The Da Vinci Code Lie Exposed

Originally posted by Nicksten
Some of you guys do write some nice posts. There is one or two I dont agree with though.

I am one of those people who go out to the movies and watch a movie or two once a week. I love fiction, action, love stories etc etc etc. But there is a fine line to where it comes to by using Jesus Christ name and mocking Him in movies, and the Da Vinci Code is one ...[text shortened]... o and see it or not, if you do, watch it on the big screen, its always better on the big screen.

But the movie doesn't mock Jesus.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Look at your style in this debate and then see if you can work out why I've had a pop at you.

I have looked at my posts and for the life of me still can't figure out why your such a delight to talk to. Did I ever call you a twit or stupid? No, I did not. By the way, it's not only me you disrespect, you diss Nicksten as well. He has been nothing but a gentleman on this thread. By the way, thank you for not calling me names on your last post. Perhaps we are making progress?

Originally posted by bbarr
But the movie doesn't mock Jesus.

No, it just mocks serious scholarship.

http://www.slate.com/id/2142157/?nav=fo

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No, it just mocks serious scholarship.

http://www.slate.com/id/2142157/?nav=fo

Would you expect anything less of Hollywood?

Originally posted by bbarr
What do you think it means to rely on the word of God? By 'word', do you mean merely what was written? If so, then I think you are construing Jesus incorrectly. I certainly think you are making a mistake if you think Jesus taught that failure to abide by the word of God would land you in an actual lake of fire. If he did teach this, then he ought not be taken seriously.

What do you think it means to rely on the word of God?
To live by, to count on, to place them in importance over one's own thoughts and designs.

By 'word', do you mean merely what was written?
"Merely" meaning in addition to? In Jesus' day, the Bible as they possessed it, was considered the word of God. Jesus and others were still receiving words from God, which necessarily had to agree with what they already possessed in order to be received as such.

If so, then I think you are construing Jesus incorrectly.
No offense, but given your opinion on other matters spiritual and/or specifically related to Jesus' teachings, I'll stick with my perspective on the matter.

I certainly think you are making a mistake if you think Jesus taught that failure to abide by the word of God would land you in an actual lake of fire.
Please see above response.

If he did teach this, then he ought not be taken seriously.
Case in point for why your opinion ought not to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No, it just mocks serious scholarship.

http://www.slate.com/id/2142157/?nav=fo

How dare a Hollywood blockbuster based on a novel be so negligent! If I were you, I'd starve myself to death in protest. What idiocy!

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No, it just mocks serious scholarship.

I had the exact same reaction when I saw ET.

Originally posted by whodey
I have looked at my posts and for the life of me still can't figure out why your such a delight to talk to. Did I ever call you a twit or stupid? No, I did not. By the way, it's not only me you disrespect, you diss Nicksten as well. He has been nothing but a gentleman on this thread. By the way, thank you for not calling me names on your last post. Perhaps we are making progress?

Nicksten's original post was the most unbelievable patronising guff.

Please call me a twit or stupid if you want. I enjoy a robust debating style. Its nothing to do with disrespect. I'm just telling you how I feel. If you don't like it please reply robustly.

Edit: you're a twit (I thought I should throw that in just to keep my average up. Don't take it personally)

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Nicksten's original post was the most unbelievable patronising guff.

Please call me a twit or stupid if you want. I enjoy a robust debating style. Its nothing to do with disrespect. I'm just telling you how I feel. If you don't like it please reply robustly.

Edit: you're a twit (I thought I should throw that in just to keep my average up. Don't take it personally)

You are a peice of work.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Nicksten's original post was the most unbelievable patronising guff.

Please call me a twit or stupid if you want. I enjoy a robust debating style. Its nothing to do with disrespect. I'm just telling you how I feel. If you don't like it please reply robustly.

Edit: you're a twit (I thought I should throw that in just to keep my average up. Don't take it personally)

Listen, you stupid twit: when a debater resorts to attacks on the person (look up the Latin yourself, moron) as opposed to discussing the relevant issues of the topic, it is a sure sign that the debater is unarmed for the stated confrontation.

There: are we now having a "robust" debate?

Originally posted by aardvarkhome

Please call me a twit or stupid if you want. I enjoy a robust debating style.

If I called someone a "twitty twit", would the two insults cancel each other out, or should the individual in question consider it a twofer?

Hypothetically speaking that is.

-JC

Originally posted by whodey
You are a peice of work.

Don't worry about Aardvark. Dish it back to him for a bit and you'll be best of friends. 😉