The Da Vinci Code - The movie

[L4E_WakaMol-King]

And, incidently, the Bible was in many places _literally_ copied from those scriptures from Buddhism (forgot what they where called) and other religion's scriptures.

There is obviously a lot of Jewish Scripture in the Bible (the entire Old Testmanet, for example), but other than that, I am not sure this is true. Could you be more specific? And do you mean the Old Testament or the New?

[Timendus]

Be careful, he's going to say that since he's not a Catholic he doesn't value the old testament as much if you answer that most of the copying happened there

If you are any one of the things you listed above, then you probably will not be influenced into believing the DaVinci code. However, if you are one of the people that just goes to church on Sundays, doesn't read or know the Bible very well, then wouldn't you agree that this person would be more likely to throw away Christianity for the DaVinci code?

Hmm, as CoBB pointed out, it's not like "throwing away" Christianity. If you don't believe in it, you may get swept away by the movie or the book, and nothing is lost. If you really firmly do believe in it, you'll stick to your belief nomatter what the movie sais. But there's another option, that you keep ignoring:

If you don't believe in Christianity because you have a sceptic mind and your first question is always "where's the proof for this?" like me, then you're neither going to believe the Da Vinci Code, nor "throw away" Christianity, nor believe in God. They are not connected. Not all "good Christians" who read their Bible are wise enough to question things like a book that claims to have it's facts in order. Nor are all Atheïsts going to believe it just because they hate Christians that much. They are not connected. Do you get my point now?

[Arcane WIzard]

And, incidently, the Bible was in many places _literally_ copied from those scriptures from Buddhism (forgot what they where called) and other religion's scriptures.

There is obviously a lot of Jewish Scripture in the Bible (the entire Old Testmanet, for example), but other than that, I am not sure this is true. Could you be more specific? And do you mean the Old Testament or the New?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4402873027

34 minutes 30 seconds and beyond.

[L4E_WakaMol-King]

Well, that is really more like 2 hours long... hope I got the right link.

So far, I've watched the first 20 mins of it, and it's not very convincing. As a philosophy major, I recognize quite a few of the informal logical fallacies, and it's ironic that they come up so often in a video that repeatedly claims to offer nothing but the facts.

Ad Hominem ("Against the Person") - Attacking the person holding a point of view in an effort to show that the point of view is wrong. The fact that televangelists wear designer clothing and makeup does not make what they are saying any less logical. The fact that less than 1% of 1% of priests have been involved in sex scandals does not make the Church's teachings any less resonable. Now, that is not to say that I like televangelists or that I think it was ok that those priests did those things. Certainly not. But I dislike them for the proper reasons, and don't draw illogical conclusions from that dislike.

Ad Verecundiam ("Appeal to Authority") - Claiming that something is logical because a figure of authority said so (keep in mind that I said "logical," not "moral"). This is the most ironic fallacy to have in a video like that, since it spends a lot of time trying to argue against blindly following authority. If they are trying to say that we can't trust Catholic Church officials to tell us the truth, why would they quote such officials in their arguments? They use a quote by an Archbishop who said "The Church is full of thieves, mercenaries, and wolves." If they don't consider the Bishops to be sources of truth, then why quote them? I can't help but think that the video has a very obvious agenda, and recognizes religious leaders as authority figures only when it is convenient.

"False Cause" - This means assuming a cause / effect relationship between two things that may or may not be related. There was a lot of this, even in just the first 20 mins. For example, he points out that there is more crime and more social problems in countries where religion is regularly practiced. That may be true, but we all know the "crime and social problems" are very complex, and caused by an array of factors, not one single thing like the practice of religion. As the number of pirates decreases in our world, the hole in the ozone layer gets bigger. Does that mean the health of the ozone layer is related to the number of pirates plundering the seas? Of course not.

"Staw Man" - Setting up and knocking down something that is not actually the thing you intend to disprove. Is it likely that a lot of prehistoric religious beliefs came from speculation about the cause of natural disasters? That is a reasonable hypothesis. Therefore, all religions come from people trying to explain forces which they cannot understand? Of course not. Christianity developed from the early Christian community, which was instructed by the person Jesus. Why do Christians teach "turn the other cheek?" Because they were trying to explain some force of nature they didn't understand? A conclusion like that would be absurd. The teaching "turn the other cheek" is an ethical norm, and it has nothing to do with forces we don't understand.

Some things they present are rather exagerated. It compares the Bible to an instruction manual that is 3 - 4 thousand years old and has been translated 20 to 30 times. The Bible is less than 2000 years old, and most good translations come from the original Greek or Aramaic, meaning they have been translated once. Etc.

It also make a lot of sweeping and untrue generalizations. For example, it says that each religion teaches that they have the only truth, and that every non-member is a sinner. That's just plain false. The Catholic Church, for example, holds that every religion has some degree of truth to it, and some have a great deal of truth. Their followers can certainly still reach Heaven by following their own religion and listening to the natural moral law. I am not Islamic, but I believe that Christians and Jews are called "People of the Book," and can still live good and fruitful lives by Islamic standards.

Lastly, I define a Catholic as someone who follows the teachings of the Catholic Church, a Muslim as someone who follows the teaching of Islam, etc. If you claim to be a member of a religion, but don't follow it's teachings, in my opinion, you should not be considered a member of that religion, or at least not a good member. People can claim to be calc programmer all they want, but until I see and play a clac game that they programmed, I don't consider them one. As with the Straw Man fallacy, pointing out all the bad people who have claimed to be members of a certain religion does not affect the reasonableness of that religion in the slightest.

Now, please note, none of what I have just said proves that any religious doctrine is true. I am meerly pointing out that the first 20 mins of that video does a very poor job of proving that any religious doctrines are untrue. For a documentary that claims to offer only the facts, it sure has a lot of logical fallacies. If I get the time, I'll try to watch the rest of it.

[L4E_WakaMol-King]

Ok, I watched a litte more... up to the first 45 mins.

The tone of the video has changed quite a lot, so I have to give them credit for that. They are doing a lot textual comparison, and that's good. There are a lot less logical fallacies in this part.

The only problem is that I think there are a lot more untrue statements . When comparing Jesus to Krishna, it says that Krishna was born of a virgin and crucified. Here is the Wikipedia entry on Krishna. It doesn't mention anything about being born of a virgin or about crucifiction. Those are pretty important details to get mixed up on. There's a lot more stuff like this... but I've posted way too much already, so I will just leave you all to watch that video and actually check the things it says.

And, incidently, the Bible was in many places _literally_ copied from those scriptures from Buddhism (forgot what they where called) and other religion's scriptures.

Keep in mind that the book(s?) they are showing in (up to the first 45 mins of) that movie are books wirtten and compiled by researchers... not the actual texts of the Bible or the Buddhist or Hindu scriptures.

I believe the book they are using is Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions by Thomas Doane, which was publised in 1882. That does not nescessarily mean that it is a bad source, but there might be more modern research available.

[CompWiz]

It also make a lot of sweeping and untrue generalizations. For example, it says that each religion teaches that they have the only truth, and that every non-member is a sinner. That's just plain false. The Catholic Church, for example, holds that every religion has some degree of truth to it, and some have a great deal of truth. Their followers can certainly still reach Heaven by following their own religion and listening to the natural moral law. I am not Islamic, but I believe that Christians and Jews are called "People of the Book," and can still live good and fruitful lives by Islamic standards.

WHAT?!? Is this really what the Catholic church thinks? Wow, if so, they are completely throwing away the teachings of the Bible. Whatever happened to

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

and

There is salvation in none other, for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, by which we must be saved!"

I heard once that the great whore mentioned in Revelations chapter 18 represents the Catholic church. I wonder if that is the case.

[threefingeredguy]

Islamic people believe in Jesus.

[CompWiz]

Islamic people believe in Jesus.

well, I don't know enough about their religion to comment. Just curious, what is their stance(in their Holy Book and normally) towards Christians and Jews? If this is completely wrong, then ok, but I think that I heard that their holy book says that if you give someone the chance to convert to Islam and they don't, you're supposed to kill them. This would prove that they're not really an extension of Christianity.

[L4E_WakaMol-King]

WHAT?!? Is this really what the Catholic church thinks? Wow, if so, they are completely throwing away the teachings of the Bible. Whatever happened to

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

and

There is salvation in none other, for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, by which we must be saved!"

Well, I don't think this teaching of the CC denies that. The idea is that people can reach Jesus and do his will, even without being a signed-up member of a Christian church. Our position is that Jesus is all loving and all powerful, and he can still do his work through those that are willing, even if those people worship him in some manner that is not explicitly Christian. IMO, the most important thing is Jesus's message. Maybe Hindu's and Buddhists don't call him by name, but if they love their neighbors and work for peace and justice, than to me that is calling his name even louder.

I'm not Islamic, so take this with a grain of salt, but I believe that their position is that Christians and Jews are "People of the Book" (being the Bible). I think they teach that we can still reach salvation... or at least deserve some kind of earthly respect.

[CompWiz]

Maybe Hindu's and Buddhists don't call him by name, but if they love their neighbors and work for peace and justice, than to me that is calling his name even louder.

So, doing good works will get you into heaven? I hope you know better than that. I could quote a bunch of scripture about that if you want. And Jesus was a man, he is not some abstract concept of helpfulness that you worship merely by doing a good deed. Like the Bibleverse said, the way to the Father is through Jesus, only through him. If Buddists don't follow the teachings and worship the guy that was around back around 30 AD, then they will not get to heaven, good deeds or not.

[L4E_WakaMol-King]

Like the Bibleverse said, the way to the Father is through Jesus, only through him.

Agreed, though I feel that there are many ways to go through Jesus. If you devote your life to the teachings of Jesus, then why can't that be "going through Jesus?" I think I need to know your definition of how to go through Jesus to respond to that argument.

The way I worded my earlier statement was a little off kilter. Doing good deeds can't get you to Heaven, but doing good deeds is indicative of having commited yourself to Christ. Good deeds won't get you there, but they are the only way for anyone else but you to know that you have devoted yourself to Christ. So when I say that people like Hindu's and Buddhists who are doing good deeds can still go to Heaven, I don't mean that they can go there because of their deeds, I only mean that it is the only way I have to identify the ones who have commited themselves to peace, justice, love of neightbor, etc.

[blueskies]

lol@

...

Like he wrote that on this board...

Also @AW, are you available for public speaches, because I would pay to listen to you go on about this crap.

This made me laugh too.

666 itself is a fairly uninteresting number.

[leofox]

Maybe Hindu's and Buddhists don't call him by name, but if they love their neighbors and work for peace and justice, than to me that is calling his name even louder.

So, doing good works will get you into heaven? I hope you know better than that. I could quote a bunch of scripture about that if you want. And Jesus was a man, he is not some abstract concept of helpfulness that you worship merely by doing a good deed. Like the Bibleverse said, the way to the Father is through Jesus, only through him. If Buddists don't follow the teachings and worship the guy that was around back around 30 AD, then they will not get to heaven, good deeds or not.

That's pretty perverted isn't it... Some Christian guy may have commited a bunch of crimes all his life, and according to you go to heaven, but a Buddhist priest devoting his life to helping others and stuff, would go to hell.
That's doesnt just sound weird, i'm pretty sure that it's not what the church thinks. But heck, it wouldn't be the first crap that they spit out.

[L4E_WakaMol-King]

I think it depends on which Church you are talking about. I layed out the Catholic position as best I know it.

[Arcane WIzard]

As a philosophy major, I recognize quite a few of the informal logical fallacies, and it's ironic that they come up so often in a video that repeatedly claims to offer nothing but the facts.

Anybody who's gone through the first year of highschool should be able to recognize this. Anybody should also be able to judge for themselves how much Christianity happens to have so many similarities with other older religions regardless of how silly the video brings it.

Yay no phone and internet for 8 hours yesterday. I was right in the middle of typing a reply here.. I'll recompose it fragmented as comments to some quotes...

The fact that televangelists wear designer clothing and makeup does not make what they are saying any less logical.

Unless they said anything against wearing designer clothing and makeup. I believe the argument in the video is about how they favor materialism and yet do those things..

The fact that less than 1% of 1% of priests have been involved in sex scandals does not make the Church's teachings any less resonable.

It makes the church less reasonable, not the teachings, yes.

If they don't consider the Bishops to be sources of truth, then why quote them?

If he was lieing he still proves their point.

I can't help but think that the video has a very obvious agenda, and recognizes religious leaders as authority figures only when it is convenient.

Who doesn't have an agenda? Doesn't mean you should dismiss everything they say, judge for yourself what and what not to believe.

For example, he points out that there is more crime and more social problems in countries where religion is regularly practiced. That may be true, but we all know the "crime and social problems" are very complex, and caused by an array of factors, not one single thing like the practice of religion. As the number of pirates decreases in our world, the hole in the ozone layer gets bigger. Does that mean the health of the ozone layer is related to the number of pirates plundering the seas? Of course not.

I thought the problems where very complex, how can you then say of course not? I'm pretty sure the pirates would burn many ships and lots of gunpowder, which emits nasty stuff into the athmosphere... And keep in mind that those problems and religion are both sociological aspects of countries, so they're more directly related than pirates to athsmospheric conditions of the planet.

The teaching "turn the other cheek" is an ethical norm, and it has nothing to do with forces we don't understand.

My stance exactly, and those forces to me include silly games of politics and power that figures of authority in religions ophold.

For example, it says that each religion teaches that they have the only truth, and that every non-member is a sinner. That's just plain false.

I'm pretty sure most holy books say it literally in some sentence somewhere. Cudo's to the churches or other holy places not to follow the literal statements there but the meaning of the book. At least most of them, some do follow those literal technicalities and kill people.

I am meerly pointing out that the first 20 mins of that video does a very poor job of proving that any religious doctrines are untrue. For a documentary that claims to offer only the facts, it sure has a lot of logical fallacies.

Yep.

The only problem is that I think there are a lot more untrue statements Confused. When comparing Jesus to Krishna, it says that Krishna was born of a virgin and crucified. Here is the Wikipedia entry on Krishna. It doesn't mention anything about being born of a virgin or about crucifiction. Those are pretty important details to get mixed up on. There's a lot more stuff like this... but I've posted way too much already, so I will just leave you all to watch that video and actually check the things it says.

Google some articles about krishna's death, they show that there is possibility for quite some coincidence in that particular description. I think you're the only one who bothered to watch it though.

Keep in mind that the book(s?) they are showing in (up to the first 45 mins of) that movie are books wirtten and compiled by researchers... not the actual texts of the Bible or the Buddhist or Hindu scriptures.

I believe the book they are using is Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions by Thomas Doane, which was publised in 1882. That does not nescessarily mean that it is a bad source, but there might be more modern research available.

Ah, but the similarities, literal or not, are interesting aren't they?

/end comments

Now you don't have to reply to any of this at all, just know that even though I do not literally agree with everything you just said, I do get your point. : )

If Buddists don't follow the teachings and worship the guy that was around back around 30 AD, then they will not get to heaven, good deeds or not.

Don't you still get into heaven if you accept Jesus as your lord and saviour when you're standing at the gate? I'm pretty sure buddhists wouldn't have an awefull lot of attachment to the literal name of who's teachings they follow. ; )

Interestingly, if you think of heaven as what it would be from a buddhistic point of view, the bible makes a whole lot more sense. : )

Also @AW, are you available for public speaches, because I would pay to listen to you go on about this crap.

:0 Is that a good thing or bad thing?

That's pretty perverted isn't it... Some Christian guy may have commited a bunch of crimes all his life, and according to you go to heaven, but a Buddhist priest devoting his life to helping others and stuff, would go to hell. That's doesnt just sound weird, i'm pretty sure that it's not what the church thinks. But heck, it wouldn't be the first crap that they spit out.

The Christian churches don't even agree with eachother, how silly is that?