Dismantling The Da Vinci Code

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Dismantling The Da Vinci Code By Sandra Miesel see: http://www.crisismagazine.com/feature1.htm

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), September 02, 2003

Answers

Good, Bill. I started reading articles by Sandra Miesel in the mid-1980s, when she was seeking a doctorate in medieval studies. She is simply an outstanding writer.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 02, 2003.

Thanks for the link to the article, Bill. I found it very informative. I don't know how Sandra had the patience to actually read the entire novel and then to research and document a few of the many errors it portrayed. When I read something that departs from reality so much as this novel did, I get too frustrated to even know how to respond. It's nonsense, the problem is people are gullible enough to believe it, so my hat's off to Ms. Miesel for her efforts.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), September 03, 2003.


Yep. Now, all we need to do is trick people into thinking that Miesel's article is the latest craze in anti-Catholic literature so that they'll actually read it.

I'll begin: "I hate Miesel's article! It exposes all the weaknesses behind Church stories that I've grown up with as a kid! Somebody stop Miesel before she destroys the Church!"

Heh. At this rate, it'll be more popular than the book itself.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 03, 2003.


Anyone who wants to attend a talk on the De Vinci code is welcome to come to the Center for Family Development, 7007 Bradley Blvd. Bethesda, MD 20817. It's being held on Thursday, Sept.11 at 8pm.

There is a chance that I'll be there. So if you want to go to toss eggs or accolades...meet me by the dumpster outside! (heh heh, just kidding.) Joe

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), September 04, 2003.


Dammit, quit deleting my posts.

The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. I really don't see why you're all getting your panties all up in a bunch about it. It's a great story, and I think most of you would like it if you look at it from that perspective; it's just a story.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 07, 2003.



"just a story" well, it's a very popular book, being read by millions, and it's full of anti-Catholic details which can't fail but turn some people against the Church even more than usual...

Look, if any other church or religion was the "bad guy" and the book was popular, don't you think that group would be angry?

For example: Tom Clancy's book The Sum of All Fears turned into a movie switched the bad guys from Muslim radicals to PC-safe 'neo- Nazis'...because after all, we don't want to make the Muslims angry but don't care what any extant Nazis have to say, think or feel... The underlying presumption is: "we'd better not make Muslims look bad" and that's OK as far as it goes because heaven knows how many Muslims are being lynched and killed by unruly and evil Christian hordes which routinuely get whipped up into murderous frenzies...

But as for Catholicism - Hollywood and Madison Avenue routinely slam the Church and those who are members - and they do it in precisely the same way they slam Nazis, and in precisely the same way THEY would condemn as "hate speech" if used against THEIR friends and allies.

You have movies coming out EVERY YEAR which slam the Church as evil, wicked, powerful, sinister, and immoral: such as 1492, Dogma, Stigmata, Last Temptation of Christ, the Left Behind series...etc. Anyone growing up today who watches TV, cable and Movies will get a constant drip drip drip of anti-Catholic bias.

Even swear words in Movies are routinely "Jesus Christ" - why is that? Why is our Lord repeatedly and constantly used as an expletive? And that's supposed to be considered Ho hum OK?

Given the MTV, Saturday Night Live and assorted other cultural "educators" out there - all of whom espouse a very anti- Catholic view of sexuality and the human person, having another best selling book take gratuitous pot-shots at the historical record and Catholics is reason enough for concern. It's not being thin-skinned.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 08, 2003.


It's just a story! It's just a work of fiction! It's just a cartoon! It's just a play! It's just a movie! As though fiction, films, and artwork don't convey a message! Some of the most hate-filled, bigoted messages ever presented have been delivered in the form of fiction (printed and performed), and cartoons.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 08, 2003.

It's just a song...it's just a game...it's just a vehicle of moral deformation of the youth!

Come'on we all grew up in the 70's and 80's when people poo-pooed the worry of parents about Rock n Roll, and all the other things that by hook and crook suckered our generation into the hedonist, materialist, and atheistic camps.

Remember Playboy? "It's just pictures...the articles are really good"

That's the kind of "hey don't worry and don't overreact...don't put up your defenses cause the armada sailing your way isn't there" type of smokescreen.

Let's not overreact... leads to captilation and defeat on the battlefield so why should things be different on the battlefield of ideas and moral formation?

In case no one has noticed, the Church and the Gospel we preach has enemies. They have been attacking us for centuries and use every scandal to their favor while simultaneously either burying the good we do or twisting it away from its original purpose and point.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 08, 2003.


So it portrays the Church as the bad guy. Boo hoo. Pass me a tissue. Get over it. Think about it, it is only logical that the Church would be the one trying to stop the secret of Jesus's bloodline from getting out (not that it neccesarily exists, but you know what I mean). Why? So that they can maintain their power. This is the same organization that burned tens of thousands of Cathars at the stake back in the middle ages simply because they didn't agree with them...

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 09, 2003.

What a creep you are, sir or madam! It's just about time for you to be banned from the forum, so useless and ridiculous are your posts. When one sees the stupid nickname ("anti-bush") and the even weirder e-mail address ("blah"), one just shudders that such a twisted anti-Catholic soul should be in our midst.

But down to business ... Your comment is the kind of utterly nonsense heard only from Chik-educated bigots. The Church "burned tens of thousands of Cathars"? What rubbish! The number of Cathars executed -- not merely for their beliefs, but because of their danger to the state -- was a tiny fraction of what your propaganda taught you. You should read up about what the Cathars believed and did. Even in this more "enlightened" and supposedly gentle age, you definitely would not want a single Cathar to be around (both for religious and civil reasons). Don't believe me? Then believe what a secular, online encyclopedia says -- definitely not a work that is friendly to Catholicism, but at least having enough sense to try to be somewhat objective and accurate (unlike your bigoted gurus). Click here.

May God help you out of the deep depression in which you now find yourself.
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 09, 2003.



Prove your assertions about the Catholic Church please.

Where do you get the number of 10,000 burnt at the stake?

Does this come from a website or a primary historical document?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 10, 2003.


Stupid mod, deleted my post. Gotta type it over again.

The name "anti-bush" is the name I use over in the Anarchy 2 forum (yep..I'm not very creative..). I guess it doesn't have much relevance here, but whatever. The e-mail adress is just random. I'm just wierd like that.

But down to buisiness.

"..because of their danger to the state"

By the state, I assume you mean the Church (which, for most intents and purposes, was the state back then). What threat did they pose? Other than the fact that they were saying things that didn't agree with the Church--and that's really not a reason to light someone on fire--they posed no threat.

"you definitely would not want a single Cathar to be around (both for religious and civil reasons)."

I read the article, and the only begative thing I found in there was "the cats they were supposed to have sexualy abused." What is interesting about the way the worded that sentance is the deliberate use of the word "supposed". That means no one really knows. Some of the documents from that time period may say they had sex with cats, but since they all came from the same organization that had just lit these people on fire (it was the Catholic Church that hand-copied all the documents in the middle ages), there is a problem with their credibility. Think about it. If I wanted to discredit a political opposition group, spreading rumors that they sexualy abused cats would certainly be a good way to do it.

BTW, how does having sex with cats fit in with Gnostic lines of thought? Show me some proof of the cat story, becuase without it, you've got nothing on the Cathars, buddy.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003.


Still no reply? Could it be that Mr. Gecik has realized the extent of his indoctrination? Inteligence: 1. Propaganda: 0.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 26, 2003.

And then suddenly, the piano player stops hammering the keys and scurrys away. The room becomes silent with a final "ching" of mugs and bottles. All eyes focus on the man entering the room with admiration, wonder, and fear. The man sighs, stares down his inquisitor, and takes another swig of cafe negro before the real sweat begins to fall. The man at the doorway is J. F. Gecik. The fellow at the end of his gaze takes another gulp of dry swallow and waits for the answers.

rod..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 26, 2003.


You lost me.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 27, 2003.


Well, "Anti-Bush" [i.e., Pro-Idiocy],
I wasn't avoiding making a reply to you. Probably due to the deletion of your message and a "fluke" of timing, I never saw your re-posting on the 13th. Come to think of it, the Moderator should delete the re-posting.

However, if you could not see, from the Wikipedia article, that the Catharists were a grave danger to mankind, you may have the following, taken from another encylopedia:

"The Catharist system was a simultaneous attack on the Catholic Church and the then existing State. The Church was directly assailed in its doctrine and hierarchy. The denial of the value of oaths, and the suppression, at least in theory, of the right to punish, undermined the basis of the Christian State. But the worst danger was that the triumph of the heretical principles meant the extinction of the human race. This annihilation was the direct consequence of the Catharist doctrine, that all intercourse between the sexes ought to be avoided and that suicide (or the "Endura"), under certain circumstances, is not only lawful but commendable.

"... Among Catholics, the priest is forbidden to marry, but the faithful can merit eternal happiness in the married state. For the Cathari, no salvation was possible without previous renunciation of marriage. Mr. H.C. Lea, who cannot be suspected of partiality towards the Catholic Church, writes: 'However much we may deprecate the means used for [Catharism's] suppression and commiserate those who suffered for conscience' sake, we cannot but admit that the cause of orthodoxy was in this case the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to prove disastrous.' ..."

Anti-Shrub, please go back to your customary forum. This is no place for an "anarchist" like you -- except for one who sees the emptiness of his life and thoughts and who is seeking to convert to Catholicism.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 27, 2003.


"Well, "Anti-Bush" [i.e., Pro-Idiocy],"

Ah, so you're a Bush supporter. A.K.A. a supporter of rigged elections, imperialist oil wars, and kicking the poor and uninsured to the curb. That explains a whole lot.

Ok, so if I am understanding this correctly, The Cathars were a grave danger to mankind because they didn't beleive in the authority of the Church and they thought that people shouldn't get married and procreate. That is just plain stupid. They don't want to have kids...let's light them on fire! It seems to me that a group that refused to procreate would pretty much die out by itself after a generation or so...

It all comes down to them not agreeing with the Church. They hurt no one. So what if they didn't beleive in the the Church's authority? If the Church honestly beleived that it was the one trie road to salvation, then wouldn't they have been satisfyed with the knowledge that the Cathars would simply pay for the rest of eternity? Whp were they to dispense ultimate justice? I thought that was a power reserved only for god.

A group of people that doesn't like to have sex is certainly no threat to mankind. I mean, do you really think it could have caught on? In case you haven't noticed, people like to have sex! If you can't see just how wrong you are by now, then you truly are brainwashed, my friend.

BTW, I'm not really an Anarchist (the Anarchy 2 forum is more of a political forum...theres actualy very few Anarchists left over there). I consider myself a Democratic Socialist. You're perfectly welcome to visit the place sometime. Your views might make for a good debate.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 27, 2003.


A bunch of Gnostics they were. They believed in the "demiurge" as the creator of all existence. God was second fiddle. Salvation for the Gnostic was all in their power of intellect, all in there heads. The Cathars (Buggers) were just another bunch of heretics along with their brothers and sisters: Hermetics, Valentinians, Rosicrusians, and Masonics. They were a "cocky" bunch.

rod..

..


-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.


Gnostics (Cathars) believed that they had no right to bring a new life into a depraved world. Unless certain conditions were met, reproduction was specific. They believed that the sexual union of a man and woman was the joining of the whole one. Man and woman were complete as one. Their high intellectual philosophy was too querky for the world. Their debates were dangerous to the soul and had the potential to lead one to damnation. Gnostics were slithery creatures spreading blesphamy throughout society. Did they deserve being burned? That's not my struggle.

rod..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.


The Gnostics by Tobias Churton.

I guess this author is reliable. We can't leave home and expect the truth just to hit us on the face, now do we?

rod..

..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.


Huff! I almost forgot.

Gnostics believed that they too would become god. Not the image of God, but they would really become god.

rod..

..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.


Don't like what they say...you don't have to listen. Lighting people on fire really isn't the most desirable solution.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 27, 2003.

Ah! "lighting people on fire". That is exactly what the Gnostics were doing by converting Christians to Gnosticism (its many forms).

rod..

..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.


I guess I better explain.

I don't mean an earthly burning at the stake. I'm talking about the fires of damnation in Hell. That was exactly where that conversion lead to. So, the Gnostics were doing the same burnings, but not just fresh converts, themselves too. At least, this would be a logical view.

rod..

..


-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.


You have no way of knowing that. Neither did the Church. Instead you presume that you know God's will.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 28, 2003.

Oh! Bush cut it out. You presume that I presume that the Church presumes. I presume nothing. I'm offering a logical view point. Can't you at least consider such a possibility? Or, do you presume that everyone is wrong and you should presume that these heretics would align their beliefs with those which are probably not damned? I'm simply pointing out that the Gnostics were burned. Well, ok. You decide what the Church was thinking. Remember, I never said anything about what God was thinking or judging, you have.

Read the words on the screen, not the ones in your head. I get tired of you Gnostics and Pharisees. Don't put words in places where they don't belong. Play nice or don't play at all. Argue your point without taunting. Burn it!

Sorry, I don't like being lead astray. rod..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 28, 2003.


All I presume to know is that killing people simply because they hold different religious beleifs than you is never justified.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 28, 2003.

Well, I'll try to remember that when those crazy Islamic types come tearing down my house with terror in their hearts and bombs in their cars. Not all of Islam is bent on destroying Christianity, so I'm not pointing at them.

rod..

..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 28, 2003.


Hey, Pro-Idiocy,

Get off the "burning" kick already. That's a red herring. You are trying to distract everyone from the gross error you made earlier -- for which you never apologized. I never said that burning any Cathars was justifiable, so stop pretending that I defend what was done. I think that they should have been stopped from destroying society in ways that are short of execution.

Now, let me refresh your memory (and that of everyone else) what you said several days ago [in bold, below] -- and how I called you on it. After reading this, please proceed to admit that you were wrong in grossly exaggerating the numbers, thereby doing an injustice to Catholicism:

"Your comment is the kind of utterly nonsense heard only from Chik-educated bigots. The Church 'burned tens of thousands of Cathars'? What rubbish! The number of Cathars executed -- not merely for their beliefs, but because of their danger to the state -- was a tiny fraction of what your propaganda taught you."

By the way, did you notice your self-contradiction? First you said that the Church "burned tens of thousands of Cathars." Then you theorized that it was an insignificant movement that could not attract anyone because of its weird doctrines. Which is it -- a lot or a few? I'll tell you which ... It had very many followers indeed, and, despite its weirdness, it threatened to attract hordes ... but only a relative few were executed. Why would you think that Catharism would have trouble attracting people, since you have latched onto a clearly goofy minority political philosophy yourself ("Democratic Socialism").

May God bless and enlighten you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 28, 2003.


What is your estimate fo the number of people lit on fire for their religious beleifs? Besides, they didn't all have to ACTUALY be Cathars. One popular practice of the times when interrogating someone was to torture them until they confessed. Many times they didn't actualy do what they confessed to, they just wanted the torture to stop. The number of estimated Cathars at the time could have easily been five times what the actual number was, due to false confessions. I am no expert on this particular subject, but that was the case with the Inquisition.

I said they couldn't attract converts because most people like having sex. Is this a point you would like to argue?

And why is Democratic Socialism a goofy political philosophy? Do you know anything about it at all? Probably not, but since you were raised to beleive it was goofy, it is goofy.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), September 28, 2003.


Jmj

This is intended to be my last post on the thread, "anti-Bush/pro-Idiocy."

You: What is your estimate fo the number of people lit on fire for their religious beleifs?

Me: I don't make "estimates" myself. I just debunk exaggerations from careless anti-Catholic writers like you. Refer again to the encyclopedia article I linked for you. It has some numbers.

You: One popular practice of the times when interrogating someone was to torture them until they confessed. Many times they didn't actualy do what they confessed to, they just wanted the torture to stop.

Me: Don't pretend to have the ability to talk about this without first reading the Jewish author, Kamen's book on the subject.

You: The number of estimated Cathars at the time could have easily been five times what the actual number was, due to false confessions.

Me: There you go again, admitting that their numbers were or could have been very large, despite having an unpopular (anti-sex) creed -- thus contradicting your point that they were no danger to society. A form of Catharism (if I recall correctly) was the pro-death heresy called Albigensianism (around 1200 in France). I recently heard that they had a member of royalty leading 100,000 men in arms in defense of this crud -- but it was defeated by less than 1,000 Catholic men backed by prayers, especially the Rosary.

You: I said they couldn't attract converts because most people like having sex. Is this a point you would like to argue?

Me: I don't even have to "argue" it. You have twice proved yourself wrong by saying that it had large number of converts. Moreover, if you reflect on history, you will see that various movements with extreme demands and/or restrictions on behavior have been able to attract hordes -- for example, Islam.

You: And why is Democratic Socialism a goofy political philosophy? Do you know anything about it at all? Probably not, but since you were raised to beleive it was goofy, it is goofy.

Me: I was not "raised to believe" anything about Democratic Socialism. The following is from the same encyclopedia to which I linked you about Catharism:

"Democratic socialism is a political movement propagating the political ideals of Socialism in a democratic state, or in other words: anti-Authoritarian Communists. Most democratic socialists typically advocate a mixed economy with generous welfare provision, and re-distribution of wealth. People or groups who describe themselves as democratic socialists, are generally further to the left and more radical than the more moderate social democrats. Many people see Scandinavian countries such as Sweden as a model of democratic socialism."

Simply put, "anti-Bush/pro-Idiocy," I consider all of the following elements of your movement to be "goofy" and counter-productive to society:
Socialism, anti-authoritarianism, Communism, the "welfare state," incredibly high taxes, forced (rather than voluntary) redistribution of wealth, being "radical leftists," thinking that there is anything good about Swedish society (with rampant cohabitation/fornication [due to lack of marriage], its pro-death mentality, and its forcing mothers to work [due to ridiculous taxes]).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003.


John,

You are simply and blindly defending the Church who's fed us with fabricated stories for the last 2000 years (triggered by Emperor Constantine, for his own political reasons). Are you afraid of questioning its integrity? I think so. I was too, until I was about 16 and opened my eyes and ears to other opinions. Why should I believe what the Church says more than what thousands of historians say? There are numerous other books that back up Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code's Theory. How about a bit of exploration? I suggest the following: - "The Dark Side of Christian History" by Helen Ellerbe - "The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ" by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince - "The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail" by Margaret Starbird - "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln There are a lot more along those lines. But that would be a start. Being humans, the most intelligent living form on Earth, we owe it to ourselves to research things a bit and not just take everything for granted. Don't you think?

Estelle

-- Estelle (corinne73@msn.com), October 02, 2003.


Forgot to say how weak Sandra Miesel's criticism of Da Vinci Code is. She fails to back up any of her statements with any source whatsoever. So why should we believe her instead of Brown (who has duly researched what he says beforehand and reveals his sources and offers readers to research it for themselves)? Just because SHE says it isn't true? Seems pretty weak to me...

Estelle

-- Estelle (corinne73@msn.com), October 02, 2003.


For every "book" you mention that supposedly "backs up" the fiction novel in question, you could find primary sources by the dozens disproving their every assertion. "Primary sources" aren't "history books" they're the actual testimonies, letters, and accounts from those days, of which the Catholic Church has many.

I find it highly revealing that you claim to have seen the truth as a 16 year old. Teenager telling the world how smart she is! Ha!

Look in the back of every single one of those "books" you mention. They quote each other! How many primary documents do they cite? Next to none.

So much for scholarly research and truth!

Oh, and by the way, don't make a fool of yourself. Constantine didn't create the Catholic Church. In the council of Nicea there were hundreds of bishops in attendance who came from all over the Empire... they didn't spring out of nowhere from 313 to 325. The Christian communities had bishops, priests, and deacons, and a long tradition of teaching centuries before Constantine. Only a completely historically ignorant person (or a protestant) believes that Constantine created anything.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 02, 2003.


Thanks for your response, Joe. Allow me to answer: the "actual testimonies, letters, and accounts from those days, of which the Catholic Church has many" that you mention...could they be, by any chance, fabricated rather than genuine? We have no proof of their authenticity and I tend to believe an historian with very few sources rather than the Catholic Church whose history doesn't inspire ME any confidence (like burning people who were accused of being witches and pocketing their belongings...not very orthodox, or deciding that Jesus' birthday was Dec. 25 which conveniently corresponds to the birthday of Mithras, worshipped by pagans...). Of course, both historians and the Church could be lying to us all, but I prefer to trust the sayings of someone rather unbiased (why should historians care whether Jesus was married or not? The Church, on the other hand...would be in serious trouble). As far as how old I was when I started questioning religion, it simply corresponds to the year I had my first philosophy class. It was the first time I heard the validity of christianity being questioned. I was not telling the world how smart I was (as you said), I was rather realising how stupid I had been...I am 30 now and haven't gone back to my original beliefs. As far as the authors of the books I mentioned citing each other, makes perfect sense: they're all researching the same subject. Oh and by the way, I never said that Cosntantine created the Catholic Church. Of course it existed before, no question about that. However, he deliberately molded it to his own interests, got rid of the sacred feminine and the worship of Mary (The Virgin), instituted the Holy Trinity, transformed pagan holidays into catholic ones etc...So no, he definitely did not "create" the Catholic religion, but had a very strong impact on it.

Estelle

-- Estelle (corinne73@msn.com), October 02, 2003.


Hi Estelle.

Most of the books you've mentioned provide conjecture as their source. They know how to make puzzle pieces that fit neatly. Have you noticed that these books can be found in thefiction section? They also make the challenge of having someone prove their conclusion wrong. Some of their stories are so far off the path, it is impossible to prove them wrong. I would be very careful in believing everything we read.

rod..

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 02, 2003.


Hi Rod,

I agree with you, we shouldn't believe everything we read. I am all for critical minds, believe me. Unfortunately, the story of Jesus is SO old that we have to deal with the data that has been passed on to us, unless we want to dedicate our lives to researching it ourselves by retracing all the events, going to those places ourselves etc...And even if we had time to do that, I don't think we'd find anything anymore. I think the Church has been really skilled at making pieces of the puzzle fit neatly too (although there are some unexplained gaps and contradictions here and there), why would the skill only belong to historians? So who are we supposed to believe? Like I said before, it makes more sense to me to believe in unbiased sources. I am still skeptical about those historians' findings, but mainly because I'm in shock. On the other hand, I have already decided to not believe in a religion that has been deceiving people, grossly enriching itself, punishing some while rewarding others...I also have to admit that I like the idea of Jesus having the same feelings and attractions as other mortals, being human, having a wife,...makes the whole story more plausible to me. Also, you mention that these books are to be found in the "Fiction" section...of what? A bookstore? I personally found them under "History" and "Religion". Of course, "Da Vinci Code" is under "Fiction" because the characters and the plot are fictive. By the way, have you read the books I mentioned? If you want to stay away from the whole Grail story, then I would still advise "The Dark Side of Christian History".

-- Estelle (corinne73@msn.com), October 02, 2003.


im sure that the book da vinci code is under the fiction rack because of more than just fictional characters...

but lets clear something up... what youre saying is "i dont trust the church because of history that happened over 800 years ago." i bet you cant even name the year the witch trials started, much less why (which would both be important facts BEFORE you pass judgement-- woops).

but what youre really saying is "I'd rather trust someone with little scholarly background who stands to make alot of money by selling a sensationalist fictional anti catholic to all the non denominationals out there who hate catholics than trust the HUNDREDS of catholic scholars who stand only to save souls with truth." pretty powerful message when you trust a sales person over the church historians.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 02, 2003.


Paul...how old are you? 12? "i bet you cant even name the year the witch trials started, much less why(...)" How ridiculous! Pope John XXII formalized the persecution of witchcraft in 1320 when he authorized the Inquisition to prosecute sorcery. The goal was to crush ancient pagan traditions (such as Wicca) by calling them witchcraft/heresy. An even more important date is 1484 when Pope Innocent VIII issued the bull Summis Desiderantes authorizing 2 inquisitors, Kramer and Sprenger, to systemize the persecution of witches. Do you really want the whole story? Correction: I never said I believed in sales people making money on bogus books about bogus stories. I said I put a lot more trust on historians, even when their sources are slim, rather than on the Catholic Church who historically has NOT been trying to save souls with truth (is that what Crusades were all about?), and has an agenda that I strongly disagree with. And if historians make money selling their books, good! They've never denied that their profession could be lucrative, did they? The Church is not in a good position to criticize anybody making money, is it? There's nothing worse than the commerce of religion as it is grossly exhibited in Lourdes. What's better: selling miracles in bottles or selling history books?

-- Estelle (Corinne73@msn.com), October 02, 2003.

Jmj
Time to take a hike, Estelle. You know little or nothing, and you have nothing to offer this Catholic forum except abuse. You are a "legend in your own mind" -- while we have no trouble realizing that your mind is a shabby wreck filled with a mixture of facts, half-truths, and fictions.

You will make no converts and only enemies by posting such stupidities as referring to Catholic devotion to Mary as "worship." What a mental midget you must be to believe such a thing! Well, we already knew that from your promotion of "Da Vinci Code."

Here's another "whopper" from you: "Why should I believe what the Church says more than what thousands of historians say?"

An objective person going to the best historical sources finds that they do not conflict with the Church. You know nothing. That is obvious from your goofy comment about Constantine, debunked by Joe above.

Another "whopper from you"? OK: "Being humans, the most intelligent living form on Earth, we owe it to ourselves to research things a bit and not just take everything for granted. Don't you think?"

Yes, I do think so. And that's why you ought to start doing that research yourself. You've apparently been putting it off for 14 years (age 16 to 30), which explains your abysmal ignorance.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 02, 2003.


John,

What is the purpose of this forum if you don't have the right to debate? Are you expecting to have exchanges only with people who agree with you? That's a lot safer. I was interested in the forum, because I thought that was a place where ideas could be exchanged between peoples of different opinions, that's what makes a forum interesting. But obviously I'm in the wrong place for that. How narrow minded of you...And not a very catholic thing to insult those who aren't, really! But I won't give up! So here goes: "An objective person going to the best historical sources finds that they do not conflict with the Church": please, I beg for an example here. What are those mysterious sources you're talking about? The Bible? The Old Testament? And tell me about my "goofy comment about Constantine, debunked by Joe"...Joe wrongly accused me of saying that Constantine had created the Catholic Church (do you see me saying that anywhere?), and I responded to him (see above). Never heard back from good ol' Joe since then...And how dare you calling my reference to Constantine as goofy? It's a simple fact with a date on it, written in every history book on the subject and the era. Go back to school, John! Bottom line: I am shocked by the ignorance you are accusing me of, especially when your own comments are so flat and not constructive. What do YOU know about Constantine? Or should I say, what DON'T you want to know about him? Instead of giving me an opinion about the subject, you're nit-picking on semantics: the word "worship" must have made your hair turn white. Sorry if I offended you here, I didn't know "worship" was a taboo or negative word. But that was beyond the point. All you do is go off tangents, probably because you can't debate. And for your information, my goal is far from converting people. When I finished reading Da Vinci Code, I was fascinated by the subject and wanted to know what other people's opinions about it were, particularly religious people. Simple interest. I am now stunned by what I got in return. I should have known it...

Don't insult me and then bless me, please

-- Estelle (Corinne73@msn.com), October 02, 2003.


estelle,

perhaps you didnt realize a simple fact... this forum is NOT for open debate and exchange of ideas. this is a CATHOLIC forum, for the developement of Catholic faith and a place of answers for those who have LEGITIMATE questions.

YOU, however, have no place here. you have no proper theological education, and you arm yourself in your own rightousness and a few poor historians trying to make a buck on some dubunked anti catholic theories. your arguements are childish and hold no water, they arent even really arguements so much as they are ad hominem attacks (which constitute a logical fallacy, if you are mature enough to recognize that). how about sticking to a real debate... like some factual evidence of what you claim?

otherwise, i hope that the moderator will remove your childish presense so that faith enlightening catholic discussion can take place, and not your petty accusations which have nothing to do with this subject

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 03, 2003.


Dear Estelle:
In our society there is always a thriving market for the fantastic and mythical. Kids like D-ungeons & drag-ons; simple people are tickled by rotting flesh and naked bosoms in their movies; and some, just like you, take these bird droppings seriously. It's a cult in our society, and I'm sure you realise this.

The main problem about Da Vinci Code is that the book has a malicious purpose. The author is dishonest; as you can well see, if you read the article linked at the top of this thread, in Crisis Magazine. Her sources are ridiculous. Her disrespect for the Catholic Church, for all Christians, actually, is in your face.

You say you're fascinated by the story. I'm afraid that tells us something about your low level of taste. You are seemingly easy to fascinate. You don't see the lie behind the thrills, do you? Go back and read the book again; this time using the common sense God gave you. He will also give you sufficient grace to laugh at the devil. The devil will no longer have power over your imagination if you pray for God's grace.

Your own story will become fascinating to you, Estelle; after you realise God loves you and will fight for you. We'll certainly be praying for you, and for so many other gullible souls who read the Da Vinci Caca.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 03, 2003.


Jmj

Estelle, I see that you have some serious problems.
Since you failed to react properly to my last message, I'll approach things in a different manner this time. I'll list the many errors in the messages with which you've "graced" this thread, so that you can get some idea of the poor situation in which you find yourself.

1. "John, [y]ou are simply and blindly defending the Church ..."
[(a) Being the Body of Christ, the Church actually needs no "defending." (b) I do nothing "blindly," but with eyes wide open.]

2. "... the Church [has] fed us with fabricated stories for the last 2000 years (triggered by Emperor Constantine, for his own political reasons)."
[An informed and reasonable reader sees at least two errors in your words: (a) the idea that the Church Jesus founded could have "fabricated stories," and (b) that Constantine "triggered" fabrications 2,000 years ago.
The Catholic Church is incapable of lying or erring in her teachings of faith and morals. Constantine wasn't even alive 2,000 years ago. Nor did he found the Church. Nor did he fabricate anything.]

3. "Are you afraid of questioning its integrity? I think so."
[I'm not "afraid" of anything. It's just that there has never been a reason for me (or anyone else) to "question [the] integrity" of the Church. Jesus founded her, making her indefectible (indestructible) and unable to succumb to the wiles of the devil. Only certain churchMEN have at times lacked "integrity" -- but not the Church herself.]

4. "[When] I was about 16 [I] opened my eyes and ears to other opinions."
[Those weren't "opinions." They were temptations and lies -- from satan, who wants no one to be an orthodox, practicing Catholic.]

5. "Why should I believe what the Church says more than what thousands of historians say?"
[This "thousands" is a pretty silly exagerration. But regardless of the actual number of "historians," we "should [all] believe what the Church says" because Christ founded her, and she never teaches wrongly on matters of faith and morality.]

6. "There are numerous other books that back up Dan Brown's 'Da Vinci Code's Theory.' How about a bit of exploration? I suggest the following: [blah-blah-blah]"
[And there "are numerous ... books that back up" Mohammed's "Koran" and Joe Smith's "Book of Mormon" -- but that doesn't mean that I accord them any weight.]

7. "Forgot to say how weak Sandra Miesel's criticism of Da Vinci Code is. She fails to back up any of her statements with any source whatsoever. So why should we believe her instead of Brown (who has duly researched what he says beforehand and reveals his sources and offers readers to research it for themselves)?"
[Brown has a book, in which he can write at length. Miesel has an article and cannot present every detail she knows. I have no doubt at all that Miesel would "whup" Brown and you (1 on 2) in a debate -- even with 1/2 her brain tied behind her back.]

8. "[a] ... the 'actual testimonies, letters, and accounts from those days, of which the Catholic Church has many' that you mention... could they be, by any chance, fabricated rather than genuine? [b] We have no proof of their authenticity and I tend to believe an historian with very few sources rather than the Catholic Church ..."

[(a) No, no fabrication. (b) No one has a reason to doubt the authenticity except for bigots and people who don't want to believe the Church's teachings, especially her moral teachings. I have little doubt that this is your problem. You want to sin without guilt.]

9. "... or deciding that Jesus' birthday was Dec. 25 which conveniently corresponds to the birthday of Mithras, worshipped by pagans...)."
[How terribly ignorant you are -- yet you presume to lecture us! The Church never declared December 25 to be Jesus's birthday, but chose to celebrate it on that date, in order to overcome the negative effects of the simultaneous pagan celebration. Your mind is befuddled by reading anti-Catholic trash masquerading as history.]

10. "I prefer to trust the sayings of someone rather unbiased ..."
[I doubt that you have read a single unbiased word about Catholicism since you turned 16 and started losing your precious faith.]

11. "Constantine ... got rid of the sacred feminine and the worship of Mary (The Virgin), instituted the Holy Trinity ..."
[Utter nonsense. The man was not even a Catholic until being baptized just before death. Yet he "instituted the Holy Trinity"? Your alleged "historians" are nutso! Moreover, true devotion to Our Lady has been enjoyed by Catholics since the earliest days, long before Constantine. In or near Jesus's Church, there has never been any "sacred feminine" -- a term that is a modern invention of "goddess worshippers."]

12. "I have already decided to not believe in a religion that has been deceiving people, grossly enriching itself, punishing some while rewarding others ..."
[Whenever a wrong was done ("deceiving ... enriching ... punishing [unjustly] ... rewarding [unjustly]", it was not the Catholic "religion" that did it, but individual sinful Catholics. That's why you had no right whatsoever to abandon the Church that Jesus founded -- into which you had the privilege of being born.]

13. "I also have to admit that I like the idea of Jesus having the same feelings and attractions as other mortals, being human, having a wife, ... makes the whole story more plausible to me."
["Plausibility" should have no role in such a momentous decision. You can't pick and choose a religion to which to belong based on "plausibility." The Catholic Church has never taught that Jesus lacked "the same feelings and attractions as" others who have a human nature. But it is an historical fact that he had no wife -- which is perfectly plausible anyway.]

14. "Pope John XXII formalized the persecution of witchcraft in 1320 when he authorized the Inquisition to prosecute sorcery. The goal was to crush ancient pagan traditions (such as Wicca) by calling them witchcraft/heresy."
[This is a figment of your imagination, placed there by the fiction that you have been reading. There was no such thing as "wicca" in the 14th century. Moderns (19th-20th century) who chose to practice witchcraft fabricated a "history" out of whole cloth -- one in which this "wicca" fiction is prominent. They had to make their actions look like a legitimate revival of something respectable and ancient. And in your naivete, you "bought" the whole lie. How sad (except to satan)!]

15. "I said I put a lot more trust on historians, even when their sources are slim, rather than on the Catholic Church who ... has an agenda that I strongly disagree with."
[You finally let the cat out of the bag there! All your rebellion and anger are all about a Catholic "agenda" with which you "strongly disagree." This really doesn't have anything at all to do with history. Is the problem that you support legalized abortion/contraception/euthanasia/prostitution/"gaiety"/etc. -- and detest the Church for condemning all of these? Maybe you are a radical feminist who has even had an abortion or a lesbian lover? Isn't the problem really that your agenda conflicts with Christ's?]

16. "Are you expecting to have exchanges only with people who agree with you?"
[No, but when I have an exchange with someone who does not agree with me, I won't tolerate my Church and her doctrines being abused verbally (as you have done) -- because that is against the forum's rules. And I especially won't tolerate any rubbish from ex-Catholics and others who ought to know better than to say that the Church "worship[ped]" Mary.]

17. "Don't insult me and then bless me, please."
[I didn't "bless" you. I asked God to bless you -- with the light you need to arise from the hellish darkness into which you have plunged yourself.]


Estelle, please read and accept what Paul H. and Eugene have told you. They are analyzing the situation correctly and giving you proper guidance. Also, read the "Moderator's Note" thread to learn the forum's rules.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 03, 2003.


Ok, last posting from me, and I'll leave you guys alone. At this point I surely look like an heretic to you all, which confirms to me that we are on such different pages that there's no point discussing any of this any further. I feel like I have talked to deaf people thinking they could hear. Waste of my time and yours. However it saddens me to see that humans can't communicate, which is the sore of our History, the reason for wars etc. I don't agree with you, therefore I'm a satan worshipper, completely ignorant, sinful, blah blah blah...WOW! I'm glad this is not the Middle Ages anymore, I would have been burnt on a stake by people like you, just because my beliefs are different. You've just proved to me that the Catholic mentality hasn't changed a bit since then. You're right, I do not have my place among insulting imbeciles who have never read anything but the Bible.

-- Estelle (Corinne73@msn.com), October 03, 2003.

So on the one hand we have a 16 year old girl who "suddenly realized" that religion was bunk - based on no extensive study or research, and on the other we have a half dozen Catholic men who have post-graduate degrees, have traveled the world, speak several foreign languages, have formally studied History, Catholic Theology, and Philosophy...to say nothing of logic.

The girl thinks we're just bible-alone loosers because we don't see why anyone would give a FICTION book more credibility than HISTORY books!

She thinks that "possibility" is the same thing as FACT. She also thinks that it's plausible that the Catholic Church - since it's been around for 2000 years - has forged every document and fabricated every claim that supports it's claims...but that NO ONE ELSE could or would DO THE VERY SAME THING! And she calls US NAIVE! Ha!

To top it all off, this girl - no rocket scientist - claims that this book of FICTION has "historical backing" by quoteing other works of historical FICTION!

And WE are the unintelligent ones????

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 03, 2003.


Joe? You mean......uh......I've......well, uh......I've been debating with a pppp-post-graduate--multi-ddd-degree scholar? Jeepers!

I'm just a "wise guy".

Ha.h.aha.h.h.ha....."Da Vinci Caca"?? żEugene, no se que decir? Parece que me rompî una costilla leéndo tus dichos. ĦTu eres un bravisimo!

You know, I could spend a lifetime trying to catch up on every historical fact I need to know. Or, I can wait for the anti-Catholics to make some stupid comment, then all I need to do is read the facts from real Catholics: John, paul, Eugene, Joe, and the others.

Wonderful, just wonderful!

rod..

..<

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 03, 2003.


John, you have got to be the most ignorant, brainwashed lunatic ever to walk the Earth. Boy, they sure did a number on you.

"The Catholic Church is incapable of lying or erring in her teachings of faith and morals."

So, if the Church is incapable of error, then they were right to light people on fire whenever they didn't agree with them? Then Pope Pious XII (I think...damn roman numerals always confuse me...doesn't matter) was right in supporting Hitler? Was the Church right in sending thousands of people off to die in the crusades for NOTHING? I'm sure that the Church started out with the best of intentions, don't get me worng, but after hundreds of years it began to decay and corrupt, just like every other institution ever created.

"They were temptations and lies -- from satan, who wants no one to be an orthodox, practicing Catholic"

Boy, it sure is convienient when everyon who doesn't agree with you is just a tool of Satan! That means you're always right! YAY!!!

"I have no doubt at all that Miesel would "whup" Brown and you (1 on 2) in a debate -- even with 1/2 her brain tied behind her back"

Oooo, sounds like somebody's got a crush...

"No one has a reason to doubt the authenticity except for bigots and people who don't want to believe the Church's teachings, especially her moral teachings."

It must be convienient to live in a world of black and white.

"I doubt that you have read a single unbiased word about Catholicism since you turned 16 and started losing your precious faith"

What is unbiased? The Catholic Church? I guess so, because they're always right. It's not like they could lie or anything.

"That's why you had no right whatsoever to abandon the Church that Jesus founded -- into which you had the privilege of being born"

Get off your pedestal, buddy. This isn't Nazi Germany. I'll have you know that I was also born Catholic (I'm not anymore in case you haven't noticed). You are one brainwashed, arrogant, predjudiced asshole, aren't you? Oh, I'm so gratefull to be born into the Church! Not like those other poor bastards Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and George Washington. They all have to go to hell, because they weren't baptized. Too bad!

"Plausibility" should have no role in such a momentous decision. You can't pick and choose a religion to which to belong based on "plausibility."

Plausibility is very improtant. The Greeks beleived that Sthena was born out of Zues's head. I find that to be highly implausible, so I don't beleive it.

"This is a figment of your imagination, placed there by the fiction that you have been reading. There was no such thing as "wicca" in the 14th century."

Interesting way of dodging that one. She used Wicca as an example. She chose the wrong word to describe witchcraft. But since the Church is never wrong, I guess it was ok to light all those people on fire because they followed a different religion.

"Is the problem that you support legalized abortion/contraception/euthanasia/prostitution/"gaiety"/etc. -- and detest the Church for condemning all of these? Maybe you are a radical feminist who has even had an abortion or a lesbian lover?"

You are an idiot. I'm not sure there are words in the English language to describe just what a complete moron you are. I certainly hope the average person isn't as stupid as you, or we're all screwed. I like how you just make a bunch of unfounded personal attacks instead of arguing the issues. Whatever happened to "hate the sin, love the sinner"? You certainly aren't acting very Christianlike.

I may just follow Estelle's example and give up. You are a lost cause. I didn't think that in the 21st century there still existed people as ignorant and narrow-minded as you. I guess I was wrong. So are you going to tell me that evolution didn't happen as well?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), October 04, 2003.


"So, if the Church is incapable of error, then they were right to light people on fire whenever they didn't agree with them?"

A: As John clearly said, the Church is incapable of officially TEACHING erroneous doctrine. So why change the subject? Executing a heretic, while I don't approve of the practice, does not constitute official teaching. No-one ever claimed that members of the Church could not make unsound judgements, or that they could not sin. On the contrary, every member of the Church, including Popes, does sin. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a club for saints.

"Then Pope Pious XII (I think...damn roman numerals always confuse me...doesn't matter) was right in supporting Hitler?"

A: That is utterly ludicrous. Every bit of available HISTORICAL data clearly indicates that Pius XII worked tirelessly against the Nazi cause, and was personally responsible for saving over 800,000 Jewish lives during the holocaust. The origin of the idea that Pius XII collaborated with the Nazis was a third-rate off-broadway play called "The Deputy". Check your sources. Quoting ignorant sources can only make you appear ignorant.

"Was the Church right in sending thousands of people off to die in the crusades for NOTHING?"

A: For nothing? The Crusades prevented Europe from being overrun by Islamic forces, and as such they prevented The United States of America, whose founders were European, from being yet another Islamic nation. The abuses committed by some soldiers during those wars were truly unfortunate, though not unlike similar abuses committed in many other wars. A just cause does not preclude unjust actions by some men.

"What is unbiased? The Catholic Church? I guess so, because they're always right. It's not like they could lie or anything."

While some Catholic writers may be as biased as anyone else, an intelligent READER who desires a balanced view will read sources representing both sides of a question. When a person reads only pro- or anti- literature, the bias of the writers simply becomes a tool to reinforce the bias of the reader, who has already chosen a unilateral, and therefore inaccurate view of the subject. The extreme progression of this constitutes bigotry.

"Plausibility is very improtant. The Greeks beleived that Sthena was born out of Zeus's head. I find that to be highly implausible, so I don't beleive it"

A: Indeed plausibility is very important. But some minds are too small to recognize that many plausible realities exist which may simply be far beyond the capacity of mere human minds. If something actually exists, then it is plausible, de facto. The mere fact that an individual is ignorant of its existence, or can't understand it, or even is wrongly convinced of its non-existence, does not render such an objective reality implausible.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 04, 2003.


You left out one important answer to this kid, Paul:

Where he (or she?) said: ''I didn't think that in the 21st century there still existed people as ignorant and narrow- minded as you. I guess I was wrong.'' /i>Yes; he's wrong, no guess about it.

You and our faithful Catholics aren't speaking out of narrow-mindedness or ignorance. Unlike anti- bush, we speak about things we're informed on. He speaks without information or though or knowledge. You can scan his message and immediately his inflated ego & impudence stand out. He actually figures he's a ''21st century author'' because his post was allowed here. He's really just an 18th century Know-Nothing, bigotted and ignorant, not just narrow-minded. But he thinks he's ''coo- al''.

You're to be complimented for attempting to communicate with such a locked skull. Your Christian charity is such a relief after reading his crude posts. John Gecik is also due much credit; giving anti Catholic his long overdue haircut. You swing a mean chain-saw, John. Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 04, 2003.


I know I said I wouldn't post here anymore, but I have to thank anti- bush, my "satanic pal", for backing me up. I was afraid to be the only one to have noticed the ignorance and arrogance of the people who have responded to my postings. Have you also noticed how our opinions are labelled as false and "utterly ludicrous" without any proof that we're wrong. Well, I'd like to know the source for this bit of information: "Every bit of available HISTORICAL data clearly indicates that Pius XII worked tirelessly against the Nazi cause, and was personally responsible for saving over 800,000 Jewish lives during the holocaust". I'm sure what I'll get in return is "it's written everywhere" or "everyone knows it but you're too ignorant to have heard of it"...That's the debate of a 3rd grader, mister. Anyway. Thanks again Anti-Bush. We both understand what we're dealing with here. So let's try to have fun with it rather than taking it seriously. It's less stressful that way.

-- Estelle (Corinne73@msn.com), October 04, 2003.

estelle, estelle, estelle,

I know I said I wouldn't post here anymore, but I have to thank anti- bush, my "satanic pal", for backing me up.

there you go again with playing straw man arguements. how are we supposed to have intelligent conversation with you when all you do is speak in logical fallacies? nobody ever said that anti-bush was satanic, thats words you were just putting into our mouths for the sake of your vindication.

I was afraid to be the only one to have noticed the ignorance and arrogance of the people who have responded to my postings.

oh, yes, thats brilliant, yet ANOTHER instance where, in lack of any real proof, you resort to name calling to promote your utterly worthless viewpoint.

Have you also noticed how our opinions are labelled as false and "utterly ludicrous" without any proof that we're wrong.

try reading your own posts sometime... notice you label us ignorant and arrogant without reading the facts that we actually know what we're talking about and you dont have a clue.

Well, I'd like to know the source for this bit of information: "Every bit of available HISTORICAL data clearly indicates that Pius XII worked tirelessly against the Nazi cause, and was personally responsible for saving over 800,000 Jewish lives during the holocaust".

okay, you want proof... over five hundred THOUSAND falsified baptismal certificates for jews to pretend to be catholic, over three hundred thousand jewish evacuatees payed for, political lobbying to many different countries via private conferences and guarded letters. youre looking for outright fighting against the nazis??? please, the catholic church was a CHURCH, not an army base in the middle of one of the hostile countries...? what do you expect? should the pope have violently stood against the nazis and condemned all catholics to the same fate as the jews? no, the proof of our support is around, if you arent too ignorant to look for it.

I'm sure what I'll get in return is "it's written everywhere" or "everyone knows it but you're too ignorant to have heard of it"...That's the debate of a 3rd grader, mister.

no, this is the debate of a third grader: I was afraid to be the only one to have noticed the ignorance and arrogance of the people who have responded to my postings. get a life, go to college and learn something. if youve already been, go again... to a better one this time. at least take a class in logic before you presume to know anything about debate.

Anyway. Thanks again Anti-Bush. We both understand what we're dealing with here.

yes, you who THINKS the first witch trials occured in the 1200's, when you dont really know anything at all. the first witch trials, as you have already been told, occured in the 18th century. prior to that the trials dealt with CATHARS, not witches. if you want details about the cathars, more than one of us can give you a real history lesson, as opposed to your fourth grade reading and social programming...

So let's try to have fun with it rather than taking it seriously. It's less stressful that way.

yes, ignoring truth is alot easier than coming to terms with it... because to accept truth you have to admit to the hardest thing in the world: that you could be wrong. i think taking the blinders off is worth more than invincible ignorance though, dont you?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 04, 2003.


Jmj

Great stuff, Paul and paul h! Thanks for the compliment, Gene.

Paul, since you left the post of the Shrub-Hater (anti-bush) on the board despite the fact that he called me an @$$#%[3, please don't clean up the gutter-mouthed slob's language. Let future readers see what kind of person that apostate is.

Paul h, just to pre-empt any possible complaints from "Eminently Erudite Estelle" that you did not provide her with any solid evidence concerning Pope Pius XII, let me back up all the facts you gave her by sending her to this page, where she can read articles by Jews and Catholics alike. Besides the dozens of articles that prove the pope's innocence, wisdom, and charity, there have been several full-length books written since 1985 that vindicate him.

Heck, Estelle probably doesn't even know that the chief rabbi of Rome during WWII (Israel Zolli) converted to Catholicism and took the baptismal name, "Eugenio" to honor the pope (whose pre-papal name was Eugenio). She probably doesn't know that Israel's prime minister, Golda Meir, greatly praised the pope when he died in 1958. She probably doesn't know that the estimate of Jews saved by the pope that Paul gave came from the writings of an Israeli dimplomat, Pinchas Lapide. She probably doesn't know that the New York Times, in the 1940s, praised the pope as the only European voice that was speaking up for the rights of the oppressed. In short ... Estelle, with a skull full of spinmeister's myths, may not know anything really factual about anything.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 04, 2003.


The following editorial appeared in the New York Times on Christmas Day, 1941:

"The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas ... he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all ... the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism ... he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace.

Exactly one year later, December 25, 1942, the following editorial appeared:

"This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent ... Pope Pius expresses as passionately as any leader on our side the war aims of the struggle for freedom when he says that those who aim at building a new world must fight for free choice of government and religious order. They must refuse that the state should make of individuals a herd of whom the state disposes as if they were lifeless things."

These words broadcast by the supposed "Nazi collaborator", and reported by the nation's largest and most prestigious secular newspaper.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 04, 2003.


This was a very interesting article, and while before I went to it I was rather curious about the book, after reading the article I am only mildly curious, as it seems the book author doesn't like women any more than he says the Church does....

Although I had to laugh at mentioning the book by Barbara G. Walker. She is far more widely known for her knitting books....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 04, 2003.


Hi, all --

You don't have to be Catholic to hate The Da Vinci Code. You only have to be someone who hates bigotry, lies, and bad writing.

I've always felt the so-called Sacred Feminine was fairly well- represented in Catholicism by the adoration of the Virgin Mary, behavior we Calvinists found suspiciously pagan. And I don't recall Mr. Brown mentioning the Virgin Mary even once in his book. I don't think such a mention would have fit well with his general thesis of Catholicism's totally patriarchal nature, so he left it out.

But you Catholics shouldn't feel bad; Protestants never rated a paragraph in the book, as though Catholicism were the only form of Christianity there is.

I do want to say, anent the subject of Cathars, that I don't actually think they were Gnostics; I think they were more like Manichaeans. They thought sex was a BAD thing, if I remember my history aright, not some kind of sacred union. In fact, the Catholic Church was more LIBERAL than the Cathars, I do believe.

You know, much as we might like to rewrite history to make it match our wishes and wants, we can't -- or we shouldn't.

One last word, and this the greatest condemnation of them all: Dan Brown can't write his way out of the proverbial paper bag.

Zipi

-- Diane Hinckley (zipifortuna@aol.com), October 05, 2003.


Gnosticism was like a giant tent and many sects enjoyed the shade from the light it provided.

rod..

..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 05, 2003.


Dear Diane:
You're a confessed Calvinist. That makes your faith heretical; why interfere in a Catholic forum?

These words are totally ridiculous: ''. . . so-called Sacred Feminine was fairly well- represented in Catholicism by the adoration of the Virgin Mary . . . we Calvinists found suspiciously pagan. Brown [not] mentioning the Virgin Mary even once-- I don't think such a mention would have fit well with his general thesis of Catholicism's totally patriarchal nature, so he left it out.''

Nothing in our faith reresents a sacred ''feminine''; nor is it patriarchal ''in nature'', because it is in fact totally supernatural, revealed by God Himself to the world. This might not fit well with heretics, but there it is.

We are thankful this author made no mention of the Blessed Virigin Mary; not because we ''adore'' her but because it would have compounded his affront to Jesus Christ's infinite holiness. The book (which I haven't read) is blasphemous enough as reviewed. Your remarks here are insulting to this forum, although you didn't blaspheme. Thank God you only exposed your shallow faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 05, 2003.


calm yourself, eugene,

at the very least, she is mature for a protestant... not an anti catholic bigot in the way that most protestants are. i mean, she denounces the protestant anti catholic bashing book. be kind, we may have an open minded person here... (dare i say? convert?)

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 05, 2003.


It's possible. We must pray.

I notice that in her opinion, what really destroys that author's credibility is how badly he writes. ''--and this the greatest condemnation of them all: Dan Brown can't write his way out of the proverbial paper bag.'' THAT'S the greatest condemnation? Not his blasphemy?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 05, 2003.


Eugene --

Sorry I interfered in your Catholic forum. It won't happen again.

Fortunately I know some fine Catholics, so I won't judge their Christianity by your unkindness.

Zipi

-- Diane Hinckley (zipifortuna@aol.com), October 05, 2003.


Dear Diane:
No-- please judge them fairly; and judge me fairly as well. I'm never more Catholic than in the defense of our faith; but sometimes I forget to feed that spoonful of sugar which helps the medicine go down.

You unwittingly aroused my caustic side referring to a purported ''adoration of Mary''. After all; that's tantamount to calling us idolaters. Catholics adore God and only God, Diane.

Now, by accusing you of a heretical faith, I made myself an adversary. You didn't feel adversarial I guess; telling us Calvinists supposed we were pagans? Where is my sugar ? I started to vomit the minute I read that casual reference to the Holy Catholic Church. Believe me; I was aggravated. Forgive the re-action, I'm sorry.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 05, 2003.


Jmj
I was amused by this statement from Diane:
"I've always felt the so-called Sacred Feminine was fairly well- represented in Catholicism by the adoration of the Virgin Mary, behavior we Calvinists found suspiciously pagan."

Many people who call themselves "Calvinists" today don't realize what the French ex-Catholic, Jean Cauvin (John Calvin), believed about Mary. After finding out, some might call Calvin himself a heretic and might look for another one of the 30,000+ protestant denominations to belong to!

Calvin called Mary the "Mother of God."
Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. (No children before or after Jesus!)
Calvin recommended to his followers that they have a devotion to Mary.

Obviously, the guy was totally wrong about many other things, but at least he got these three right.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 05, 2003.


That's a good point, John. Why a modern Calvinist has problems with Catholic devotion to Christ's holy mother is strange, if we realise what you point out now.

But all of protestant resistance is rooted in simple disobedience to the Vicar of Christ on earth. It seems no price is too great to pay so they might shed the authority of ''Rome''. Not even total eclipse of Mary, Our Blessed Mother. If she disappeared forever, some of them wouldn't care. As long as they could part with ''Rome''.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 06, 2003.


Just out of curiosity, have you guys read The Da Vinci Code?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 01, 2003.

Why would any serious Catholic read a piece of schiddt like that? We reject filth.



-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 01, 2003.


Chavez,

Why should Catholics read The Da Vinci Code and other similar material offering contrasting information to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?

Simple. For the same reason that one can hope that militant Islamics might read the Bible and other similar books. One can hope that narrow mindedness might be moderated, and tolerance for all is encouraged.

Please excuse any spelling mistakes, English is not my preferred language.

Have you observed the deliberate lies put forward today by business leaders (Koslowski), politicians (Clinton and Bush), religious leaders (Jesse Jackson) and labor leaders to gain and solidify positions of power?

Do you really believe that 20 centuries of human beings (no different than you and I) refrained from lying and twisting recorded history to keep and hold power through religion?

Tedeuscong

-- Tedeuscong (tedeuscong@yahoo.com), November 02, 2003.


Dear Ted,
I'll try not to be too confrontational. You seem to defend the book referred to here. I trash books like it; not on account of some scholarly deficiency about them; that's bad enough.

I must express my hatred for these evil writings for the plain reason they blaspheme Our Divine Lord; and yet stand for some form of literature. Even if they achieved a status close to literature, somehow, they'd still represent the devil and his hatred for everything holy.

If you find them entertaining or informative, I feel sorry for you. Not that I'll deny you your freedom to disagree. I would simply reach an easy conclusion: you're detestable.

Is that too violent? How about dragging the well-acknowledged glory of Jesus Christ through hog-droppings; as if He lived in the so-called author's own pigsty? I see that as violence against Jesus Christ. He reigns at the right hand of our Almighty Father!

We are offended by books like this, but we can't stop them any more than we can stop you from reading them. You'll protest that these are irrelevant arguments. So; eat the filth like a good farm animal. Pollute yourself reading blasphemy. Take it to the grave with you. We will pray for your immortal souls. Go in peace.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 02, 2003.


For the same reason that one can hope that militant Islamics might read the Bible and other similar books. One can hope that narrow mindedness might be moderated, and tolerance for all is encouraged.

isnt this just like saying, 'since EWTN is on TV, we should watch and learn from soap operas/MTV/(insert smut programing here).'

faulty logic, friend. because there is good literature out there does not mean that someone should read filth like the davinci code

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 02, 2003.


It's a story! No one is taking it as non-fiction! It's a fun little yarn about secret societies and conspiracies. As long as you leave it at that, it's a good story.

I'd hate to think what you guys say about Harry Potter.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 04, 2003.


Maybe then you'll hate what people think of you. You are what is called an enabler. In the street that's a pimp. This novel isn't non-fiction? Why's that pertinent? Those who were on the fence, eager to respond to the Holy Spirit; will read it and forever after that, say the Word of God isn't non-fiction. They have come into a radioactive zone; and leave it contaminated.

These things sustain the other evidence around us, that we are nearing if not going about, the final apostacy. You, of course, are an apostate since God knows when, Anti /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 04, 2003.


Anti-Christ....uh....I mean Anti-Bush. If it is so easy for you to read such heresies, why isn't it so easy for you to read the Gospel? You could devote your time in reading about Christ from reliable sources instead of the smutt you seem to defend.

rod..

..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 04, 2003.


Now please excuse me if I am speaking out of turn. I don't mean to offend anyone by the questions I am about to ask. I know that religion is a touchy subject to discuss, everyone has their own beliefs and opinions even within the same denominations but some things I would like to know. In reading some of the postings and responses, I was astonished at some of the hateful things said to people who had anything to say about the divinci code. i have not yet read the book, and therefor I have not formed an opinion on it. I came to this site to see what other Christians -who read it- had to say about the book, good or bad to decide whether it was something I should read. I don't have an opinion about the book yet, having not read it, but I wanted to know how some of you have formed such strong opinions about the book without first reading it. calling it filth and evil writing, then worse yet, calling others who have read it "detestable". I don't understand that. As Christians, I thought we were to love thy neighbors and not pass judgement on others. I just wanted to know how you formed your opinions on the book. Have you previewed the book at all, or did you hear through the media (as I have) some of the things that were discussed in the book. Just wondering...

-- natasha brown (ndegans@aol.com), November 04, 2003.

Dear Natasha:
Hit ''home'' on your keyboard right now. In the first post is Bill Nelson's link to a good review. Here's the URL, in fact:

Dismantling The Da Vinci Code By Sandra Miesel see: http://www.crisismagazine.com/feature1.htm

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 04, 2003.


Thanks! I'll take a look.

-- natasha (ndegans@aol.com), November 04, 2003.

The "happy-go-lucky" neutral individual may stumble across these books that tell lies and fables about Jesus and then assume that they have encountered the truth. That is what is wrong about these "Da Vinci Code" books. There are many books out there. There are many lies out there. Those who defend these books are either completely ignorant of the truth or in complete rejection of Christ. I suppose that it takes time to identify one as ignorant or anti-Christ. Both can change their perceptions and that to may take some time.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 04, 2003.


I gained some insight about the book through reading Sandra's article. (I couldn't get to the link before). i hope that rod's last entry was not in reference to my posting. if so, maybe i did not effectively communicate my query. i was not asking questions because I believed I had "encountered the truth", nor was I defending the book. As I said, I have nothing good or bad to say about it, I haven't read it. I am not a "happy go lucky neutral" and for sure not anti-Christ. I never professed to be a Guru in the subject of religion or the Bible, so there is definitely room for ignorance on my part. But that is precisely why people ask questions in the first place. No one knows all but the Lord above- I would be wary of anyone who claimed to know all. And I think that as long as a person's intentions are pure, and they don't doubt their faith in the Lord, there isnt anything wrong with asking questions. I dont consider that happy go lucky about faith, I call it being secure enough in your faith to be able to see what others are discussing and ask questions about it.

-- natasha (ndegans@aol.com), November 04, 2003.

-an updated link:

Dismantling The Da Vinci Code - By Sandra Miesel



-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 04, 2003.

Hi natasha.

If my comments seem directed at you, then they must also be directed at me and many of us. It isn't wrong to be ignorant, but it would be wrong to remain ignorant knowing that an education is there for the taking. I have encountered a number of "happy-go-lucky" people. Those people don't want to be bothered with knowledge. You'll find those people very easily; their heads are generally found stuck in the sand. For them, history and tradition do not exist. For them, myths and fables about Christ don't need any further research in order to prove its validity. Yes, I'm ignorant of many things, but I am trying to keep up to the rest of the gang. I used to keep it in nuetral. My gears are in overdrive, now.

rod..


-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 04, 2003.


Anti-bush wrote:

I'd hate to think what you guys say about Harry Potter.

I thought the character of Harry Potter was very intertaining in the M.A.S.H. television series. Oh.....sorry, you meant that British character with all of the magic and stuff. I haven't seen it.

rod..

..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 04, 2003.


Uh...."entertaining".

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 04, 2003.


Did you read the books? They're actualy not that bad.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 06, 2003.

I read through most of the postings here, and was astonished at how offended people got when someone offered a view different from their own. I am a Catholic...meaning I believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that we are forgiven our sins through his death. That doesn't mean I agree with the Holy See on everything. One just has to do a little digging on the Crusades to realize that through most of its history, the church has supported things that are totally against its own teachings. But that's not what I wanted to say...it's strange to me that people of faith are so wrapped up in their beliefs that they cannot fathom listening to another side or belief. I thought inclusion was part of the church's doctrine. I find it hard to believe that anyone who has faith would be that shaken over a book or a posting on a website. And I know someone pointed out that movies and books shape our society these days...there are books and movies which show the church and people of faith in a good light. Rather than focusing on the negative, what about the positive aspects of all of this. It is causing discussion, a lot of it. If one book is going to pull people from the faith, then they were hanging on by a thread to begin with. But, think about someone who reads this novel and asks questions. You could be the one who answers those questions for them...could be their link to faith. Are you going to respond to them with the message of, "it's time you took a hike" simply because they ask a question, or differ in one part of a belief from you? I stumbled upon this website because I was wondering if it was Mary Magdeline in the "Last Supper" And I was glad that there was talk, but stunned by the exclusive nature with which the discussion was being held. I hope I am not burned in effegy simply for stating my opinion.

-- Kristin (khennessy@bham.rr.com), November 08, 2003.

No one burns effigies here, Kristin,
You have an opinion, and as insupportable as it certainly is, you may hold that opinion.

You are simply too lax in faith to realise, I guess, the affront these things are; not to us, but to God. The holiness of Jesus Christ is supposed to be precious to His followers; there's no excuse for indifference. Of course we haven't cause to burn anybody in effigy. But we can denounce what's crude and blasphemous. We can simply condemn it for what it is: a vile injustice against Christ by sinners. He who laid down His life for you and me will hardly appreciate our apathy whenever His holiness is impugned.

If you allowed the image of your mother or father to rot in the slime and have animals plaster it, what kind of daughter would you be? God is infinitely higher than our parents. His Holy Son Jesus Christ has a place in glory at His right hand.

How will those who have treated Jesus shamefully in evil ways like this expect mercy in the next life? Would you defend them in the last day before the judgment seat, when they are face to face with Him?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 09, 2003.


Would you find it interesting then, who speaks of knowledge and wisdom, and wrong opinions, that the book you speak of denouncing the faith, in fact, only points out the falibility of man? The church ends up being wrongly blaimed in the end, and the final words of the priest are those of forgiveness. The "evil man" who followed his elders blindly finally realizes that forgiveness is the goal of christ's teachings.

-- Kristin (khennessy@bham.rr.com), November 09, 2003.

And I am not lax in faith. I believe in Christ and God with all of my being. I can't imagine a world without God in it. And only he has the power to denounce those things which affront him, not mortal men. His teaching is that of love and acceptance. My favorite bible verse, the one that has helped me through countless trials of faith is Cor 12....And these three remain: Faith, hope and love. And the greatest is love. You presume to tell many people, in this thread alone, that they are affronting God by asking questions. Is it not the testing of our faith which proves it, and if we were not tested, then how would we know we truly believed?

-- Kristin (khennessy@bham.rr.com), November 09, 2003.

And just because I feel like answering all your questions...God's own people threw him down and plastered him to a cross. Is that not the basis of our faith? And yet on that cross he forgave them, and those who did nothing to prevent his death. For it was by his death that he saved us all. You seem to say that we, in this century of crime and hatred and violence, should be higher and less sinful than Christ's own people? Peter denied him three times before the cock crowed at dawn. Even the apostles questioned their faith. One of the apostles, the name escapes me right now, had to put his hands in the wounds of Christ before he believed. If they had a crisis of faith, why do you find it so hard that people today will? Rather than denouncing those who pose questions, why not adhere to the teachings of inclusion christ taught us? He said, any who came to him as children would be welcome. Is it so hard to fathom that he understood that people would have questions? Children pester people with questions...but they believe more than their elders. Sorry about the ramble, but I was rather appaled by your suggestion that I lack in faith. The sole things you know about me are that I've read a book, and that I was saddened by your denunciation of those who asked a question. And I am not the only one, as I read.

-- Kristin (khennessy@bham.rr.com), November 09, 2003.

After reading the Da Vinci code I came online to see what others thought about it. I am not a Catholic but I am a follower of Christ. I recognize the author's weaving of conspiracy theories, lore, architecture and art as what it is...an interesting thriller designed to push buttons and sell copies. I am amazed at the petty arguing going on in this forum and that members' supposedly strong faith is threatened by somebody's imagination.

-- Beavy (beav@aol.com), November 09, 2003.

Beavy,

See: Dismantling The Da Vinci Code By Sandra Miesel see: http://www.crisismagazine.com/september2003/feature1.htm

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), November 09, 2003.


I read that before posting here...it's not very compelling.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

"I stumbled upon this website because I was wondering if it was Mary Magdeline in the "Last Supper""

Kristin,

Was it "Mary Magdeline in the "Last Supper""? Was she there? How long? Did she use a napkin? Did she hold her 'pose' until Da Vinci came along to paint? Where was she seated or did she stand? What were her facial expressions at various times? What was going on in her mind? hmmm...

P.S. Our Pope is a necessary aspect to Catholicism...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 10, 2003.


I was refering to the painting, which is discussed in a thread which pointed me to this one. I wanted to see what others thought. I have no idea, nor can anyone else now, because we weren't there.

-- Kristin (khennessy@bham.rr.com), November 10, 2003.

And who said anything about the pope? A bishop is the man who is falible in the book, and ironically, the Divinci code actually defends the pope.

-- Kristin (khennessy@bham.rr.com), November 10, 2003.

I am having a hard time with some of the research of I have been doing in conjuction with the da vinci code. He talks about Mithras, the "The Son of God, Light of the world." In my searching on the web, I have come across troubling information about the history of other historical "Gods" of other cults/religions. The similarities of stories, dates, and other pertinant infornmation regarding who I think and feel is the one and only Son of God, Jesus Christ: Dec. 25, walking on water which Buddah supposedly did as well, started teaching in the temple at age 12 which there are many other stories of religious icons of doing the same thing and many other similarities, I could go on. I am finding my faith being challenged not only by friends , but also with in myself. Please help clarify.

Brian

-- Brian C. (corsosworld@yahoo.com), November 11, 2003.


Dear Brian:
Are you a Catholic? Do you believe in the Catholic Church and her saints?

If you are, let's regroup and think clearly: You have the Holy Spirit's counsel to invoke. You have the Catholic Church, Scripture and Tradition. What are you lacking?

Many legends and customs come down through ancient history which confuse those without an anchor in their faith. In some ways, this is the work of the devil; that serpent who brought about the fall of our first parents. He has always striven to create confusion and the failure of men. Mostly by destroying their faith. He is a tempter, the father of lies. He even tempted Our Lord. Many surprising coincidences seen in ancient pagan times can be attributed to a diabolic influence. They were and still are, meant to lead men into error.

But we have holy things much more powerful; on which the faithful can rely to fortify their faith; and yes; the Church is the greatest of these. She preserves and preaches all truth, under the guidance of God Himself, the Holy Spirit! She gave us inerrant scriptures. She also has sanctified many thousands of saints; living persons who gave testimony to her absolute truths.

They gave testimony of our Christian certitude; faith that God Himself sustains miraculously. There's the proof of holy martyrdom in the Church's early history. We've seen great saints, and many miraculous signs.

You might say, Buddha walked on water! But I'd inquire of the believers in this miracle; ''Did thousands of Buddhists suffer martyrdom in arenas, killed by beasts and crucified in public avenues; --all rather than deny the faith in ONE whom we know walked on the water? One who was seen healing lepers and raising men from the dead; seen even by those who would later crucify Him? Buddha never produced great saints and martyrs. Buddha may have been a holy man. I don't know.

But he hasn't sent a single soul to heaven; and can't even go himself unless Christ saves him!

Read some of the lives of the saints, Brian. Read all about the catacombs underneath the City of Rome; where many saints were entombed. Test your faith; promise the Holy Spirit your undying faith if He will open your heart to the truth; and not to fads that come and go; like cheap novels that pretend to have knowledge of the ancient past.

Those books are destined for the landfills, not for eternity. Your faith has an eternal promise, and it's free. It will not end up in the trashcan. The Da Vinci Code definitely will.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.


Brian, While others may not understand your plight, I do. I have gone through many crises of faith, and wondered what to believe. When I studied the holy wars, I began to question my faith, because I didn't know that I wanted to be part of a faith that sent people, even children (yes, I know, the children's crusade was not comissioned by the Vatican, but it was church leaders who took the children to be sold into slavery), to their deaths for a city...and still sends people to fight today over that same city. But that also condemned Judaism and Islam. When I read the bible, sometimes I wonder if I want to be part of a religion which condemns women unless they are pure (this, I think, is why people want to believe Mary Magdeline was a larger part of Jesus' life than the church tells us, because she was not pure, and it gives women hope.) I mean, Mary gave birth without knowing a man's touch. Joan of Arc was a virgin. It seems that that is the only way to get to heaven. When I saw the play Galileo, I was shocked to find that the church excommunicated him and sentenced him to imprisonment in his own home, simply for trying to teach the irrefutable truth...which was later proven true. I heard, as all did, about the bishops who freely chose to hide the pediphiles within the church, and move them from place to place rather than kick them out, or warn people about them, and I wanted to die. They are supposed to be our gateway to God, and I know I've had very close relationships with priests and todl them things I wouldn't tell another living soul. And yet, some of them took that trust and used it for their own ends. While I didn't know any of the priests involved, I felt that my trust in the church (not in God, or Jesus) was ripped apart. But, living at a catholic school, I was able to talk with some of the priests and figure part of it out.

But I have to believe that there is something greater out there. Otherwise, what's the point? How were we put here, if not by a greater being? There is so much in life which points towards a higher power. How can I not believe? I just have to look at the perfection in a flower, and I have to believe that there is some meaning to it all.

It is possible that the dates and rituals which accompany many Christian holidays could be traced back to pagan times. I have no doubt there was a god who was celebrated on December the 25th. But, the people who created Christianity, the followers of Christ, were pagans, or Jews before they formed this new religion. It's easy to believe that they kept the same feast days, but changed the meaning behind them. No one knows why December the 25th was chosen, but I have no problem believing that this could be part of the reason. It's easier to explain to people a change behind a feast day, rather than change the day itself.

As for the Da Vinci code ending up in the garbage, how would you know...you haven't even read it yet. I find it interesting that some of you are discussing this novel without having any knowledge other than what others have told you about it. Form your own opinions, rather than relying on what someone has told you.

Oh, and Anti-Bush...I love HP! Because I can take away from them the battle between good verses evil, and not hang the whole book on the witchcraft aspect of it. I think that novel has done more for the battle between good and evil by putting a name to it for little kids than anything in the past decade.

-- Kristin (khennessy@bham.rr.com), November 11, 2003.


Dear Kristin:
You're saying to Brian,

''While others may not understand your plight, I do. I have gone through many crises of faith, and wondered what to believe.''

You haven't just gone through crises. You are still going through them, and may not finish your search for the truth until you allow God to restore your faith some day.

And, whether or not you agree, we DO understand Brian. We KNOW why he keeps questioning. It isn't that hard to understand. I dare say it's YOU who doesn't have a clue about Brian's present state of mind.

Finally, I would caution Brian C. to take your advice. I hope he does what you say here: ''Form your own opinions, rather than relying on what someone has told you.''

Start by NOT taking Kristin's word for this. Her advice is, read the novel and enjoy it, think about it. Then you'll have the ''informed'' opinion. Well, this is bad advice.

I would warn everyone, stay away from any book that impugns the Son Of God and does it brazenly, without scruples. That's the kind of novel Da Vinci Code is; a novel that cheapens Jesus Christ in a ridiculous manner. You should take in consideration the Person being demeaned. He is God. There is no greater sin a man can commit than to take God's name in vain, and the novel absolutely breaks this commandment. Our Holy Redeemer deserves our love and complete faith, not indifference when His name is blasphemed in a cheap novel. A novel, once more; which will be sent sooner or later to the dump where it belonged from the start. It's trash.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.


Thank you for the snap back to reality!!! I am not a Catholic, but I love Christ and that is what matters! Thank you for your time and the strong words of wisdom.

In Christ, Brian C.

-- Brian C. (corsosworld@yahoo.com), November 11, 2003.


"Form your own opinions, rather than relying on what someone has told you. Start by NOT taking Kristin's word for this. Her advice is, read the novel and enjoy it, think about it. Then you'll have the 'informed' opinion. Well, this is bad advice."

Seems kind of hypocritical to tell someone that he should form his own opinions and then tell him what to do. Thinking and being informed is the only way to know what you really believe. The more I learn, the more I see God in everything in this world.

I was not suggesting that he read the novel...he'd already read it. I was suggesting that you read it, because it does not do the things you say it does. It does not drag Jesus' name through the dirt, it does not portray the church as evil. It offers a possible point of view...one you cannot know is wrong. Mary Magdeline might well have been one of Jesus' apostles. She's mentioned in the bible as being the one who found the tomb empty. That honor would not have been given to anyone other than a beloved of God and of Christ. As a female, and a confessed sinner, I find it refreshing that there was someone with an imperfect reputation that Christ loved anyway. Because that's the message of it all. That's why I have such a hard time understanding why you fight people who have a differing opinion. Yes, Christ died for us. But he also taught us to love. Everyone. Treat even the smallest child as myself. For some reason, those passages of love are not what I'm seeing in any of these postings. Love thy neighbor as thyself. That's the whole message of the New Testiment. Understanding, forgiveness.

Yes, we are all tempted. Yes, we are all tested. I'm glad Brian found his faith again. But how dare you question my faith. I read a book, and for that you say I have no faith. I have been through many more testings than you can imagine, but I knew God was there, waiting with open arms to guide me. And he does, to this day. Because God is not a god of condemnation. He is the God of mercy and love. And I know no matter what I do, he will love me, and want to feel that love in return.

Oh, and I know a priest who's read the novel...liked it, said some of the facts were innacurate, but found it to be a great, and thrilling novel. He was much better at answering my questions.

-- Kristin (khennessy@bham.rr.com), November 11, 2003.


''// The more I learn, the more I see God in everything in this world.''

Good. Start to learn, Kristin. Maybe we learn more by accepting correction from our elders than by reading novels. You need to learn other things besides the mythical lunacy sold in mystery stories. The truth is very accessible. Go to Mass; and as I suggested to Brian, read the lives of real saints. See the power of God's grace, as it was poured out on real men and women of the faith. That won't be a waste of your time, like reading junk mythology.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.


I have another question...why do you read about the lives of saints when the only true life that matters is that of Jesus Christ and how he lived? Just curious...

-- Brian C. (corsosworld@yahoo.com), November 12, 2003.

brian, you said something without thinking (i hope),

I have another question...why do you read about the lives of saints when the only true life that matters is that of Jesus Christ and how he lived? Just curious...

do you realize that most of the books in the old testament have little to do with the life of Christ? that niether do a majority of new testament books? do you propose, then, that everything not contained in the gospels is unimportant?

or do you propose that there was a time that God could inspire the minds of men, and now you think that God cant??? why do you limit the power of God in your own mind??? The lives that saints led, and the writings they produced which are approved by the church, all contain theological ideas which are useful to people accross the globe. we can all relate to Jesus, but does that mean that we should not relate to the experience of others as well? is it not important to understand the lives of the martyrs as well as the life of Jesus? do the saints not provide us examples of different ways to live holy lives?

just something to ponder...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 12, 2003.


Brian:
Taking you seriously when you say, ''Just curious.''

If you really believe the only true life that matters is that of Jesus Christ and how he lived; all you actually say is He lived. It's done, Jesus will never again take part in our own experiences.

But that completely denies His promise. He said He would be with us all days even to the end of the world! Jesus promises to be with His holy people! That's in the Catholic Church, Brian.

If He's been true to that promise, His divine presence and active help must necessarily be KNOWN to some Christian souls. Here is where the truth becomes clear. His presence and love definitely ARE known-- by many saints and martyrs in His Holy Church.

Didn't Jesus appear to SAUL on the road to Damascus? Jesus Christ, who was already risen & ascended to the right hand of the Father in heaven, CAME DOWN to earth and personally converted Saul, a Pharisee and persecutor of Christians; whom we know as Saint Paul! (Acts 9, :3 through :7.)

He does it many more times in the church's history; meeting with His favored souls here, during their earthly lives. Which is why I suggested you read the lives of the saints.

We know Jesus showed Himself to Francis of Assisi, for instance; and He impressed upon that holy man the stigmata. They are His own crucifixion's wounds upon hands, feet, side; and Francis bore them too, as the special favor of His Lord and Saviour; who allowed him to share mystically in the sufferings of His cross.

How would we know such wonders if we never read the life of Saint Francis?

I could name ten other great saints, who met Christ; and also Christ's Mother, Mary. They were shown favor from God, Who doesn't separate Himself from His faithful, but rather shows Himself and His Divine Will; as He promised saying, ''I am with you all days, even to the end of the world.'' -- Matt 28:20, and in John 14 :18-- ''I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. Yet a little while and the world no longer sees me; but YOU see me, for I LIVE, and you shall live.''

Christ saying to His Church; I am not through with my Church after a while. I am with you ALL days! He is certainly with us all-- but with some souls he has very close relations during their time on earth.

The saints. Don't be afraid, Brian; to search out the stories of thes great souls whom Christ has so loved. In time you yourself could be worthy of such favor. You can become a true saint, if you have faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.


I definitely see your point. There are many great stories that depict the man's faithfulness to Christ, off the top of my head, Job. I do not necessarily understand how one becomes a saint, or what that does for you in heaven, how does that work?

Brian C.

-- Brian C. (corsosworld@yahoo.com), November 12, 2003.


We could all become saints, Brian. Nothing is stopping us.

The Catholic Church teaches from the apostles; three obstacles to our faith and perfection stand in the way. They are the world, the flesh and the devil. We are subject at some time or the other to fall under the influence of one or more of these. If not, we would advance in grace and eventually become holy men-- saints. How do we know?

We know because God keeps sending us His blessings and grace. Only we don't return His love. If we truly love Him, we'll overcome the world, and the temptations of the flesh and the snares of the devil. That's what the saints did. With God's help, of course.

How do saints gain the help they need, His grace and His guidance? It's very simple. Prayer, self-denial, and LOVE. Jesus says love one another as I have loved you. He said of that woman who washed his holy feet with her tears and dried them with her hair: ''Because she has loved much, much shall be forgiven of her.'' God is Love.

Saints always PRAY, Carry their cross and follow Jesus, and Love God above evrything and their neighbor as themselves. They do it to a heroic degree. They do not do it for any reward; they only do it for love of Him /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 13, 2003.


Brian,

"Becoming a saint" is synonymous with "being saved". Those human beings who make it to heaven are saints. Obviously what it "does for them" is it allows them to spend eternity in the intimate presence of God.

If you are referring to "canonization" of a saint by the Church, that process does not "make" someone a saint. Canonization is simply an official recognition of the fact that a particular person already IS a saint. It doesn't "do anything" for the saint who is canonized. It does something for those of us who are still pursuing sainthood, by providing us with examples of outstanding Catholic men and women who lived lives of tremendous holiness in spite of great suffering and hardship. And, it formally identifies some of the people in heaven who are interceding for us before the throne of God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 13, 2003.


That is good to read. So, because of my acceptance of Christ, I am saved through faith in Him. Sainthood being one in the same. Through His over flow of never ending, unchanging love for me, out of that I have the ability to love my neighbor and the world in general, not to condem nor accept it, but to love it because He first loved me. That is what we are called to do, love people, as the Bible says, they will know you are mine for the love you show!

Well, what do you do when you have poured out all the love you can on someone but they "refuse" to understand, to love Christ? When that person is seeking alternate sources of wisdom? I do pray! Is that what I am left with?

-- Brian C. (corsosworld@yahoo.com), November 13, 2003.


The Catholic Church venerates the saints as our heavenly role models. It's an excellent start just reaching the goal of salvation. This is the ''generic' saint that Paul spoke of in the epistles. Everybody within the Church.

But heroic virtue is something achievable only by way of God's sanctifying grace. We all know of some souls who are virtuous to a high degree. This by the grace of God. There is much more grace to be had, however, in the Catholic Church.

It all proceeds from Christ the Saviour, and His passion, death & resurrection. There is NO other grace to be found anywhere; no matter how good a soul may be in his intent and conduct. We need Jesus Christ's grace, which was merited for His followers as He shed His precious blood on the cross.

The Catholic Church has all available disposition of this endless wealth of grace for mankind. She is His Mystical Body (Acts 9, :4 and:5).

The faithful are brought this grace, and the impulse to greater virtue, in the Church's SACRAMENTS. All of them were instituted by Jesus Christ while He lived among us. No sacrament is invented by men.

With all this extraordinary help from God, it's not even noteworthy that the Catholic Church has been blessed with thousands of GREAT saints; not just the ordinary types like us poor sinners. But HOLY men and women, who gave up everything and even their lives, for Jesus Christ. The very first and most remarkable of these we can see already in the pages of the New Testament. Why do you think Saint Stephen looked up to the sky, saw Our Saviour in glory standing at the right hand of the Father;-- in the moments he was martyred for the Holy Gospel? How could Stephen exhibit the extraordinary virtue of praying with his final breath that He --God; would ''not lay this sin against them''--his murderers? It was because his soul received such grace as only the holiest of men ever receive. Jesus is Lord over His saints and martyrs. Without Him, they can do nothing.

It was in the Church and her sacraments. It was by God's power and influence over ALL the saints. They go into the world well-fortified in that grace and they number in the thousands.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 13, 2003.


Saints are your "Heavenly role models", but they were and are men, there for foulable. If I am trying to reach God, He who can not see sin, how can I follow a created man and have him be a holly role model? The only role model I have read about in the Bible is Jesus Christ," I am the way, the truth, and the light." And how does one measure "heroic virtue"? God accepts you as you are, where you are at, we were created equal, not by works so that no one can boast. As far as someone being holier than another, I do not see that in the scriptures, may be you can point me in the right direction?

-- Brian C. (corsosworld@yahoo.com), November 13, 2003.

[Answer for Brian C?]

-- (_@_._), November 14, 2003.

Jesus commanded us, "Be ye perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect". The kind of perfection He describes here is obviously not physical or intellectual perfection, or perfection of skills and abilities. It is spiritual perfection - otherwise known as holiness. In fact, in some translations this verse is rendered "be holy, even as your heavenly Father is holy". You can't recall any scriptures which describe one person as more spiritually perfect than another? How about comparing Peter or John with Judas? How about the Apostles vs. the rich young man? This not to say that Peter or John was absolutely perfect. No human being is. And that is precisely the value of the saints as role models. Sure, we can say "my model is Jesus Christ", and indeed He is, ultimately; but the idea of becoming "like Jesus", or "like the Father", who ARE absolutely perfect, is daunting to an ordinary human being who knows in his heart that it is impossible to literally be perfect. We look at Jesus and say "no ordinary human being could ever be like Him" - and that is correct. Although we are supposed to strive to be like Him, we know from the start that we will fall far short, and that knowledge can keep a person from ever trying, and in extreme cases even lead to despair. On the other hand, when we see ordinary human beings just like us - people of average intelligence and abilities - who have lived lives of incredible holiness in spite of their imperfections, faults, bad habits, weaknesses and sins, we can say "Yes, if it was possible for them, it is possible for me". This is a source of constant hope as we engage in the same earthly struggles and spiritual battles they did. When we read the lives of the saints we see people who were affected by sin, failure, poverty, disease, domestic violence, alcoholism, rejection, scorn, abuse, physical and mental illness, all the earthly problems we ourselves encounter and more, yet who rose above it all by the grace of God to become shining beacons of Christian faith, hope, and love. Often we can find a saint who went through the same kinds of earthly trials we are personally experiencing, and ask him or her to remember us in their prayers. Emulating the saints is not opposed to emulating Christ. Rather we look to them precisely because they DID emulate Christ far more perfectly than most people do, and we derive hope from the stories of their faith journies, even as we walk our own. You should read some of them. Just doing so is a channel of grace.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 14, 2003.

Brian,
We say ''role model'' as modern understanding has it. Not because we're expected to FOLLOW the model in place of Jesus Christ. They wouldn't be saints if they took Christ's glory onto themselves, or if we made them His peers.

It's on account of the examples these saints set in the living of Christian lives. We certainly DON'T see them as better role models than He. They haven't done anythig to save me or you. They followed Him! But all gave their lives to Him, and rejected the world and its confusion.

We are good christians, but we aren't yet free of this world; and some haven't given their whole lives to Christ; they only strive to do that.

The glory of the saints that went before us is only ''reflected glory'' they received from God, through grace. We see that glory and we aspire to imitate them in their imperishable love for Jesus. They help our unbelief; seeing that another soul, just as lowly as I, could attain this holiness through his/her devotion to Jesus Christ.

We see countless bad examples in the world around us. Don't you think God has ordained counterparts in the world? In these good examples for you & me; to encourage us and give us that final perseverance that makes a saint? Everything comes from God. Even the daily good examples of our own parents, on whom we inevitably model ourselves.

Saint John the Baptist was the holy model par excellence for those who went down to the Jordan and were baptised by him. He, in turn, led them to Jesus; the Holy One of Israel. John was the ''precursor'' or one who ''prepared the way of the Lord.''

He is a perfect definition of the saint as role model. We see and admire; we follow; HE leads us to Our Lord. But, great as he was, he wasn't the only one. All the saints lead us to Jesus Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 14, 2003.


Good, I feel much better about the usage of the word "Saint". Thank you for all of your good direction and thoughful insights. I am gald that there is a forum such as this that people can get to to seek and search their faith! If you don't mind me asking...do you know of any other sights such as this! If so, please email them to me at my address.

Thank you once again!

In Christ's love,

Brian C.

-- Brian C. (corsosworld@yahoo.com), November 14, 2003.


EWTN is a good catholic site, if you just want to look things up. it also has a great "ask a question" section, where you can ask questions about the faith to good conservative priests.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 15, 2003.

The Bible is a book just as The Da Vinci Code is a book. They are both presenting information that is being/ has been disseminated widely. Many of you have chosen to make the Bible the source of your strength and vitality. Other people may use The Da Vinci Code for the same purposes - or perhaps to dismantle the religious messages they have found oppressive. The attacking of this book is a result of the inherent fear we all have that the beliefs we hold to be true are "incorrect." Instead of complaining about the popularity of Brown's book and the impact it and other non-Christian messages may have on the nameless helpless sheep of the world who believe everything they read, perhaps consider how much questioning you have done personally about truth in this life. This book is not leading anyone away from the "path of righteousness" who would not otherwise be "led away." And if, in the end, there is 'saving' to be done, it is certainly not going to be given to a country that forces third world citizens into sweat shops to make our shoes and is gradually weeding the richness of culture out of the globe. Think about the travesties that are occurring under the guise of your Christianity if you want something to fight against. If there is true evil in this world it does not reside in those who question and think - it is in those who follow blindly and react.

-- Brian Bella (drrivelll@yahoo.com), November 17, 2003.

To Eugene,

I hesitate to write this because I know it will not change the hatred you guise as faith and I truly hope you find solace someday, but it is Christians like you that have caused the greatest bloodbaths in history. Your intolerance and loathing responses even in a casual web-based forum should scare anyone who is capable of true love and understanding. I find this deep fear masked as love very sad.

-- Brian Bella (drrivelll@yahoo.com), November 17, 2003.


Brian B. scribbles as follows: "it is Christians like you that have caused the greatest bloodbaths in history."

If that's what you think, you get an "F minus" in history, little boy.

n fact, it is NON-Christians like you -- and Mao and Pol Pot and Stalin and Hitler -- "that have caused the greatest bloodbaths in history."

May God guide you to conversion and repentance.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 17, 2003.


Dear Brian B:
Your words: ''I hesitate to write this,'' make me laugh. I hesitate to answer such stupidity, and really ought to let you go in peace.

You ARE a major peacemaker, I know. Peace in this world would have been so easy to maintain with a good man like Brian B in control. All we have needed since time began was to deny God and there would have been peace. Our faith caused war? Naturally!

Is SIN possible, without a Supreme Being, God the Law-Giver ? ? ? Does SIN have anything to do with wars and killing? No-- not by your standard. Nobody could sin. Because nothing would be a sin; since there is no God. God tells us what sin is.

If this were so; Brian could get away with murder. He could live as a criminal, and seduce the wives of other men, and raise millions by selling drugs;

And no one would judge him. He'd be ''guilty'' ONLY of doing whatever he is allowed to do, up to the day somebody kills him in his tracks. This is called the law of the jungle.

You go ahead Brian; believe the atheists: Religion is evil. Men are good, until they learn about God and faith. Then they kill one another. SURE !

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 17, 2003.


John - First of all, to believe that the numbers killed by Mao or Pol Pot or Hitler are not comparable with the numbers killed during the Crusades and the multitude of colonial exploits is ridiculous and upsetting. Christians have never admitted responsibility for the amount of death they have caused and I'm sure they never will. I won't ask you to hold yourself accountable for this. It's too difficult for clouded minds to handle.

Eugene - my dear man. To believe that your faith has not caused war, quite literally, is to admit your ignorance. And to answer your question: No, sin is not possible without a supreme being, a God, if you will, whose presence I am not denying. It is the misconstruction of sin that oppresses and it is the resulting oppression that creates desperation and THEN it is YOUR version of sin that occurs. People provided for do not kill others unless they are mentally unstable (an unfortunate deviation we can't control). But this is a matter of government, not religion (not that they aren't scarily related). I digress... I see you have not taken issue with our constant trodding upon the lives of third world citizens. It is hard for Christians to resolve issues such as these. But if we don't begin to think about how our domineering ways are invading God's world (we've already killed off the other creatures he created and enslaved the others) we won't have much of it left on which to stand. I will stop contributing to this forum (please Eugene, refrain from caustic celebration upon my "departure"; you're so predictable I feel I could almost write your response for you. This is obviously not the outlet for my thoughts. On a closing note: I hope all of you find personal peace in these tumultuous times without infringing upon the peace of others. Eugene, when your time comes I hope you are not disappointed, but I think you will be. I won't hesitate this time: You are filled with so much fear and hate. I'm so sorry this is what you've been taught is the way you must live. Passive religous hatred is the fuel of complacency and the rock in the gears of societal reform. You hold back what you so desire with your stubborness. May you someday realize the flaws in your "education."

-- Brian Bella (drrivelll@yahoo.com), November 17, 2003.


Look at who's telling me I'll be surprised !

What will be a surprise to me; to us-- Is if and when these snooty lightweights ever suffer; fall hard and need God; He will fail them. He won't; and I won't be surprised. God loves even these fools.

A Brian B. can't help giving advice to those of us who HAVE suffered, and HAVE been heard and answered by a loving God. He hasn't needed God, therefore he tries to instruct a veteran. Spoiled rotten.

Brian can't figure out what faith is; not ever having had it. But he can pretend to have brains. In just about the way somebody who appreciates a crappy novel has brains. They read bubble gum for the mind so they feel qualified to instruct others. About genocidal wars, imagine! Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 17, 2003.


The Crusades were a defensive war which, thank God, resulted in the rescue of Europe and of Christianity itself from decimation by invading Mohammedan hoards. The murderous exterminations of MILLIONS of innocent people by Mao or Pol Pot or Hitler not only surpassed the numbers of people killed in the Crusades many thousands of times over, but were so utterly unrelated to the Crusades philosophically, politically, and morally that they cannot reasonably be discussed in the same paragraph.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 17, 2003.

I'm breaking my promise for the sake of preserving a memory. The death counts of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao's regimes are 34 million, 20 million, and 10 million conservatively - taking into account deliberate killings. The estimates for Native American deaths alone are as high as 100 million - without considering the many other colonial massacres for the sake of "God". Not that I'm claming history is objective...that would ruin my entire case - but these are numbers to consider...ALSO - to consider Hitler's genocide secular is short-sighted. Don't attack my intelligence Eugene - you show your fear so clearly when you do. Keep on hating in the name of God...you've apparently got plenty of comrades. Hail Eugene.

-- Brian Bella (drrivelll@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003.

Yes, Brian. Let's agree you are the wiser. No one could presume to correct you. It's a case of your accumulated learning, altogether wonderful!

Ego and stupidity wedded in one verbose anti-Catholic! When he hangs himself, he'll blame us for giving him the long rope! Dirty Catholics! You knew I was stupid, why didn't you help me? Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.


brian,

i'll attack your intelligence for eugene...

The estimates for Native American deaths alone are as high as 100 million

this is ridiculous. anyone who can remember back to colleg history KNOWS this number you present is false. keep pawning, maybe one day somebody will buy it.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 18, 2003.


i don't know how long ago you attended college paul, but if you do some current research you'll find that the american agenda has not found accountability for native american deaths high on its list - "history" has changed, how ironic. don't believe everything you've read in the past...oops, i'm writing to two people living entirely through personal interpretation of an infinitely exploitable text...you already know how history can be used to one's advantage. i'm speaking to the wrong people. and i'm done going back on my word. there are so many frightening things about both of your agendas. do you realize this? will you ever? there is a sadness so pervasive in both of your illusions. do you REALLY believe there is no accountability for so much death? do you really NEVER question the actions of your community? how can this BE? you both are obviously intelligent, obviously passionate. how can you not see that the christian faith you both practice has had as much a hand in genocide as anything else? i will never know. i really never will. i'm sorry i've infringed upon your space here. i know i'll receive a biting remark for apologizing. i know you will cite faith as the reason for your blind adherence to ignorance. perhaps i haven't had a reason for faith eugene, but if anyone makes me hope God is waiting for the right moment to help - it is you. attack all you like. it only proves my point. your christianity is a violent type.

-- Brian Bella (drrivelll@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003.

Ironic, we have a belligerent Bella here; dressing down his inferiors! OK, Brian: You made your point. Now-- Beat it!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.

hold on eugene, dont dismiss him yet...

i took my college modern history course two semesters ago. soon as im done with my computer science and physics homework tonight im going to find him a quote from my text (since i keep all of my books that i get) to show him how wrong he is.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 18, 2003.


"For four hundred years--from the first Spanish assaults against the Arawak people of Hispaniola in the 1490s to the U.S. Army's massacre of Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee in the 1890s--the indigenous inhabitants of North and South America endured an unending firestorm of violence. During that time the native population of the Western Hemisphere declined by as many as 100 million people. Indeed, as historian David E. Stannard argues in this stunning new book, the European and white American destruction of the native peoples of the Americas was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world" David E. Stannard, American Holocaust Read on Paul... you'll find many a book to corroborate these numbers. your textbooks are biased like your thoughts. Good luck on your physics homework.

-- bb (drrrivelll@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003.

not to belabor...but...

David E. Stannard received his B.A. degree from San Francisco State University in 1971 and his Ph.D. from Yale University in 1975. His teaching and research interests include American social, cultural, and intellectual history; theory and method in history and social science; the demographic and environmental impacts of Western imperialism; comparative analyses of genocide; and race, racism, and multicultural studies. In addition to teaching at the University of Hawaii (where he has received the Regents Medal for Excellence in Teaching) he has taught at Yale and, as a visiting professor, at Stanford University and the University of Colorado at Boulder....

I don't suppose you presume authority over this man?

-- bb (drrivelll@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003.


''bb''--
What is so frightening about a scholar you love to cite?

He can't influence the faith of Catholics. Nor do you. And don't lay claim to HIS intelligence, it isn't yours anyway.

''Don't attack my intelligence Eugene - you show your fear so clearly when you do'' What bombast! If your intelligence were standing between my little Pomeranian and his rubber ball, Big Boy would pack it away in one swallow! Your intelligence, Brian is imaginary. A figment of your bought and paid for imagination. God laughs at your ''intelligence'' --

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 18, 2003.


i'm very sorry i keep returning, you just keep giving me such great material.

the fact that you own a pomeranian named "big boy," eugene, explains more to me about your mental state than any of your useless ideology.

i am not claiming stannard's work as my own - i cited him. you demean my vocabulary because stupidity and blindness are embraced in this world's current state. my intelligence has been attacked here many times. notice i haven't once called into question your ability to think. this is why your ignorance surprises me. your intellectual growth has been stunted and i mourn the reasons you cannot see that.

and finally; faith and ignorance are two different things.

we will never agree, i know that. i only hope there may be others reading this conversation who appreciate a counterpoint to the strength of your confining convictions: a counterpoint that often doesn't exist for many whose lives are being torn apart by beliefs such as your own.

-- "bb" (drrivelll@yahoo.com), November 18, 2003.


''A counterpoint that often doesn't exist for many whose lives are being torn apart by beliefs such as your own. --''

You flatter yourself. OK, nobody else would do it, but; if you're the counterpoint, what's the point? You aren't so challenging, bb--.

Torn apart by MY beliefs? The hyperbole calls to mind wars between little boys and insects. Such a rare intelligence; you amaze us! AND: ''I mourn the reasons you cannot see that!'' -- HA HA HA HA-A-A-A- !!!!! Charles Dickens should have thought of that!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 19, 2003.


so cruel and so sad. take notice christians. there is evil in your midst, and as much as it may be more comfortable to believe it - it's not me. i will no longer banter with a man with a caliber as low as eugene's.

-- bb (drrivelll@yahoo.com), November 19, 2003.

You've thought it over? But instead of assimilating some good out of this, you lament the bad taste of it all? Because I kick you in the pants, Brian? It's exactly how Pontius Pilate reacted. When his moment of decision happened, Pilate bailed out.

No one will ever say they taught you anything will they, Brian? If you can't gain the upper hand, curse the teacher. He deserves it?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 19, 2003.


Jmj

Brian B,
I am shocked -- shocked! -- by the errors and deceptions in your messages that came after my last one. As I said last time:
"If that's what you think, you get an 'F minus' in history ..."

We have to keep in mind that what I told you last time was a refutation of this foolish comment that you had made previously:
"... it is Christians like you that have caused the greatest bloodbaths in history."

I've got news for you, Brian ...
People who are "Christians like me" would not have killed even one person unjustifiably -- much less would have caused a bloodbath. What you should have claimed -- although it still would have been wrong -- is that "... people who claimed to be Christians have caused the greatest bloodbaths in history.

What I correctly told you in response to your error was this:
"... it is NON-Christians like you -- and Mao and Pol Pot and Stalin and Hitler -- that have caused the greatest bloodbaths in history."

Brian, you tried to come back with the following:
"... to believe that the numbers killed by Mao or Pol Pot or Hitler are not comparable with the numbers killed during the Crusades and the multitude of colonial exploits is ridiculous and upsetting."

Upsetting? You'd better believe it! Ridiculous? By no means. As Paul M mentioned, the numbers killed in the Crusades are small compared to the exploits of Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. And your claim of humongous numbers "killed" (your word) in "colonial exploits" will not stand up to scrutiny. (Stay tuned.)

You then claimed: "The death counts of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao's regimes are 34 million, 20 million, and 10 million conservatively - taking into account deliberate killings."

You are wrong. You left out Pol Pot, and you undercounted for the other guys.
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis (http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s211/s211.html), the number for Stalin is 42.7 million (not 20 million) in about 29 years, and the number for Mao is 34.4 million (not 10 million) in about 30 years.
According to a summary of 24 of the alleged biggest killers of the 20th century: (a) Hitler: was responsible for deaths of over 45 million Europeans (including 26 million from the Soviet republics) in about six years, and (b) Pol Pot killed at least 1,700,000 Cambodians out of a population of 7,000,000 in less than three years.

The list of 24 at the second site reveals that 18 of the guys -- including the four biggies mentioned above -- were non-Christians (and mostly, if not all, atheists). (The only Christians or nominal Christians in the 24 are Franco, Leopold II, Marcos, Mussolini, Pavelic, and Pinochet. To only one of these are attributed millions of deaths.)

Notice that I emphasized the small amount of time -- 29, 30, 6, and 3 years -- that your fellow atheist Big Four needed to kill vast numbers of people. Now lets contrast that with your next claim:

First, you put an erroneous idea in your own words: "The estimates for Native American deaths alone are as high as 100 million -- without considering the many other colonial massacres for the sake of 'God.'"

You cannot prove that Christians killed 100,000,000 American Indians. You certainly cannot prove that they killed any at all "for the sake of God." And you cannot prove either claim with regard to "other colonial massacres."

Let's see where you got that bogus number -- or should I say, "possibly accurate number that you misunderstood and twisted against Christians."

Here is what you quoted from what appears to be a review of a historian's work:
"For four hundred years -- from the first Spanish assaults against the Arawak people of Hispaniola in the 1490s to the U.S. Army's massacre of Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee in the 1890s -- the indigenous inhabitants of North and South America endured an unending firestorm of violence. During that time the native population of the Western Hemisphere declined by as many as 100 million people."

Take a good look at that for a change, Buddy Boy ...
It doesn't say that Christians murdered 100,000,000 American Indians. It says that the population declined by that number. You should have stopped to realize that the population declined only in part due to killings by Christians -- possibly the smallest part -- and most of the killings had nothing to do with religion anyway. The rest of the 100,000,000 decline (if that number is even accurate) was due to epidemics of European diseases (not spread intentionally), intertribal wars, alcoholism, and the failure to procreate in sufficient numbers to replace the Indians who died.

Finally, the decline in population (100,000,000) -- far less than half being through deliberate killings -- took place over 400 years -- i.e., just 250,000 per year, over a huge territory. Compare that to the more than 120,000,000 people deliberately killed by your Big Four non-Christian "brethren" in just a collective 70 years, over a more limited territory.

And so, you can just forget all your long-held false notions about Christians being the scourge of mankind throughout history, Brian. [Now, if you want to look into a group that killed vast numbers over a period of more than a millennium, take a look at the Moslems -- some of whom are ready to add to the numbers even today.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 19, 2003.


yes, i didn't mention that the deaths were caused (primarily even) by disease and alcoholism. yes it occurred over a longer period of time. i cannot prove 100,000,000 people were killed of course. even if i could most wouldn't believe it because we like to believe we're always in the right. just as we do right now as we attack the middle east. "they are terrorists. they hate us. they are evil." but do not forget who put sadaam in power, do not forget who has taken advantage of most every country it has set foot on: the us. in god we trust. if another country was exploiting us as we exploit the third world would you sit in peace? you cannot deny me this opinion john. i respect that you have faith. i wish i could respect your faith but in light of all the things it has "accomplished." i cannot.

and never did i once claim that it was all of christianity that has torn apart the world. it was some. maybe not you john. you're certainly more civil than eugene. but with your christianity, reinterpreted endlessly for the ages, for you to deny the evils it has accomplished in the past is not on par with your intelligence. obviously others have done awful things, perhaps worse things. but atheism is an infinite realm of belief. christianity is a specific institution i resent. i'm sorry, but more and more people feel this way - and i think justifiably. if christian beliefs are to survive...and let's admit it - they're flailing, accountability will have to be addressed and the hate will have to stop. thank you for clarifying the historical information. i'm the better for it. take care all.

-- bb (drrivelll@yahoo.com), November 19, 2003.


Did God have to rest on the seventh day, or did he choose to?

-- Cherisse W. (chewilson@abconduit.com), November 19, 2003.

Why is God a jealous God?

-- Cherisse W. (chewilson@abconduit.com), November 19, 2003.

Why did God create people in the first place?

-- Cherisse W. (chewilson@abconduit.com), November 19, 2003.

What did God do before He created earth and man?

-- Cherisse W. (chewilson@abconduit.com), November 19, 2003.

Hi, Cherisse.
Your good questions are not really on the topic of this thread ("Dismantling the Da Vinci Code"). May I suggest that you start a new thread with your questions by filling in this page?
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.

I would like to move back a little to Paul's comment on the crusades.

"The Crusades were a defensive war which, thank God, resulted in the rescue of Europe and of Christianity itself from decimation by invading Mohammedan hoards."

What??? The Crusades began when the "mohamedian hordes" took over Jerusalem. Over the years, the Church has tried to revise history to say that they were killing Christian pilgrims. That's just rediculous. IT WAS THE MIDDLE AGES!!! No one traveled from Europe all the way to Jerusalem exept for a negligable number of very wealthy people who could afford boat transportation (to go on foot would be insane...it would probably take something like 5 or 6 months). The Catholic Church did not have a bigger claim to Jerusalem than Muslims did, as it was equaly holy to both religions. Plus, there was already a substantial Muslim population living in the area. But that didn't stop the Chruch from ordering the First Crusade (at which point many people actuy DID walk down to Jerusalem from Europe). The Christian forces got Jerusalem back for a little while, but shortly lost it again. Later on they invaded many other parts of the Middle East that they had NO claim to at all, such as Egypt and the lands further into the Arabian penninsula. All they really accomplished in something like 500 years of crusading was to kill millions of Muslims (it was over half a millenium, of course it was more than Hitler or Stalin killed) and for a few Kings and nobles to get ludicrisly rich from all the treasure they looted from cities they conquered. But we musn't forget the biggest accomplishment, which was to forever destroy any hope of a peacefull relationship between the Christian world and the Muslim world. That is what generaly happens when you invade someone's home and begin to hack everyone apart.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.


anti-bush, your information about the number of deaths from the Crusades is hillariously inaccurate.

Source: http://users.erols .com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

HITLER TOTAL: Courtois: 25,000,000 Rummel: 20,946,000 democides Brzezinski: 17,000,000 Urlanis: 15-16,000,000 (11-12M civilians + 3.9M POWs) MEDIAN: ca. 15.5M Our Times: 13,000,000 (6M Jews + 7M others) Compton's: 12,000,000 Grenville: 10,000,000, including 2M children. NOTE: These numbers only include outright murders, but keep in mind that some 18M civilians and 17M soldiers died in the European War. That's 35,000,000 deaths which can probably be blamed on Hitler to one extent or another.

Total killed by Stalin during the war years: Davies: 16-17,000,000 non-war-dead Rummel: 18,157,000 democides Although the number of civilian deaths in the Soviet Union during the war is far from certain, the estimate of 7 million has gained wide acceptance, and it is repeated by Keegan, Hammond, Anchor, Encarta and Britannica. Since many of these deaths would have been caused by Nazi brutality or the simple bad luck of war, as well Stalinist repression, it seems exceedingly difficult to reconcile a total of 7 million civilian deaths with estimates of 16-19 million deaths from Stalinist brutality during the war years. Some recent demographic studies suggest that 26-27 million Soviet citizens disappeared during WW2 (Davies), but this number has not been widely accepted by mainstream historians. My Estimate: Very roughly, I'd say that Stalin murdered 1M enemy POWs, 1M of his own soldiers, and some 2-4M Soviet civilians during the War. These numbers are consistant with Conquest's estimate of 10M killed by Stalin, 1939 to 1953, and they easily fit into the 7M civilian deaths, leaving room for 1M Jews and several million others to be killed by the Nazis.

Crusades (1095-1291) Estimated totals: Wertham: 1,000,000 Charles Mackay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841): 2,000,000 Europeans killed. [http://www.bootlegbooks.com/NonFiction/Mackay/PopDelusions/chap09.htm l] Aletheia, The Rationalist's Manual: 5,000,000 Individual Events: Davies: Crusaders killed up to 8,000 Jews in Rhineland Paul Johnson A History of the Jews (1987): 1,000 Jewish women in Rhineland comm. suicide to avoid the mob, 1096. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, v.5, 6 1st Crusade: 300,000 Eur. k at Battle of Nice [Nicea]. Crusaders vs. Solimon of Roum: 4,000 Christians, 3,000 Moslems 1098, Fall of Antioch: 100,000 Moslems massacred. 50,000 Pilgrims died of disease. 1099, Fall of Jerusalem: 70,000 Moslems massacred. Siege of Tiberias: 30,000 Christians k. Siege of Tyre: 1,000 Turks Richard the Lionhearted executes 3,000 Moslem POWs. 1291: 100,000 Christians k after fall of Acre. Fall of Christian Antioch: 17,000 massacred. TOTAL: 677,000 listed in these episodes here. Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/] Jaffa: 20,000 Christians massacred, 1197 Sorokin estimates that French, English & Imperial German Crusaders lost a total of 3,600 in battle. 1st C (1096-99): 400 2nd C (1147-49): 750 3rd C (1189-91): 930 4th C (1202-04): 120 5th C (1228-29): 600 7th C (1248-54): 700 James Trager, The People's Chronology (1992) 1099: Crusaders slaughter 40,000 inhabs of Jerusalem. Dis/starv reduced Crusaders from 300,000 to 60,000. 1147: 2nd Crusades begins with 500,000. "Most" lost to starv./disease/battle. 1190: 500 Jews massacred in York. 1192: 3rd Crusade reduced from 100,000 to 5,000 through famine, plagues and desertions in campaign vs Antioch. 1212: Children's Crusade loses some 50,000. TOTAL: Just in these incidents, it appears the Europeans lost around 650,000. TOTAL: When I take all the individual death tolls listed here, weed out the duplicates, fill in the blanks, apply Occam, etc. I get a very rough total of 1½ M deaths in the Crusades.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), November 21, 2003.


Which, across 196 years, is about 7,650 per year.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 21, 2003.

One must take into account the accuracy with which people at the time of the Crusades could reasonably count and record the amount of deaths that occurred. I think 7-8000 deaths per year is QUITE a low estimate. Also, to lump the deaths resulting from the Crusades and from Christian colonialism (still occurring) with the genocidal impulses of specific, mentally deranged individuals in power such as Pol Pot and Hitler is to generalize inaccurately. Christianity is a system of belief embraced as a way of life by those who practice it. To have this lead to genocidal actions is a much different and more frightening occurrence than the isolated incidences of dictatorial holocausts. Christianity is historically a violent institution, removed from an individual (unless you want to consider Jesus or God) that has caused a huge amount of death. Because it cannot be traced directly to the violent delusions of a single person does not make it more tolerable. It makes it less tolerable and more powerful. What form of injustice are we still dealing with? Not Hitler and genocidal communism - Christianity and genocidal colonialism.

-- Tony Ferlito (seeker157@yahoo.com), November 21, 2003.

Tony,

Both your understanding of Christianity and of the Holocaust are pretty shallow. Calling the 3rd Reich a dictatorial genocide is a little bit like saying that weathermen create thunderstorms. Hitler as much rode the popular wave of slaughter as much as he directed it. I recommend Hannah Arendt--a Jewish post-war historian and philosopher--for a deeper understanding of the forces behind Communist and Nazi totalitarianism. One of those forces, invariably, is the individualism and rootlessness caused by the exile of Catholic and/or traditional Christianity in both places.

Second, you have absolutely no grounds to call Christianity violent, whether on the level of its doctrine, its history, or even certain people. The most deaths caused by Christians as a group were in the 50 year war, which is responsible for 7-8 million deaths (according to the same source above). Go ahead, dig around that link a little more, and you'll see how positively goofy your accusations are.

Or maybe you've discovered some doctrine or teaching we're not aware of? Silly troll, violence is for non-believers. :)

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), November 21, 2003.


And to add... Uh, Tony, have you conducted some research on the Crusades yourself? Because your last post was something in the nature of "Oh, 7-8000 deaths per year is low. But I know for a fact that Christianity is evil and violent, ergo, that couldn't possibly be true." Keep up the good work there.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), November 21, 2003.

European history is replete with pilgrimages and pilgrimage sites...that was a major part of European culture in the Middle ages from the 800's to at least the 1400's. And yes, they did go on foot all the way to Jerusalem...and it did take them 6 months to a year...and it was popular - as a basic form of personal conversion and metanoia.

Look, the Catholic view of sin and conversion is wholly sensible and reasonable: we believe in free will, but also in the power of ingrained habits (vice or virtue), the power of our concupscience and temptation... thus when we examine our consciences and make our confessions, we recognize the need for "penance" - not just being sorry, but actually changing our routine to avoid the habitual thoughts, actions, places, company that support sinful acts or sinful habits.

Thus from the earliest times Christians went on long pilgrimages: leaving home, changing their routines, praying and sacrificing - building up their will power and faith...so as to really and permanently change their habits and root out vices such as sloth, gluttony, avarice, anger, pride, lust... all things hard to nurture and protect while walking 20 miles a day in foreign lands.

Thus the pilgrims were not tourists - as we understand that pass time. They were serious people trying to better themselves...and most were unarmed and wholly peaceful. Thus when the Muslims began harassing, robing, enslaving or killing them en route to the holy sites it was seen as an especially heinious and uncalled for crime.

At no time were the Crusades promoted as genocidal affairs or even world wars designed to destroy Islam - evidenced by the first and only successful crusade which bypassed Muslim towns and cities enroute when they could, (i.e. Beruit), because their goal was to secure the Holy city of Jerusalem. They didn't keep going.

But in typical, knee-jerk and simplistic fashion modern day history books which most of our self-styled "intellectual elites" read and take as the whole story, don't go into much detail at all.

How many of you knew that there were actually 4 separate armies in the first crusade - only one of whom had a papal legate in it? (How many know what a Papal Legate was?) How many know that none of these armies were led by royalty? How many know that one fourth (1 army) stayed behind in Antioch and Edessa and didn't join the march to Jerusalem? How many knew that the Papal Legate died at Antioch - so wasn't there representing the Pope or controlling the armies when Jerusalem was sacked? How many knew that the famous passage describing the sack and massacre "blood flowed knee deep..." was written a generation after the fact and not by an eye-witness?

In short, the moment most people open their mouth about the crusade is the moment they put their foot in it.

Do your homework people.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 21, 2003.


i don't think christianity or communism are inherently evil. i also think evil isn't an objective concept but i suppose that's beside the point. i'd like to remove the conversation from numbers for awhile and have some personal testimonials from the christians who contribute here about how they justify devoting their lives to a faith, although it may have some noble causes, that has participated so much in the obliteration of cultures and belief systems other than its own. i wonder about this. does it not lead you to question at all?

-- tony (seeker157@yahoo.com), November 21, 2003.

Maybe instead I should explain why I still value my American citizenship even though some American leaders have committed crimes in which they rejected the most fundamental principles upon which America was founded; even though thousands of people in foreign lands detest the very name of America; even though some who call themselves Americans burn the flag and execute the president in effigy. What does any of this have to do with me, or with my personal relationship with my country? I'm still American because it is the best show in town, even though many choose to reject it.

Once you can grasp that, maybe it will be easier to understand why I give my absolute and unwavering allegiance to the Church Jesus Christ founded for all men, even though some of its leaders have committed sins in which they rejected the most fundamental principles of God's Law and Church teaching; even though many thousands of people detest the very title "Catholic"; and even though some would destroy the symbols of God's Church, and execute the Vicar of Jesus Christ in effigy, if not in actuality. What does any of this have to do with me, or with my relationship to God or His Church? I'm still Catholic because it remains the best show in town, even after 2,000 years of continuous persecution. In fact, "best" doesn't begin to describe the Church Jesus founded for all men. If you are concerned about living your life within the perfect will of God, and having access to the fullness of revealed truth, then the Holy Catholic Church is the ONLY show in town - any town - anywhere - any time.

If Nixon and Clinton didn't cause me to "question" America, why would a few poor Church leaders cause me to "question" the Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Foundation of truth? You don't judge the value of a medicine by its effect on those who pour it down the sink. You judge it by its effects on those who accept it willingly and use it as prescribed. If I wish to judge the Church and its effect on its members, there are tens of thousands of outstanding examples of incredibly holy persons who have given their lives in service to God and their fellow man. Such people are products of Catholicism - pure and full Catholicism, accepted freely, believed fully, and lived unconditionally. How could I entertain, even for a moment, the prospect of rejecting a Church which produces such profound holiness in ordinary people? To whom would I go? His Church has the words of everlasting life.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 21, 2003.


You forgot Reagan and Bush.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 21, 2003.

I had a question related to the whole "Da Vinci Code" storyline. It seems that Brown has a "conspiracy theory" attitude towards Opus Dei. I read part of a commentary on Opus Dei by Richard McBrien (until I began to realize that McBrien himself seemed biased). Why is Opus Dei attacked by so many liberal-sympathizers? Moreover, why is a "Catholic" theologian like Mc Brien so irreverent towards Opus Dei and its founding saint?

-- Wesley D. Marshall (marshall_wesley@hotmail.com), December 02, 2003.

The answer is simple: Opus Dei rocks the boat. It overturns the apple cart...it stands a real chance of actually effecting societal CHANGE and thus destabilizing the status quo. Those who seek to change anything will be attacked. That's a constant of sociology.

The second answer is its unity: groups of people who are highly disciplined and who seek to effect a change in professional realms are not tolerated as much as disorganized and loose knit people who only seek to ameliorate the sufferings of the "poor" - without of course solving the problem of poverty or making particular poor people less poor of course!

One of the first bombastic charges you'll hear is "Sniff! Well, they're not perfect! I know this Opus guy and he's XYZ! He's a sinner so who does he think he is? It's a cult!"

Of course, no Opus Dei member claims to be perfect and indeed that's the point of joining: you want to be better than you are and help others too... But by creating the straw-man of "people claiming to be perfect" the critic side-steps the point of free people freely joining a group because the desire to be better... which is hardly something to be in high dungeon about.

And of course, calling something a "cult" is the quick escape from needing to think about whether the group is simply different from what you're used to and comfortable with, or is really sinister.

Brown could hardly have used the Jesuits as his foil - too many people used the Society of Jesus as the evil bad guys bent on world domination in past centuries... only to discover that they weren't and aren't and while influential aren't even as powerful as non- Catholic special interest groups such as International Planned Parenthood.

So he picks on some relatively small group, whom most people have no personal experience with and whom our mind-less leftists kneejerkedly assume are "evil" because OD is "conservative" and viola! Instant bad- guy.

I'm not - by the way - a member of Opus Dei. I just know many Catholics who are and they're not nuts, weirdos, or kooks. They don't ram rod their charism down other peoples' throats (as say, Liberals tend to do), nor do they claim utter moral superiority (again, as Liberals tend to PRESUME for themselves in the face of all evidence to the contrary).

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 02, 2003.


Mr. Marshall,
"Father" Richard McBrien is no more a practicing Catholic and valid theologian than is the Man in the Moon. Only an ultra-misguided bishop (McBrien's) stands in the way of the excommunication that Fr. M has deserved for decades. He is one of the greatest enemies of genuine Catholicism on this planet. (I am not in Opus Dei, and I have thought exactly the same about Fr. M since before I even heard of Opus Dei.)
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 02, 2003.

Perhaps we should make a list of all the people J.F. Gecik has said that about and submit it to the Pope for review.

"J.F.'s Picks for Excommunication, Version 2.0"

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 02, 2003.


Why doncha eat schidtt, Anti-Pathetic?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 02, 2003.

its true though, anti bush. john calls the ball pretty accurately when he points out somebody violating vatican rulings...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 02, 2003.

Eugene-

You need to get on your knees and ask God for humility! You are feeding right into what anti-bush wants. You seem to be an intelligent individual, but on the same hand, weak-minded feeding what anti-bush so desires, to get a rise out of yo!. Eugene, being a follower of Christ, this is not what He would want from someone who "loves" Him! Let AB go on being misguided and brainwashed by the world, there is nothing we can do for him, but we are called to hate the sin and love the sinner! So if you want to get mad at something, curse the world for leading AB astray, but for AB, heep hot coals upon his head......

Brian C.

-- Brian C. (corsosworld@yahoo.com), December 07, 2003.


Thanks for the reminder, Brian. I have no excuses. I have certain heroic figures from the Bible who inspire me to bluntly confront somebody after he's passed a certain point. Care to know who the heroes are?

Probably the first is the young David. His older brother was like you today. ''Why did you come here? I know your pride and the wickedness of your heart coming down to see the battle.'' David said to Eliab, ''What have I done? Is there no cause to speak?'' Then they took David to Saul; who told him, ''You are not able to withstand this Philistine for you are but a BOY and Goliath is a warrior from his youth.''

Read the rest, 1st Kings 18:48 / Others are Saint John Baptist. He rebuked the Tetrarch and his mistress to their faces. He wasn't very soft on them. Then Saint Peter. Even if Jesus settled him down from time to time; you have to love a man who stood up to those coming to arrest Jesus. Peter wasn't afraid to cut off one man's ear. Not that Jesus gave his blessing. I still admire Peter very much.

So, let me quiet down now that I've been lectured. I wasn't going to cut off anti-Bush's ear. Just give him an earful. Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 07, 2003.


If it's Mary Magdelene sitting next to Jesus in the painting, then where Is St.John, who would have still been there somewhere...? Divinci also did a famous painting of St.John alone. It looks just like the image at the table, but since it's a much closer view, one can see he is a male, tho still painted effeminately (which was Divinci's style). If the one of the major points of the book is to make a case that women have been suppressed in the Catholic religion, lets say for just a moment that it's true. To me the next question is a big fat "So What??" The overall treatment of women by the Catholic church (if that were true) would be no less than treatment by 99.9% of the world throughout history. It might not be nice, but would it change anything? No. Jesus would still be our divine Savior who died on the cross and rose again for us. His priests still bring us the holy sacraments, including His body & blood in the eucharist. St.Pio himself was considered a fraud by some of his contemporaries and was ordered to stop celebrating mass in public and not to hear confessions. And even tho they were wrong, he OBEDIENTLY and humbly accepted their decision (and was later allowed to resume his ministry). And if in fact, we as women have been mistreated on this earth, forced from leadership roles, then when we reach heaven, we will find that "..the first shall be last & the last shall be last." Our earthly sufferings will result in eternal favor. I don't waste my time with revisionist Catholic bashing books slinging the latest popular slop. I read things like "The Bible"; "Padre Pio: the True Story" or St.Therese autobiography "Story of a Soul"- and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

-- Liz Snyder (llazy1@hotmail.com), January 20, 2004.

liz,

one might also add that most of these protestants claiming some conspiracy to supress women seem to forget that it is the catholics who show proper respect for mary, the mother of God.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 20, 2004.


If the one of the major points of the book is to make a case that women have been suppressed in the Catholic religion, lets say for just a moment that it's true.

I have read the book. That it was a paternal organization was a given. The main point in the book was that a paternal organization suppressed goddess worship and that the grail was the fact that Mary Magneline was the wife of Jesus and represented the goddess on earth. In other words, we have 2 gods a female and a male and they were both made human. As we have said this is not supported by facts, so what the author has done is to give half truths and skip any evidence that does not support the theory. Where half truths do not work, he makes up what he calls facts that cannot be supported by history (like the divine proportion that De Vinci was suppose to depend upon heavily for his art, although De Vinci's journals talk about all kinds of human measurements, for pages on end, but not the divine proportion. He may have made use of it, but it wasn't paramont of all his measurements as is brought out in the book.)

Again, it makes nice fictional reading (although I found the ending disappointing), but it is not history.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 20, 2004.


the other day at walden bookstore, i saw STACKS of hardbound copies of da vinci code on sale as bonus books. now, normally walden sells off all their hardbounds once theyve stopped selling very well for around five dollars or so. most books like this are just few leftovers in number. imagine my surprise and amusment seeng a stack of about fifty copies of da vinci code being sold at 5 dollars since they werent selling anyway?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 20, 2004.

Paul, it still is pretty high on Amazon.com Sales Rank: 137 and they are selling it for $19. So it looks like you might be getting a bargan at $5.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 20, 2004.


Another good article debunking the Da Vinci Code is in the Miami Herald this week.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 30, 2004.


Amy Wellborn has a decoder coming out soon. (Here's the Amazon link.)



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.


Here is the Amazon Link



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.


haha bill,

Paul, it still is pretty high on Amazon.com Sales Rank: 137 and they are selling it for $19. So it looks like you might be getting a bargan at $5.

i dont pay for garbage. 19 dollars or five... who wants to pay for liturgical trash?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 16, 2004.


Christians are getting duped, too -- many thinking that is a harmless book that enriches their faith. That's why Carl Olson is writing a book with Sandra Miesel called "The Da Vinci Hoax" due out this summer.

Olson, who is editor of Envoy magazine, shared with ZENIT how his book exposes and critiques the numerous errors in "The Da Vinci Code," and analyzes what the novel's success indicates about America's cultural and religious landscape.

see: bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 17, 2004.


corrected link The Truth behind the 'Da Vinci Code'



-- Bill nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), March 17, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ