Ok, I'm not defending "The Da Vinci Code", but this is TOO FUNNY!

[Khephra]

In order to "debunk" the book, Jerry Falwell goes to a team of religious experts...2 members of his own staff at Liberty University!

That's sure unbiased, isn't it?

I wonder what they have to say about the "Left Behind" books?

:crazy:

(From mail, so I'll have to post the whole thing.)

Quashing the Allegations of 'The Da Vinci Code'

"The Da Vinci Code," which remains atop national bestseller lists, is a book
that has captured the imaginations of millions of readers. But I'm
concerned that the novel is spreading a false "gospel" that could convince
casual readers that the wonderful story of Jesus Christ is nothing but a
man-made fabrication that bears no merit.

Here's a brief rundown of the book: An extremist sect of the Catholic church
sends a monk on a killing spree, wiping out four noteworthy art figures who
are safeguarding age-old secret documents that allegedly prove that Jesus
Christ married Mary Magdalene, fathered a child with her and to this day
maintains a sacred bloodline.

This conjecture greatly concerns me, especially in this age of moral
relativism and situational ethics that take our society further and further
from the absolute truths of the Bible. As a result of my uneasiness with
the theories of "The Da Vinci Code," I asked two members of the theological
community at Liberty University to address the issues of this book in order
to dispel its hypotheses.

In a special interview in my National Liberty Journal newspaper, preeminent
Liberty professors Dr. Edward Hindson and Dr. Gary Habermas, experts in
church history and biblical theology, resourcefully defended the faith and
discounted the theories suggesting that the Bible is just another book and
that Jesus is an overall good guy - but certainly not the Son of God - who
had a secret romance with Mary Magdalene. (These speculations go beyond
"The Da Vinci Code," and have appeared in many recent non-fiction works. At
our local Barnes & Noble, an entire display of these books appear under the
heading, "Crack 'The Da Vinci Code.'")

In the interview, Dr. Hindson noted that modern-day "conspiracy theorists
are fascinated with trying to fill in the blanks of some unknown aspects of
Jesus' childhood, or his life; and these fanciful tales begin to be spun."

He continued, "I think that with many such modern writers, there probably is
an attempt to discredit the integrity of Christ in some way. I mean, it's
obvious that 'The Da Vinci Code' has a very strong secularist and
pro-feminist agenda. It's obviously a very anti-Christian thesis that the
author develops throughout the book."

Dr. Habermas added, "There is absolutely no early data leading us to believe
that Jesus was married or had a family. The Bible teaches the exact
opposite. Jesus never married, never had a romance. He came with a
solitary, heaven-inspired purpose - to provide a means of salvation to the
world. He didn't have time for a relationship! And we don't have any
reliable data suggesting anything else. There's nothing there. People on
wild-goose chases can speculate forever on these issues, but the absence of
timely historic data - data, I mean, that pre-dates or is from the same time
as the New Testament - makes their speculations factually ridiculous."

Asked about one of the novel's characters saying that "historical evidence"
proves that Jesus never portrayed Himself to be more than a mortal prophet,
Dr. Hindson challenged this notion.

"What these biblical detractors are essentially saying is that Jesus never
portrayed Himself to be anything more than a principled prophet. And that
is simply not true," he said.

In fact, Jesus clearly said, "I and the Father are One" (John 10: 30). And
He said, "... before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58). In many other biblical
references, Jesus makes comparable declarations.

Dr. Habermas added the best text showing Jesus making unambiguous claims to
be the God-Man is Mark 14:61-64: "Again, the high priest asked Him, saying
to Him, 'Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?' Jesus said, 'I am.
And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and
coming with the clouds of heaven.' Then the high priest tore his clothes
and said, 'What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the
blasphemy! ...'"

"This is absolutely the strongest affirmation of Jesus proclaiming His
Deity," said Dr. Habermas. "How much more assertively could He have made
this claim than to say, 'I am,' when asked this point-blank question by the
high priest. So even biblical critics should admit that we have texts which
say that Jesus claimed to be somebody special, someone who will occupy God's
throne."

Both men noted that Jesus' disciples would later give their lives defending
Christ. Dr. Hindson said, "They died for what they believed to be a fact of
history - that Jesus did in fact die on the cross and did literally rise
from the dead and announce that He would come again for His followers."

The disciples certainly didn't die believing that Jesus was just a pleasant
prophet; they died defending His claim to be the Son of God who came to save
the world.

I close this column with the remarkable words of C.S. Lewis, who brilliantly
defended the fact that Jesus was in fact God: "I am trying here to prevent
anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm
ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim
to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a
man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral
teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says
he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You can shut
Him up for a fool. You can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can
fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any
patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left
that open to us. He did not intend to."

To read the complete Hindson-Habermas interview/story, please visit the
National Liberty Journal website: http://www.nljonline.com

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. But why do they need to "debunk" it?

Stupid assmunches, and I mean that as meanly and aggressively as I can say it.

The book is NOT offered as truth; it says so, right on the cover flap thingy, "work of fiction". The author says "This is a novel".

No one associated with the book is trying to pass it off as truth.

Might as well go debunk Moby Dick or Sherlock Holmes or The Old Man and the Sea.

I wish those zealots would do something better with their time and resources and stop making the non-Christian world think that Christians are retarded, illogical, stupidity-driven imbecilic hate-filled drones.

[Catch22Dem]

2. No shit, it's a fiction novel

I think it's hilarious that they're so offended by it. By the way, I thorougly enjoyed it.

[Khephra]

3. Even if it wasn't offered up as fiction

I personally think there's a problem with people who go into a "study" of any topic without having an open mind. Falwell already made up his own mind, as he himself says. So, even if it wasn't offered up as fiction, it wouldn't matter to Falwell. He'd already made up his mind on the topic and only wanted to find "yes men" to repeat what he "knows" is the "Truth".

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. Yes, excellent point!

It is the fundamentalist way. I caught your reference the first time, but I'm so angered at the utter stupidity they show in even feeling the need to do this, that I didn't feel like commenting on the stupidity of "looking into it", but meaning "Show that it's false".

It's the same thing the Creation Scientists do, the same thing the Right Wing Christians do ALL the time about naerly EVERYTHING. Remember Ed Meese? We had countless reports on porn before Meese, and all they call came back saying "porn is not a problem", but Meese was directed to "Go find the correlation".

I'm so angry, I could spit.

And you don't have your eye on your post. I didn't even realize this thread was from you until now. :argh:

[Khephra]

8. I need to find a new server for my eye

They said I broke the rules by storing copyrighted material.

:shrug:

[Rabrrrrrr]

9. Your eye was copyrighted?

Bloody damn.

Put it up on the DU image server that so-and-so is running. Can't remember who, and I don't know where it is, but I'm sure there are hundreds here who can give you the info.

[Khephra]

10. Actually, I think it was the picture of Uncle Sam

Giving the fourth wall the finger that did it.

;-)

[Az]

11. Poaching

The reason something like this must be met with such a reaction from the religious right is because it plays in the same arena they make use of. In insisting on their mythology they have no direct evidence to present. So it is left to the imagination of their followers to go along with their claims. If someone comes along and comes up with a different subtexted to their story they will lose control of the direction they wish to push their followers. This is a very real danger for them.

[geniph]

15. Rabrrrrr, remember, you're talking about the same

intellectual giants that were threatened by the perceived sexual orientation of a stuffed toy on a children's television show.

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. Aye, this is true. And the pornographic cloud forms in Alladin

[The Sushi Bandit]

4. They are realy trying to cover-up that Jesus was GAY!

He slept with his disciples, didnt he?

http://mindprod.com/ggloss/wasjesusgay.html

[havocmom]

6. <havocmom picks herself off floor> Where to start?

or why bother?

"...the absolute truths of the Bible". How do you even have a constructive conversation when that statement crops up?

Dan Brown makes the case that the bible was an edited collection of carefully chosen stories/history/observation and uses metaphor and allegory to teach. Oh, never mind. Falwell will never entertain the notion that anyone but Falwell can have a credible opinion.

One small point: I am thinking Falwell hasn't even read the book, just the reviews. He doesn't strike me as the sort of chap who would avoid being a spoiler in arguing against a book... His accusations of what the book is about contain a critical error. Out of respect for Mr. Brown's work, I'll not post the spoiler that Falwell goofed on.

Jerry... stop fretting too much. You'll give yourself a stroke and where would the world be without your keen explanation of everything so no one has to think? </sarcasm>

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. Just like the zealot buttmunches who picketed and protested "Last Temptati

"Last Temptation" without EVER seeing the movie and thus knowing what the hell they're talking about.

[pansypoo53219]

12. well

da vinci probably was a pediphile.

[xchrom]

13. the truth of the bible, jerry,

is spiritual, not absolute.
but then again -- you know that and don't want to give up the power and control your current situation gives you.
there will be a day, jerry, and i hope you're still living when it gets here.

[Coventina]

14. *sigh* Nothing in "Da Vinci Code" is threatening to Christianity

The central tenet of Christianity is belief that Jesus died for your sins. Nowhere in Da Vinci Code does it say that Jesus did not die for the sins of the world. It only speculates about a possible marriage and offspring. Stunned me at first, (I consider myself a Christo-pagan) but after a minute I thought, "Why the heck should he not have been married & had a kid?"
:shrug:

Doesn't change who he was or what he did, from where I sit.

[Edge]

17. Much agreed.

This coming from a Christian. :)