I'm sure.


----------



## EbonyEyes (May 25, 2006)

Starian said:
			
		

> , of course he told many lies in the book. That's the nature of fiction, isn't it?
> 
> I'm finding it kind of funny that so many people or up in arms over this book and movie, when no one said anything about other movies...
> 
> Like Bruce Almighty, for example. God giving his powers to a human? Blasphemy if I've ever heard it. Yet, no one picketed that movie. There are many other examples, I'm sure.



I think the guy was saying that the "facts" that Dan Brown incorporated in the novel weren't fact at all.

My mom read "The Da Vinci Code."  She thought it was aiight.  She really doesn't understand the hype.  She likes his book Angels & Demons though.


----------



## Starian (May 25, 2006)

EbonyEyes said:
			
		

> I think the guy was saying that the "facts" that Dan Brown incorporated in the novel weren't fact at all.
> 
> My mom read "The Da Vinci Code." She thought it was aiight. She really doesn't understand the hype. She likes his book Angels & Demons though.


 
Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## hallcust (May 25, 2006)

Dear TrustMeLove,

I thank the Lord for your note of encouragement and for the witness of biblical discernment in you that testifies to the truth. I will continue to stand in the truth and strength of the Holy Spirit, for He is able to make me, you, and all others in the true body of Christ stand; and He has told us that in His word! 
I am resolved to stand for my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ no matter what man may think. For I gave my life to Him and to no one else. 
I made a mistake in my first post; I actually first responded in agreement to _*Niara's *_response. It so much said what I felt in my heart!! I apologize to Niara for mistakenly posting another's name; however it has been corrected. 
I beleive despite all, those who bear the Spirit of Christ will bear the true testimony of Christ, in all that they say, think, and do. The only thing that will ever matter is how God sees it. Just as you say TrustMeLove, pick up the word, study it, and pray to the Lord, and you will know these answers for yourself. Know Him, and you will know what is truth and what is not.

God's love to you all!


----------



## MuseofTroy (May 25, 2006)

Hi Ladies...

I think Christians are intelligent enough to know the difference between reality and fiction. It's the non-believers we should be concerned about.  I'm a big fan of the Da Vinci Code as a work of FICTION (although I think Angels and Demons was much better). I also saw the movie and was pleased with it's entertainment value. Although I understantd why the Da Vinci Code is a controversal movie/book, I believe that individuals who are strong in their faith in God won't be phased by a movie. Through out history various sectors of society have been trying to discredit Jesus Christ and what he stands for. I believe that Jesus was the Lord's son and died for our sins, so no movie or work of fiction is going to change my faith.

BTW I think this is a great forum! I've been a silent reader for the longest time.


----------



## SoniT (May 25, 2006)

Starian said:
			
		

> , of course he told many lies in the book. That's the nature of fiction, isn't it?



LOL, get outta my head! I was about to type the same thing. THE BOOK IS FICTION!!!!!!!


----------



## silverflyt (May 25, 2006)

MuseofTroy said:
			
		

> Hi Ladies...
> 
> I think Christians are intelligent enough to know the difference between reality and fiction. It's the non-believers we shoudl be concerned about. I'm a big fan of the Da Vinci Code as a work of FICTION (although I think Angels and Demons was much better). I also saw the movie and was pleased with it's entertainment value. Although I understantd why the Da Vinci Code is a controversal movie/book, I believe that individuals who are strong in their faith in God won't be phased by a movie. Through out history various sectors of society has been trying to discredit Jesus Christ and what he stands for. I believe that Jesus was the Lord's son and died for our sins, so no movie or work of fiction is going to change my faith.


 
What's this? A voice of reason among the discord? Well put. I am in total agreeance. Simply put, this is a MOVIE, NOT a documentary. Don't be a lemming.


----------



## hallcust (May 25, 2006)

I feel the need to share a letter from a dear brother in Christ, Chuck of Ciloa Ministries, who, I feel, gave an awesome and biblical testimony on his thoughts on the DaVinci Code. This is not someone speaking from a voice of "reason", but from spiritual conviction of the Holy Spirit; and he says it better than I could ever say it. He had the same typical comment from an intolerant subscriber who actually left his forum because of his Godly stand on this book and movie. Nevertheless, he sums up the truth better than I've heard from most lately. Enjoy!

_________________________________________________________________

May God bless you this day… and every day ... to honor Him!


The Note usually invokes varied responses from our readers since Chuck has no problem with taking a stand on tough issues.  Last week’s Note was no exception and led one reader to unsubscribe because of  Chuck’s extremist position on  The DaVinci Code.  The reader, a thinking adult who knows Truth and can separate that from Fiction, argued, As a Jew, Jesus learned to turn the other cheek , etc.    I am not a fundamental Christian - I am a child of God and a unique human being with the ability that God has given me to reason and utilize my free will to not be swayed by any extremist arguments... While we have never shared Chuck’s replies to the responses he receives, we would like to share portions of his reply to this reader, edited to fit this space.  We believe you will be encouraged by it.

______________________________________________

The cornerstone of extremism is the cessation of discussion.  When we fail or refuse to discuss our differences, we can no longer seek to influence another's position or even to respect the other position.  As debate is prevented, so tyranny begins.

Allow me to suggest that you have omitted a very important aspect of being a follower of Jesus, and that is our witness of Him.  Everything you do affects those around you.  That may not sound fair, but that is the truth.  They watch your example in how to treat others, how to live, and how to honor God.  They may be strong Christians.  They may be new Christians just learning how to act and respond.  And they may be people who are seeking the truth or who are unsure of the truth as expressed in the Bible or who are vulnerable to the persuasions of those who do not follow Christ and who are actively opposed to Him.

You have an awesome responsibility to present the true witness of Jesus.  The Bible is clear that all followers have this responsibility.  And that is where I have a serious problem with this book and movie.

All lies are fiction, but not all fictions are lies.  I believe Dan Brown went way too far in this fictional work.  Many years ago Robert Ludlum wrote a novel that involved a discovery of a book claiming to "tell the truth about Jesus."  But to the best of my knowledge, he never attempted to use actual documented facts, change the information, and then state the new information as though it were documented, undeniable fact.  Dan has and makes the bold statement in the beginning of his book that certain things are actual fact, when they are not.

Jesus never said to turn the other cheek in the face of blasphemy, heresy or false teaching.  In fact, He challenged them all and would not participate in any of them.  The souls of those who did not yet know Him were simply too important to play with.  Jesus drew the line.

I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.  I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. (John 13:15-16)  A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher. (Luke 6:40)  He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.   (Luke 11:23)

Would Jesus, our Lord, Savior and Master, go to a movie that openly distorts who He is and what He did on the cross?  As a servant and messenger of Christ, are we honoring Him if we do?  If we support such fiction, whether through attendance or paying money, are we for Him or against Him?

I, too, am a thinking adult who knows Truth and can separate it from Fiction.  That is not the issue among people such as us.  The issue lies in understanding that Truth and understanding how those, who lack the knowledge we have, will be profoundly influenced by such Fiction, even to the point of doubting and denying the Truth which we know.  I do not want to be a part of anything that has the power to turn people away or further away from God.  

It is not a matter of personal autonomy to pick and choose what I wish to read and hear and see.  I gave that up to God when I chose to follow Christ.  I now have the responsibility to be like Him and that means standing for the Truth and standing against everything that attacks it, whether it comes openly with malice or subtly as entertainment.  And all Christians are called to do the same.

Take care and be God’s,

Chuck 


Ciloa ...   Encouraging one another as long as it is called Today! 
Ciloa is a registered trademark of Ciloa, Inc., a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.  
A Note of Encouragement is a copyright interest held by Ciloa, Inc.


----------



## silverflyt (May 25, 2006)

hallcust said:
			
		

> My spirit grieves over the increasing liberal opinions that I witness among those professing Christianity today, although it's something that the scriptures predicted would happen. May those with eyes to see and ears to hear hold to the truth of what the Word says as we begin to see these vicious attacks on Christianity. I will say that there seems to be a sad tolerance for the antichristian values that are being pushed into our society. Whose name are putting on morals now? Is it ours or the name of Christ? Are we giving Him the authority to speak to us through His word, or are we making our own assumptions? Satan doesn't care about us speaking OUR opinions on morals, he only cares that the name of Jesus Christ is left out. Sisters, please wake up. We are living in the last days. When we become tolerant of someone attacking the diety of Christ Jesus who is God in the flesh then we are left with nothing but a world that awaits coming judgment. It's time to renew our commitment as Christians for what has been lost.
> I'm sorry if what I say offends others, but I feel committed to speak on these matters reflected by the authority of the word. It is better to speak the truth than to sweep the truth under the rug just to pacify the conscience. We in Christianity today are in need of a serious faith when we say that we have a living faith in Jesus Christ and feel that truth is relative rather than absolute.
> I seek to be a wise virgin ready when my Lord comes. I don't want to be found as having given in to the lie of relative truth. I pray and hope to see more contending for the faith.
> I came to this forum looking for such, and am grateful to the Lord for the few I've seen. I came to this forum seeking to fellowship. *I don't think it is wise to be involved in endless debating, so this will be my last comment*.


 
I see you've had a change of heart. Don't worry, I won't be unsubscribing from this forum because you share the same extreme, fanatic, and puerile views of the writer you quoted. I'm quite at home here. I look forward to reading how else you like to express your radical, zealous and dogmatist points of view.


----------



## mkh_77 (May 25, 2006)

hallcust said:
			
		

> Would Jesus, our Lord, Savior and Master, go to a movie that openly distorts who He is and what He did on the cross?



Obviously the author of this letter and the author of this post the letter was embedded in know nothing of what the book is about.  The "criminal" in the book is the church for hiding "the truth about Jesus."  The *FOCUS* of the book are the shadowy actions of the church, past and present.  No where in the book does it try to detract from the importance, existence or powerfulness of Jesus.  *The book is premised on the fact that Jesus did indeed exist and was such a powerful figure!* 

If Jesus came to Earth, fully human as the Bible said, then what would be so wrong with him having a wife and family under the tradition of the laws of His time?  There is *NOTHING* sinful about that, and if He did, it would in no way detract from who He was.  Afterall all, God saw fit that Jesus come to Earth *THROUGH* a woman--He didn't miraculously appear one day.  Is He any less divine because someone conjectures that He could have had a wife and children?!


----------



## silverflyt (May 25, 2006)

mkh_77 said:
			
		

> Obviously the author of this letter and the author of this post the letter was embedded in know nothing of what the book is about. The "criminal" in the book is the church for hiding "the truth about Jesus." The *FOCUS* of the book are the shadowy actions of the church, past and present. No where in the book does it try to detract from the importance, existence or powerfulness of Jesus. *The book is premised on the fact that Jesus did indeed exist and was such a powerful figure!*
> 
> If Jesus came to Earth, fully human as the Bible said, then what would be so wrong with him having a wife and family under the tradition of the laws of His time? There is *NOTHING* sinful about that, and if He did, it would in no way detract from who He was. Afterall all, God saw fit that Jesus come to Earth *THROUGH* a woman--He didn't miraculously appear one day. Is He any less divine because someone conjectures that He could have had a wife and children?!


 
Here, here! WHY IS EVERYONE SO UP IN ARMS ABOUT THIS PROSPECT? THANK YOU FOR HAVING THE VISION TO SAY WHAT MANY OF US "LIBERALS" and "CONSERVATIVES" ARE THINKING-BUT NOT SAYING FOR FEAR OF EXTREMIST RETORIC CLOUDING UP THIS THREAD.

But the cat is out of the bag now. I realize that for some, if this were true, it might cause you to ask, what else was intentionally left out of the Bible? What else have I been duped on? Perhaps this is why so many people are "outraged" by this movie. Their foundations are being shaken. And even if this is a fictional story, it still is scary _for them_ to have their foundations shaken. All of a sudden, everything they have based their entire lives on, everthing they have been spoonfed is in question. THIS IS THE PROBLEM. Not the movie itself, not the "story", not the "blasphemy". How is trying to prove Jesus had a wife "blasphemy" anyway? Please. It is time to start thinking for yourselves if you are not already. erplexed


----------



## GodMadeMePretty (May 25, 2006)

silverflyt said:
			
		

> Here, here! WHY IS EVERYONE SO UP IN ARMS ABOUT THIS PROSPECT? THANK YOU FOR HAVING THE VISION TO SAY WHAT MANY OF US "LIBERALS" and "CONSERVATIVES" ARE THINKING-BUT NOT SAYING FOR FEAR OF EXTREMIST RETORIC CLOUDING UP THIS THREAD.
> 
> But the cat is out of the bag now. I realize that for some, if this were true, it might cause you to ask, *what else was intentionally left out of the Bible?* What else have I been duped on? Perhaps this is why so many people are "outraged" by this movie. Their foundations are being shaken. And even if this is a fictional story, it still is scary _for them_ to have their foundations shaken. All of a sudden, everything they have based their entire lives on, everthing they have been spoonfed is in question. THIS IS THE PROBLEM. Not the movie itself, not the "story", not the "blasphemy". How is trying to prove Jesus had a wife "blasphemy" anyway? Please. It is time to start thinking for yourselves if you are not already. erplexed



Don't even get me started on what I highlighted in bold.  Christians need to wake up and realize that you can't just blindly follow the Bible.  You have to know a bit more history to back it up.  You can't go calling Brother or Sister SoAndSo every time someone with a bit more history than you have knowledge about questions you about Christianity.  Study to show thyself approved means more than reading the Word of God.  Sometimes we ignore what God is telling us that we need to do.  The Israelites repeatedly ignored/shunned history and God punished them time and time again because  their ignorance caused them to stumble repeatedly.


----------



## silverflyt (May 25, 2006)

GodMadeMePretty said:
			
		

> Don't even get me started on what I highlighted in bold. Christians need to wake up and realize that you can't just blindly follow the Bible. *You have to know a bit more history to back it up. You can't go calling Brother or Sister SoAndSo every time someone with a bit more history than you have knowledge about questions you about Christianity.* Study to show thyself approved means more than reading the Word of God. Sometimes we ignore what God is telling us that we need to do. The Israelites repeatedly ignored/shunned history and God punished them time and time again because their ignorance caused them to stumble repeatedly.


 
I'm sorry-I don't ahh..recall calling _anybody_ or discussing historical documentation, perhaps you are confused by my statement-because I don't quite understand why what you said applies to my comment...Will you qualify your point of view?  Correct me if I am wrong, because it sounds like we agree...


----------



## JamericanGurl (May 25, 2006)

silverflyt said:
			
		

> I'm sorry-I don't ahh..recall calling _anybody_ or discussing historical documentation, perhaps you are confused by my statement-because I don't quite understand why what you said applies to my comment...Will you qualify your point of view?  Correct me if I am wrong, because it sounds like we agree...


Your not talking to me and I venture into this forum ....rarely. But!
GMP one of the more informed folx I know is basically agreeing with what you said she bolded your comments and went on to add more. She was basically saying everything shouldn't be dismissed as evil and people shouldn't be called out for offering history or a different point of view. (In a very respectful tone might I add) 

Okay folx that's my once a year comment in this forum.

Ducks out!


----------



## Trini"T" (May 26, 2006)

Dan Brown named real people’s names and gave backgrounds on real, actual organizations.  He claims his book is based on historical fact.

The idea of Jesus being married is sooo Gnostic and sooo not of the Bible.  Many believe this to be blasphemy because they are LIES about Jesus and His life and this Dan Brown is trying to pass it off as historical fact.  I don’t know why it is so hard to accept the fact that Jesus was a very different individual.  They just gotta throw some wife and kids in da mix to make him “normal”.  He is the Son of God, blamess, sinless, and pure...this is not normal.  Jesus was not normal.

In Luke 14:26 Jesus said, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters- yes even his own life------he cannot be my disciple.”

Jesus Christ was all about his ministry.  Having a wife and children was not part of God’s plan and would have only been distractions for Him.  Jesus and His boys traveled all over the place preaching and were getting themselves into some dangerous situations.  Where would he have time to rear children and perform his husbandly duties?  Are we now inferring that Jesus was some deadbeat dad and a no-good husband?  If this man had children, he sure wasn’t no where around to take care of them.  If this man had a wife, she would be screaming, “HA, what husband?  Jesus who?”  He would have left poooor Mary aaaalll alone to mind them kids all by her lonesome .  That’s not very Christ-like is it?!

Mathew 19:12 says “For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.”  Hmmm let’s see, which category is Jesus Christ in?  This category is rooted in Jesus’ own commitment and example not to be married. Come on now!  The only wife Jesus has is the Church.


----------



## Trini"T" (May 26, 2006)

silverflyt said:
			
		

> Here, here! WHY IS EVERYONE SO UP IN ARMS ABOUT THIS PROSPECT? THANK YOU FOR HAVING THE VISION TO SAY WHAT MANY OF US "LIBERALS" and "CONSERVATIVES" ARE THINKING-BUT NOT SAYING FOR FEAR OF EXTREMIST RETORIC CLOUDING UP THIS THREAD.
> 
> But the cat is out of the bag now. I realize that for some, if this were true, it might cause you to ask, what else was intentionally left out of the Bible? What else have I been duped on? Perhaps this is why so many people are "outraged" by this movie. Their foundations are being shaken. And even if this is a fictional story, it still is scary _for them_ to have their foundations shaken. All of a sudden, everything they have based their entire lives on, everthing they have been spoonfed is in question. THIS IS THE PROBLEM. Not the movie itself, not the "story", not the "blasphemy". How is trying to prove Jesus had a wife "blasphemy" anyway? Please. It is time to start thinking for yourselves if you are not already. erplexed


No foundations shaken here!  All this is only making me stronger in me and mines.  Maybe if their foundations are not firm they might think that way and that is partly why there is so much hub bub.  There are Christians out there on different levels with their relationship with God.  For those in the early stages of the relationship, something like this may very well shake them and those people shouldn't view things that contradicts the Bible's teachings.    See, I know I could watch this movie and not be phased but like I said b4 I will not support it *by *paying money to go see it.


----------



## Trini"T" (May 26, 2006)

JamericanGurl said:
			
		

> Your not talking to me and I venture into this forum ....rarely. But!
> GMP one of the more informed folx I know is basically agreeing with what you said she bolded your comments and went on to add more. She was basically saying everything shouldn't be dismissed as evil and people shouldn't be called out for offering history or a different point of view. (In a very respectful tone might I add)
> 
> Okay folx that's my once a year comment in this forum.
> ...


Nah It sounds like GodMadeMePretty is saying that Christians need to know their stuff to protect themselves against mess like this.  How you can't be calling on someone else every time someone wants to challenge your faith.  You have to know it for yourself.


----------



## Trini"T" (May 26, 2006)

silverflyt said:
			
		

> I see you've had a change of heart. Don't worry, I won't be unsubscribing from this forum because you share the same extreme, fanatic, and puerile views of the writer you quoted. I'm quite at home here. I look forward to reading how else you like to express your radical, zealous and dogmatist points of view.


 Are you attempting to insult Hallcust?  All that is not even necessary.  No one came on here insulting you for your views or saying you were childish because of them.  You said your piece and she said hers. TACT PLEASE


----------



## silverflyt (May 26, 2006)

iiBlackBarbieii said:
			
		

> Are you attempting to insult Hallcust? All that is not even necessary. No one came on here insulting you for your views or saying you were childish because of them. You said your piece and she said hers. TACT PLEASE


 

If you are referring to my indexing of the above mentioned's stance on Christianity, no. I am not *attempting to insult* anybody. She has done a brilliant job of classifying her own comments. I am simply restating the obvious. Besides, she has never shyed away from making it known she stands to the left. I quote her when I write, " *My spirit grieves over the increasing liberal opinions that I witness among those professing Christianity today." *Spoken like a true leftist  . As an added bonus, she gifts us with the leftwinged comments of a self professed fundamentalist, fond of extremist points of action, because he according to her," *...gave an awesome and biblical testimony on his thoughts on the DaVinci Code...and he says it better than I could ever say it.*" So you see, she celebrates her leftwinged alignment-no harm done.

Furthermore, my post was inspired by the poster's comment regarding my own previous post. She wrote, "...*He* (Chuck the Left Winged, Extreme, Fundamentalist) *had the same typical comment from an intolerant subscriber who actually left his forum because of his Godly stand on this book and movie."* I personally not only find it *insulting*,  but  offensive, and completely inacurate to have my points of view paralleled with those of an "*intolerant unbeliever*"-because I am many things, but I am neither of those. So I felt the need to fortify my view. I am astounded that you find me "childish", But that is neither here nor there for me. -any self respecting person who enjoys their God given free will would also protect themselves from such slander. 

BTW, I am relieved that your foundations are not shaken by this movie. 
And it seems as though we agree that there really is no need for such, and why there is so much *hub bub*. However, it seems to be the Christians in their more "developed" stages that are all shaken up over this movie. Developed enough to have determined their left winged alignment that is .


----------



## mkh_77 (May 26, 2006)

iiBlackBarbieii said:
			
		

> Dan Brown named real people’s names and gave backgrounds on real, actual organizations.  He claims his book is based on historical fact.
> 
> The idea of Jesus being married is sooo Gnostic and sooo not of the Bible.  Many believe this to be blasphemy because they are LIES about Jesus and His life and this Dan Brown is trying to pass it off as historical fact.  I don’t know why it is so hard to accept the fact that Jesus was a very different individual.  They just gotta throw some wife and kids in da mix to make him “normal”.  He is the Son of God, blamess, sinless, and pure...this is not normal.  Jesus was not normal.



Again, the fact that Jesus was "different" is the point of the book.  He was so different that the church wanted to use his power over humanity for their own purposes.  The Crusades is a prime example of this.

I'd like to know:

Have you read the book, _The Davinci Code_?

Have you been to some of the places mentioned in the book?

Have you studied the Historical Jesus?

Have you taken an academically oriented religion class (not just attended Sunday school)?

Have you read the Apocrypha?

I can answer in the affirmative to all of the questions I have posited to you (the general you).  If you can't answer in the affirmative to these same questions, then you should understand when I don't blindly believe what you tell me about God, Jesus, the Bible, and the "truth" you profess to know.  

It stands to logic that those with a broader knowledge will also have a broader sense of truth.  Example:  People once believed the Sun revolved around the Earth because their knowledge was LIMITED.  A man with a broader sense of knowledge, Galileo, ultimately provided a broader sense of truth--the Earth revolves around the Sun; in fact, all planets revovle around the Sun.  Unfortunately, he was persecuted for trying to share his truth, obtained through his knowledge, with his fellow man.


----------



## angelk316 (May 26, 2006)

What is wrong with having wife and kids? Is having wife and kids unpure?


----------



## JamericanGurl (May 26, 2006)

iiBlackBarbieii said:
			
		

> Nah It sounds like GodMadeMePretty is saying that Christians need to know their stuff to protect themselves against mess like this.  How you can't be calling on someone else every time someone wants to challenge your faith.  You have to know it for yourself.


See I took as her saying be informed! Either way? Be informed!


----------



## trinidarkie1 (May 26, 2006)

I've read pages 1 and 3 of this thread, so I've definitely missed some things.
But from what I see there are some people who are firmly against watching it, others who want others to stand with them, some who dont care to see it and dont care period and others who want to go.

IMHO, each person's walk with the Lord is so different. His calling on our lives are never the same. For some people, they think that wearing jewellry is sinful, or wearing make up, you shouldnt wear pants, or anything fitted. In cases where you feel strongly about those things, then YOU deal with that. Sometimes it's because of what you struggle with in your spirit, as an idol in your life and the Lord wanted you to stop doing something because it might hinder you.
I know a lady who says she was obsessed with wearing jewellry and when she accepted Jesus she felt like the Holy Spirit wanted her to stop focusing on that, but that doesnt mean she shouldnt let her kids wear jewellry or tell anyone else not to.

To be more direct, the book from which the movie has been made is a work of fiction. For those of us who know about the spirit world we understand the influences that take place everyday through any form; word of mouth, music and other forms of media, just to name some examples. 
If you feel that your spirit is going to be troubled or cannot handle watching a film like this or any other film, then do not go. You may be at a stage in your walk where you're very fickle and watching or reading something like this isnt what you need.
There are some of us who just think that it's wrong to watch or read or talk about anything non- Jesus. Then u dont watch, read or talk about it. But that doesnt mean that it's a sin to do any non-Jesus centered thing.

I cant encourage the extremists. 

What I think we should be focused on, is the droves of people that will come out of these movie theaters searching for something, asking questions and shaken because of what they didnt realise they didnt believe. Some people will go in there thinking that they are sound in faith and they are not. 
We should be prepared to answer questions about Jesus, to back up what we believe and what we think the Bible tells us. 
The Bible was written so long ago and has not changed, so regardless of how many books are written and how many movies are made, we can use the Bible as our foundation.

Also remember that there are people who dont even believe or respect the Bible. So unless you focus on your personal relationship with Jesus, then you have nothing to witness to them about. INstead of telling people what NOT to do, focus on what you SHOULD do to let others know about who Jesus us.


----------



## hallcust (May 26, 2006)

I'm not sure what you mean by a change of heart. My opinions are fixed and have been since I entered this forum. My convictions may seem radical only to those who don't hold to the clear fundamental teaching of scripture, but I try not to let that discourage me. The word of God has clearly spoken that in the latter times many will depart from the faith and those who contend for it will face persecution; and this happens even from professors of Christianity. I have been given the charge to speak the truth lovingly so as to convince of what the authority of the Word speaks.
I'm not seeking to give my opinion or to force anyone to come to my side. I'm, out of spiritual conviction, speaking from the authority of the word of God. I beleive it is such views as yours that say Christians should do nothing and let matters such as this issue of the DaVinci code just go and it will pass or who persistently speak out against those who out of a love for the Savior and conviction of the Holy Spirit come against these blasphemous matters against our Lord that do the great harm in your witness. 
I will always beleive  that it is not cool for anyone whether by fiction or supposed documented garbage to publish something that is clearly blasphemous about the Lord Jesus Christ, who is Almighty God in the flesh; and I can't imagine any true Christian who walks with the Lord feeling that this book or movie was alright in doing so. 
Not only do you not come against this as a professing Christian, but you persist in calling those like me "fanatical" who do so, and influencing those Christians who may be weak in the faith. I will let the word of God be the judge between you and me. It is true that Christians can be deceived if they are not abiding in the word and in prayer, or why else would we be exhorted "be not deceived" by our Lord and the Apostle Paul in the scriptures. There are Christians who are saved, yet not abiding in the word and not paying heed to the leading of the Holy Spirit. They are instead allowing others to shape their opinions....or themselves. The bible clearly tells us that if someone is not preaching or speaking from the authority of the scriptures we should not allow them to shape our views; or we are allowing ourselves to love the word of someone else rather than God. This is why you see so many being led astray by many prominent so called ministers of our day; and why the witness of the visible Church has greatly diminished. We are called to be salt and light, and our living a life of holiness is an important matter before others. Whether you want to beleive it or not, an attitude of apathy is characteristic of a lukewarm attitude from someone who really has no spiritual conviction. This is a dangerous position to be in. I'm not Christ Jesus to say who is saved and who is not; but I can say that scripture clearly tells us that we are to examine ourselves to see whether we be in the faith. We are exhorted to do this for a reason.
You cannot come to Christ through any other means, except through the door (John 10:6-10), and you MUST abide in His word (Him) so that His word may abide in you. Based upon Christ's teaching in John 8:31-36; as we abide in the Word we will know the truth and it will set us free. The Word of God is our very life (Deuteronomy 32:46-47). Jesus Christ is the Word (John 1:1-18) and is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).
We presently live in a society that is open any and every point of view as being valid. We are called to be separate from the world, not take on it's view. How then can we be witnesses for Christ Jesus? The Lord has said that He hates lukewarmness and will spue such out of His mouth, and we can count on His word to be fulfilled. It is better that we be for Christ or be against Him. 
I'm not looking to cause strife, but the word is divisive to those who won't submit to it. It's meant to be for a good purpose. It is fine that you desire to stay with the forum; I'm not trying to run you away from it. I'm not the one who called you a fanatic. I have only one motive and that is to lovingly convince of the word of God. I love all people, including you Silverflyt; and so does Christ Jesus.


----------



## Spidergul (May 26, 2006)

iiBlackBarbieii said:
			
		

> Dan Brown named real people’s names and gave backgrounds on real, actual organizations.  He claims his book is based on historical fact.
> 
> The idea of Jesus being married is sooo Gnostic and sooo not of the Bible.  Many believe this to be blasphemy because they are LIES about Jesus and His life and this Dan Brown is trying to pass it off as historical fact.  I don’t know why it is so hard to accept the fact that Jesus was a very different individual.  They just gotta throw some wife and kids in da mix to make him “normal”.  He is the Son of God, blamess, sinless, and pure...this is not normal.  *Jesus was not normal.*
> 
> ...



*But he was after all Jewish and Jews did married at a certain age.  Maybe at some point in his life he wanted to be 'normal' but then realized that was not why he was here. *


----------



## FlyyGyrl (May 26, 2006)

Hallcust, I really admire and appreciate your ferver for Christ. I find it refreshing.  People act like its a crime to be radical for Christ. Be passionate in everything else you do but when it comes to God be passive and lukewarm 
I will not be watching the movie. I really don't watch many movies to begin with. I don't see why my hard earned dollars should go to support something that is an attack on the church. Whether you decide to see it or not, it will create confusion for some, and it will lead some astray. And that is contradictory to our goal  as Christians. We are really in the last days. We need to be focused on spreading the truth, rather than fighting amongst ourselves over this lie (the da vinci code).


----------



## silverflyt (May 26, 2006)

hallcust said:
			
		

> *I'm not sure what you mean by a change of heart.* My opinions are fixed and have been since I entered this forum. *My convictions may seem radical only to those who don't hold to the clear fundamental teaching of scripture, but I try not to let that discourage me*. *The word of God has clearly spoken that in the latter times many will depart from the faith and those who contend for it will face persecution*; and this happens even from professors of Christianity. I have been given the charge to speak the truth lovingly so as to convince of what the authority of the Word speaks.
> I'm not seeking to give my opinion or to force anyone to come to my side. I'm, out of spiritual conviction, speaking from the authority of the word of God. *I beleive it is such views as yours that say Christians should do nothing and let matters such as this issue of the DaVinci code just go and it will pass or who persistently speak out against those who out of a love for the Savior and conviction of the Holy Spirit come against these blasphemous matters against our Lord that do the great harm in your witness. *
> I will always beleive that it is not cool for anyone whether by fiction or supposed documented garbage to publish something that is clearly blasphemous about the Lord Jesus Christ, who is Almighty God in the flesh; and I can't imagine any true Christian who walks with the Lord feeling that this book or movie was alright in doing so.
> Not only do you not come against this as a professing Christian, but you persist in calling those like me "fanatical" who do so, and influencing those Christians who may be weak in the faith. I will let the word of God be the judge between you and me. It is true that Christians can be deceived if they are not abiding in the word and in prayer, or why else would we be exhorted "be not deceived" by our Lord and the Apostle Paul in the scriptures. There are Christians who are saved, yet not abiding in the word and not paying heed to the leading of the Holy Spirit. They are instead allowing others to shape their opinions....or themselves. The bible clearly tells us that if someone is not preaching or speaking from the authority of the scriptures we should not allow them to shape our views; or we are allowing ourselves to love the word of someone else rather than God. This is why you see so many being led astray by many prominent so called ministers of our day; and why the witness of the visible Church has greatly diminished. We are called to be salt and light, and our living a life of holiness is an important matter before others. Whether you want to beleive it or not, an attitude of apathy is characteristic of a lukewarm attitude from someone who really has no spiritual conviction. This is a dangerous position to be in. I'm not Christ Jesus to say who is saved and who is not; but I can say that scripture clearly tells us that we are to examine ourselves to see whether we be in the faith. We are exhorted to do this for a reason.
> ...


 
Here is *What I mean* by change of heart. You wrote about not thinking it wise to debate and THAT was going to be your last post a few pages ago. But I curiously find myself replying to yet anonther one of your fanatically charged, "out of love" writings...you just sounded like you were off to "go eat some worms"- I didn't expect to hear from you on this subject again. No problem though. And for the record, I don't think it is "cool" either-but I DO FIND IT INTERESTING AND AM NOT THREATENED BY THE THE SECULAR WORLD REQUIRiING PROOF OF JESUS. THIS IS NOTHING NEW. It is nothing for me personally to get pulled out of shape over. My guess is after all the Davinci Code smoke clears, I'll get to witness to those who will listen to a less...fanatic point of view. 

But seriously, here is my point. It might relieve you to know that you don't have to "*beleive it is such views as *mine* that say Christians should do nothing and let matters such as this issue of the DaVinci code just go and it will pass or who persistently speak out against those who out of a love for the Savior and conviction of the Holy Spirit come against these blasphemous matters against our Lord that do the great harm in your witness." *Because your impression of my point of view on the "DaVinci Code" is way out in left field...and it should be because this is where you stand...far to the left. And I STILL don't understand why it is blasphemous to consider whether or not Christ was married to his number one deciple. There is nothing wrong with thinking about it and deciding for yourself. I never claimed that your views are wrong-just not for me. And no one is *persecuting* you-you flatter yourself if you think I would take the time to do that. I am over your slanderous comments about my take on things and I've chosen to defend myself from it. That's all.

Having liberal Christian views classifies me as neither undecided nor "lukewarm". I know exactly where I stand within my personal walk-and I am a Christian everyday. Because I don't feel called to impose severe self restriction like you and I don't have the fierce need to spread my personal plight like butter does not mean that I am "*not abiding in the word*". 

I'm surprised that I have to remind you of this , but we all exsist somewhere on the spectrum. The atheist would label *us both* as extremist for picking Christinity. If this is who we are, why would this be offensive?Puzzling that you are offended by a public label of your public stance . Being a liberal Christian is not the lukewarm Christ refers to, and you and I both know it. Being a liberal Christian does not mean that I go to bible study one day and then I run to the nearest bar and throw my dress over my head. I just prefer not to spew self righteous banter all over the place without regard to the proper context it is being consumed under and label it "*love for the Savior*". _Furthermore, _your views do not _seem_ radical and extreme. Not that it is against the law to be, _but they most certainly are_. Even Merrium-Webster's thinks so:

Main Entry: *1ex·treme*


Pronunciation: ik-'strEm
Function: _adjective_
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin _extremus, _superlative of _exter, exterus _being on the outside -- more at [SIZE=-1]EXTERIOR[/SIZE]
*1 a* *:* existing in a very high degree <_extreme_ poverty> *b* *:* going to great or exaggerated lengths *: [SIZE=-1]RADICAL[/SIZE]* <went on an _extreme_ diet> *c* *:* exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected <_extreme_ weather conditions>
*2* _archaic_ *: [SIZE=-1]LAST[/SIZE]*
*3* *:* most advanced or thoroughgoing <the _extreme_ political left> *b* *: [SIZE=-1]MAXIMUM[/SIZE]*


Main Entry: *fa·nat·ic*


Pronunciation: f&-'na-tik
Variant(s): _or_ *fa·nat·i·cal*


 /-ti-k&l/
Function: _adjective_
Etymology: Latin _fanaticus _inspired by a deity, frenzied, from _fanum _temple -- more at [SIZE=-1]FEAST[/SIZE]
*:* marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion <they're _fanatic_ about religion>
Funtion: _noun_
:A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.


But hey, we could continue to hobble along with the vague and confusing left-right religous spectrum, but fortunately, something better has come along.


----------



## Bublnbrnsuga (May 26, 2006)

FlyyGyrl said:
			
		

> Hallcust, I really admire and appreciate your ferver for Christ. I find it refreshing.  People act like its a crime to be radical for Christ. Be passionate in everything else you do but when it comes to God be passive and lukewarm
> I will not be watching the movie. I really don't watch many movies to begin with. I don't see why my hard earned dollars should go to support something that is an attack on the church. Whether you decide to see it or not, it will create confusion for some, and it will lead some astray. And that is contradictory to our goal  as Christians. We are really in the last days. We need to be focused on spreading the truth, rather than fighting amongst ourselves over this lie (the da vinci code).



ITA with this post.


----------



## silverflyt (May 26, 2006)

trinidarkie1 said:
			
		

> I've read pages 1 and 3 of this thread, so I've definitely missed some things.
> But from what I see there are some people who are firmly against watching it, others who want others to stand with them, some who dont care to see it and dont care period and others who want to go.
> 
> *IMHO, each person's walk with the Lord is so different. His calling on our lives are never the same.* For some people, they think that wearing jewellry is sinful, or wearing make up, you shouldnt wear pants, or anything fitted. In cases where you feel strongly about those things, then YOU deal with that. Sometimes it's because of what you struggle with in your spirit, as an idol in your life and the Lord wanted you to stop doing something because it might hinder you.
> ...


 
I whole heartedly agree with this post.


----------



## mkh_77 (May 26, 2006)

How can people admire a post written by someone who knows NOTHING about what she is speaking out against?!  Knowing and repeating what someone else told you is one thing, but knowing something for yourself is another.  People, please take it upon yourself to learn on your own and not entirely rely on what someone else told you.  If modern-day Christianity is all about being radical based on what someone told you versus what you learned for your own bank of personal knowledge, then we all our in the last days.


----------



## Crackers Phinn (May 26, 2006)

I'm only allowed 5 minutes a month in the Christian Fellowship Forum, otherwise I burst into flames. So I'll make this quick.

Millions of people worldwide read this book years before the movie came out - The nature of Christianity didn't change.

Millions of people worldwide paid $10 + parking and popcorn to see the movie - The nature of Christianity didn't change.

I haven't seen any Mary Magdeline temples of worship pop up in the liberal cesspool of a city I live in. 

Now I have no problem with people not wanting to see the movie because the subject matter doesn't interest them.  I chose not to see Big Mama's House 2 for exactly that reason.  But I do feel like if you're not seeing it cuz somebody else who didn't see it or read the book, told you it was 'an attack on Christianity' then you're doing yourself a disservice.

Alright, my sleeve is on fire, so I'ma bouce up outta here. 

Peace


----------



## silverflyt (May 26, 2006)

mkh_77 said:
			
		

> How can people admire a post written by someone who knows NOTHING about what she is speaking out against?! Knowing and repeating what someone else told you is one thing, but knowing something for yourself is another. People, please take it upon yourself to learn on your own and not entirely rely on what someone else told you. If modern-day Christianity is all about being radical based on what someone told you versus what you learned for your own bank of personal knowledge, then we all our in the last days.


 
ITA.  Think for yourselves...avoid assimilation.

:assimilat


----------



## Trini"T" (May 26, 2006)

silverflyt said:
			
		

> If you are referring to my indexing of the above mentioned's stance on Christianity, no. I am not *attempting to insult* anybody. She has done a brilliant job of classifying her own comments. I am simply restating the obvious. Besides, she has never shyed away from making it known she stands to the left. I quote her when I write, " *My spirit grieves over the increasing liberal opinions that I witness among those professing Christianity today." *Spoken like a true leftist  . As an added bonus, she gifts us with the leftwinged comments of a self professed fundamentalist, fond of extremist points of action, because he according to her," *...gave an awesome and biblical testimony on his thoughts on the DaVinci Code...and he says it better than I could ever say it.*" So you see, she celebrates her leftwinged alignment-no harm done.
> 
> Furthermore, my post was inspired by the poster's comment regarding my own previous post. She wrote, "...*He* (Chuck the Left Winged, Extreme, Fundamentalist) *had the same typical comment from an intolerant subscriber who actually left his forum because of his Godly stand on this book and movie."* I personally not only find it *insulting*, but offensive, and completely inacurate to have my points of view paralleled with those of an "*intolerant unbeliever*"-because I am many things, but I am neither of those. So I felt the need to fortify my view. I am astounded that you find me "childish", But that is neither here nor there for me. -any self respecting person who enjoys their God given free will would also protect themselves from such slander.
> 
> ...


Pleeze!  Who called you childish?  Here is what you wrote *



			I see you've had a change of heart. Don't worry, I won't be unsubscribing from this forum because you share the same extreme, fanatic, and puerile views of the writer you quoted. I'm quite at home here. I look forward to reading how else you like to express your radical, zealous and dogmatist points of view.
		
Click to expand...

* One of the words you used to describe Hallcust's views was "puerile".  If I am not mistaken some of the synonyms for "puerile" are immature, infantile, silly, and *childish*.  I was calling you out for saying her views were puerile by saying"no one came on here calling your views childish."


----------



## Trini"T" (May 26, 2006)

Spidergul said:
			
		

> *But he was after all Jewish and Jews did married at a certain age. Maybe at some point in his life he wanted to be 'normal' but then realized that was not why he was here. *


 Well this sounds like Jesus Christ was some confused man and God is not a God of confusion.

*Are we now inferring that Jesus was some deadbeat dad and a no-good husband? If this man had children, he sure wasn’t no where around to take care of them. If this man had a wife, she would be screaming, “HA, what husband? Jesus who?” He would have left poooor Mary aaaalll alone to mind them kids all by her lonesome . That’s not very Christ-like is it?!*

*Who is saying this? * 

Isn't this what everyone who thinks Jesus had a wife and kids would be saying?  My point is that he would not be around to take care of his family.  He had his ministry to be concerned about and he dedicated himself fully to it.


----------



## FlyyGyrl (May 26, 2006)

mkh_77 said:
			
		

> How can people admire a post written by someone who knows NOTHING about what she is speaking out against?!  Knowing and repeating what someone else told you is one thing, but knowing something for yourself is another.  People, please take it upon yourself to learn on your own and not entirely rely on what someone else told you.  If modern-day Christianity is all about being radical based on what someone told you versus what you learned for your own bank of personal knowledge, then we all our in the last days.



Just because someone has not read the book or seen the movie does not mean they don't know about the Da Vinci code. It is a very popular book and is popular disscussion at many colleges and universities. There are many articles and whatnot on it. Whos to say who hasn't read what or even taken a class where the book was discussed? If firsthand experience is the only way to "know something" then I guess I don't know about drugs. Maybe I should go out and try them so that I can know about them. I guess I don't know about premarital sex. Maybe I should go out and try that so I can be a better witness. None of us have seen Jesus firsthand, so I guess we don't know about him. Does that sound logical? People who did those things while they were in the world give strong testimonies if they escape from it. The same is not true of Christians who do worldly things. Watching the da Vinci Code is the popular thing to do. You don't have read the book or watch the movie to know that it contradicts the bible.  There are many people who are confused about the bible as it is. So clearly this book/movie is not helping the Christian cause. I admire people who are passionate about their faith. Whats wrong with that? 

Please don't take offense.


----------



## Trini"T" (May 26, 2006)

angelk316 said:
			
		

> What is wrong with having wife and kids? Is having wife and kids unpure?


 Nothing is wrong with have a wife and kids.  It's not impure.  It's just that Jesus didn't have a wife or kids.  That was not his purpose here on earth.  He came here to plant seeds through his ministry and to set the sinners free by dying on the cross.


----------



## mkh_77 (May 26, 2006)

FlyyGyrl said:
			
		

> Just because someone has not read the book or seen the movie does not mean they don't know about the Da Vinci code. It is a very popular book and is popular disscussion at many colleges and universities. There are many articles and whatnot on it. Whos to say who hasn't read what or even taken a class where the book was discussed? If firsthand experience is the only way to "know something" then I guess I don't know about drugs. Maybe I should go out and try them so that I can know about them. I guess I don't know about premarital sex. Maybe I should go out and try that so I can be a better witness. None of us have seen Jesus firsthand, so I guess we don't know about him. Does that sound logical? People who did those things while they were in the world give strong testimonies if they escape from it. The same is not true of Christians who do worldly things. Watching the da Vinci Code is the popular thing to do. You don't have read the book or watch the movie to know that it contradicts the bible.  There are many people who are confused about the bible as it is. So clearly this book/movie is not helping the Christian cause. I admire people who are passionate about their faith. Whats wrong with that?
> 
> Please don't take offense.



Another post that's made my point even more clear since this book and movie *do not contradict the Bible*.  The book and movie make an assertion that maybe, given historical evidence, there is a different ending than what most believe in a *fictional* context.  In this case, maybe you need to read the book or see the movie to stop furthering the lie that it contradicts the Bible.  

Where did I assert that ONLY firsthand experience is the way to know something?  While in the pursuit of academics, first hand experience is usually the best way to know something, studying outside sources is usually a good way to go about learning something as well.


Ignorace usually does offend me.  Especially ignorance that purports to be something other than what it is.

Please know that the Bible that you read today is not complete and has gone through myraid translations and changes.  The Bible you read today was a document agreed on at the Council of Nicea.  Other important tenants of Christianity were also decided there by MEN.  Politics at its height.

Ladies, I am done with this disucssion.  Apparently this particular forum is only for those who are willing to blindly conform to the majority view and quite frankly, I've had enough.  As I've posted before, while ignorance is bliss, I choose to remain informed, and that does not, nor will it ever include following what someone has told me "just because".  Jesus NEVER admonished us to live in ignorance.


----------



## mkh_77 (May 26, 2006)

iiBlackBarbieii said:
			
		

> It's just that Jesus didn't have a wife or kids.  That was not his purpose here on earth.



You don't know and can't prove that.  That's your belief.


----------



## Trini"T" (May 26, 2006)

mkh_77 said:
			
		

> You don't know and can't prove that. That's your belief.


Oh right and so there is proof that Jesus had a wife and kids?  What's your proof the Gnostic Gospels?  Sorry try again.


----------



## Trini"T" (May 26, 2006)

mkh_77 said:
			
		

> Another post that's made my point even more clear since this book and movie *do not contradict the Bible*. The book and movie make an assertion that maybe, given historical evidence, there is a different ending than what most believe in a *fictional* context. In this case, maybe you need to read the book or see the movie to stop furthering the lie that it contradicts the Bible.
> 
> Where did I assert that ONLY firsthand experience is the way to know something? While in the pursuit of academics, first hand experience is usually the best way to know something, studying outside sources is usually a good way to go about learning something as well.
> 
> ...


The Book and Movie DO contradict the Bible.  If they were so concerned about people making sure it was fiction they shouldn't have put up them big behind posters advertising for the movie, talking about, "Seek the Truth".

The Third Council of Carthage ratified the New Testament in A.D. 397.  They didn't force everyone else to accept the books they liked.  They simply recorded what believers already accepted as the inspired Word of God. Dan Brown loves him some Gnosticism.  Howvwer, gnosticism is pure mythology.  They were written 200 years AFTER the real gospels.  So we know these Gnostic writers were obviously not eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry.  THAT is THEIR OPINION of Jesus.  THese gnostic books were not included in the Bible because they were rejected by the Early Christians when they first came out!


----------



## Trini"T" (May 26, 2006)

Dan Brown has trouble believin the New Testament is historically accurate.  If that's the case, how can he believe anything is historically accurate?  Especially a handful of myths about Jesus that were rejected when they first came out .

He contradicts himself by saying "Jesus was the first feminist".  This man is so hooked on Gnosticism but his own gnostic beliefs contradict Gnosticism itself.  In the Gnostic gospel of Thomas there is a passage claiming that women can't get to heaven unless they turn themselves into men first  That doesn't sound feminist to me at all.  I guess the women out there who believe Dan Brown's garbage have to now go get sex changes pronto if you want to get to heaven Hey you can't just pick apart what you like and don't like.  You gotta take all of it.


----------



## silverflyt (May 26, 2006)

iiBlackBarbieii said:
			
		

> Pleeze! Who called you childish? Here is what you wrote One of the words you used to describe Hallcust's views was "puerile". If I am not mistaken some of the synonyms for "puerile" are immature, infantile, silly, and *childish*. I was calling you out for saying her views were puerile by saying"no one came on here calling your views childish."


 
Actually, the _definition_ is "childish". But some other _synonyms_ are also trivial, petty, irresponsible, ridiculous, weak is a favorite...And I was mainly referring to the writer she chose to quote for a page and a half. And I meant that. I think he's full of fluff and stuffing-if she shares his views anyway, well, that's up to her. As for me? Anyone should feel free to call my views anything they like. Gotta love free will.


----------



## GodMadeMePretty (May 27, 2006)

Just adding in another 2 cents.  I don't frequent this forum very often for much the same reason that JCoily states.  But just to clarify what I said in an earlier post - Be informed.  Don't think that everything that you need to know comes from the Bible.  You need to KNOW that Jesus wasn't just a Biblical figure but was a historical figure - written about by people other than the scriptural "authors."  That is important for some people that you are witnessing to know.  Many will call any who are Christians "fanatical."  So be prepared to back up who you know is real with writings other than the Bible.  You have to know how to witness.  Everyone can not be witnessed to the same.

My last comment - all this hubbub about what Dan Brown claims as fact.  There are only a few things that he actually says are fact.  He doesn't claim anything else in the book as actual facts.  And I'm going to quote this.



> FACT:
> 
> The Priory of Sion -- a European secret societ founded in 1099 -- is a real organization.  In 1975 Paris's Bibliothe`que Nationale discovered parchments known as _Les Dossiers Secrets_, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.
> 
> ...



Those are the only things in this book that purport to be accurate.  BTW, if you don't have the illustrated copy of this book, you are missing some gorgeous artwork and architecture.  This is no more than a piece of fiction that uses real art, real people's names, real architecture/locations to write a book.

Hmmmm, I've read a lot of books that do that very thing.  I'm just curious as to whether anyone else's copy of the book touts anything else as actual fact other than what I've posted here that is in his book.

I also want to add that this statement is also in his book:


> All of the characters in this book are fictitious, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.



Can we now just leave it alone?  It's people other than Dan Brown making this piece of fiction into something that is supposedly "another historical account."  Please.


----------



## Poohbear (Jun 2, 2006)

mkh_77 said:
			
		

> My point is broader than that, money was just an example. There are many things that we do as Christians that aren't Christ-centered, and it's just interesting to me when people begin to harp on certain things while overlooking the others.


 EXACTLY!!!!  And I agree with some other points you made earlier!  If you're not gonna put your money into seeing this crap, then don't put your money into the other crap in the movies and on tv that you watch!




			
				Keen said:
			
		

> Although I do not plan on seing that movie, I disagree with your arguement. Any christians who chooses not to sow seeds into something mocking God would hardly go to the movies. *These days television and the movies glorify greed, pre-marital-sex, killing and all that stuff that is not suppose to be of Christain behavior*.


EXACTLY!!!!   I hardly ever watch tv anymore because of these things.  When I get my own place, I probably won't be an owner of tv.

Anyway, as a Christian, I'm undecided as to whether I'll see this movie or not but I am interested in seeing this movie so I can be better prepared to defend my Jesus if someone tries to say that things in this movie are true when in reality they are not. 

And as a cheapo person like me, I'll probably wait until my mom or sister gets it on dvd or something... hee-hee!


----------



## Poohbear (Jun 2, 2006)

iiBlackBarbieii said:
			
		

> The Book and Movie DO contradict the Bible. If they were so concerned about people making sure it was fiction they shouldn't have put up them big behind posters advertising for the movie, talking about, "Seek the Truth".


 I agree... the book and movie do contradict the Bible, which is the absolute perfect authoritative word of God.... no where in the Bible does it state that Jesus was married or had children by Mary.


----------



## GodMadeMePretty (Jun 2, 2006)

The book is said to be by its author to be a fictional book.  Fiction = made up/untrue.  And????  So it contradicts the Bible.  So do a lot of other books and movies.  I don't see anyone discussing these books and movies.  I don't frequent this forum very often but I don't see anyone discussing that stupid Narnia book and movie.  And it was supposed to be a children's movie.  My daughter would have been scared out of her mind to see that mess.  I only saw some trailers and refused to take her.  Narnia and Harry Potter are in the same category to me and the same folks who refuse to see the Da Vinci Code will run to see Narnia and/or Harry Potter.

Is it because it is VERY obvious that these two examples are fiction and the Da Vinci Code is shrouded in lukewarm land because it contains actual people, places and things?

I'm seriously not understanding the dilemma here.


----------



## Niara (Jun 5, 2006)

GodMadeMePretty said:
			
		

> *The book is said to be by its author to be a fictional book. Fiction = made up/untrue. And???? So it contradicts the Bible.* So do a lot of other books and movies. I don't see anyone discussing these books and movies. I don't frequent this forum very often but I don't see anyone discussing that stupid Narnia book and movie. And it was supposed to be a children's movie. My daughter would have been scared out of her mind to see that mess. I only saw some trailers and refused to take her. Narnia and Harry Potter are in the same category to me and the same folks who refuse to see the Da Vinci Code will run to see Narnia and/or Harry Potter.
> 
> Is it because it is VERY obvious that these two examples are fiction and the Da Vinci Code is shrouded in lukewarm land because it contains actual people, places and things?
> 
> I'm seriously not understanding the dilemma here.


 

This is my concern because the author has stated that the book is fictional and not based on historical fact yet people are flocking to the theaters as if some great truth is being revealed. For those who understand that it is fiction, the greater responsibility lies as with any other movie out there. I agree that there are other movies out there which warrant the same skepticism. As Christians we have to be cautious as a whole with the things with which we choose to entertain ourselves.


----------



## Niara (Jun 5, 2006)

hallcust said:
			
		

> Dear TrustMeLove,
> 
> I thank the Lord for your note of encouragement and for the witness of biblical discernment in you that testifies to the truth. I will continue to stand in the truth and strength of the Holy Spirit, for He is able to make me, you, and all others in the true body of Christ stand; and He has told us that in His word!
> I am resolved to stand for my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ no matter what man may think. For I gave my life to Him and to no one else.
> ...


 
Thank you Hallcust. I think you are right when you say that Christians will be persecuted for their beliefs. The enemy knows his time is short and so he will use every ploy to attack us. We have to keep strong and faithful!


----------



## Niara (Jun 5, 2006)

Bublnbrnsuga said:
			
		

> Who could disagree with this? Beautifully written.


 
Thank you.


----------



## Niara (Jun 5, 2006)

mkh_77 said:
			
		

> Obviously the author of this letter and the author of this post the letter was embedded in know nothing of what the book is about. The "criminal" in the book is the church for hiding "the truth about Jesus." The *FOCUS* of the book are the shadowy actions of the church, past and present. No where in the book does it try to detract from the importance, existence or powerfulness of Jesus. *The book is premised on the fact that Jesus did indeed exist and was such a powerful figure!*
> 
> If Jesus came to Earth, fully human as the Bible said, then what would be so wrong with him having a wife and family under the tradition of the laws of His time? There is *NOTHING* sinful about that, and if He did, it would in no way detract from who He was. Afterall all, God saw fit that Jesus come to Earth *THROUGH* a woman--He didn't miraculously appear one day. Is He any less divine because someone conjectures that He could have had a wife and children?!


 
Jesus *is* God in flesh and so it is simply ridiculous that our Lord would be married to one of his children, his creation. Jesus came to this earth to restore us to God by a loving sacrifice of becoming human. This had to be done because Adam and Eve sinned and lost that direct connection to the Father. This is why an innocent animal, usually a lamb, needed to be sacrificed whenever a sin was committed. When Jesus came, he became that sacrifice so now we can simply ask for forgiveness. Jesus lived a sinless life for this purpose. Marriage is a beautiful and wonderful thing created by God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) for His children.


----------



## esoterica (Feb 3, 2008)

I am so late, but I just finished watching this film. It's quite clear that it is fiction. Very interesting parts about Constantine and the pagan origins of Christianity.


----------



## hallcust (Feb 4, 2008)

Interesting link that refutes the claim that Christianity had pagan origins:

http://www.probe.org/cults-and-worl...christianity-borrow-from-pagan-religions.html 

Despite the continued attacks against the Bible and Christianity, the word of God has proven to withstand them, and will continue to refute all false claims against it. The Word of God will stand forever! All Glory to God and honor to the Lord Jesus Christ!


Amen and Amen!


----------

