The Da Vinci Code

Post Reply New Topic

thats the premise of the book that mary magdelene carried jesus child,(wichwas the holy grail the holy blood line) she escaped to the south france, her child married into the Merovingian dynasty was guarderd by the knights templar both were heretics, and were knocked off by the Carolingians(the sons of charlemagne) and there is a conspicacy to conver up the fact jesus had child and massive hunt to find the documents and her remains and destroy them. the merovigians have no middle eastern dna

and she is not in the painting. it john it was the style to paint men as femine in the renasance. and since when is a painting evidence of anything?

thats the premise of the book that mary magdelene carried jesus child,(wichwas the holy grail the holy blood line) she escaped to the south france, her child married into the Merovingian dynasty was guarderd by the knights templar both were heretics, and were knocked off by the Carolingians(the sons of charlemagne) and there is a conspicacy to conver up the fact jesus had child and massive hunt to find the documents and her remains and destroy them. the merovigians have no middle eastern dna

and she is not in the painting. it john it was the style to paint men as femine in the renasance. and since when is a painting evidence of anything?

That's the apostle John.

Never said the painting was evidence of anything, I was just refuting your claims and saying that the book is just going against Christian teachings that have also been proven bunk, despite widespread denial of that. I'm not familiar enough with the apostle John to refute your claims that it's actually him, but regardless, Da Vinci was indeed supposed to be a prankster in his painting, especially when it came to the paintings he did for the Catholic Church, so he may have just claimed it to be the apostle John. Maybe it is, maybe it's Magdelene. There's no way to tell what the painter's true intent was, is there? However, admittedly just because a bunch of people from the Renaissance believed in this doesn't mean it's true.

I knew the premise of the book (I have read it after all), I just don't see the importance of Merovingian middle-eastern DNA. I mean, yeah, Jesus's kid marries into the Merovingian family, but that doesn't mean that she was the one to carry on the bloodline. She could have married the brother who didn't inherit the throne, or something like that. Dynasties can change their bloodlines, and as generations pass certain roots and branches of the family tree can become so distant that they lead off of the family tree. And never forget the importance of infidelity. There are quite a few people living today--such as myself--who have very distant roots to people like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington due to their more frivolous activities. What I'm getting at is, there are a lot of explainations for why the Merovingian family had no middle-eastern DNA.

Additionally, it's always possible that they, in fact, did and that they weren't allowed to be truthful in their findings. Religion, like the government, has quite a lot of control of the media. You can be threatened into lying, for the sake of your job or the welfare of your family. Christianity is extremely persistant about hiding its more untruthful aspects.

If I'm forgetting or getting mixed up on a few details, I appologize--I haven't read the book in quite some time. Basically, I just think that there's no way to tell for sure--no sources can truly be trusted, that book included. The only reason why I believe SOME of what the book says is because it fits in perfectly with my image and outlook on the Christian Church and how it has historically been run. The bottom line, though, is that the book's a work of fiction--just a very fascinating one. That's not to say it doesn't have any facts, however. I'm not as big of a believer in all of what it says, I'm just defending the book...hah. I'm not an expert though. I really have no idea of Jesus did have a kid with Mag for sure, but I do believe that he was a man, not a god.

because it fits your image and conception of something is a bad thing to do. how do you know your image is correct? most of what you hear about the catholic church is protestant and later enlightment propaganda and now postmordenist revismis. protestants wrote most of the history of the history of the church and they had an obvious agenda. The protetsant revolution took off not because of the gutenburg press but because of the german and scandinavian princeses who were sick of paying taxes that went to rome and france. they could of shut down the presses in heart beat if they wanted to. they preffered not to. not to mention long standing germanic- rome tensions that went way back before the dawn of christianity The spanish inquistion- held at the behest of queen isaballa and king ferdinad to get at thier domestic politcal enemies and consoladet their rule other words the state and not the church. no more than 2,000 people were exceuted(legitmate sort of cant build an empire without busting a few a heads). the inquistors were brought in from outside and payed by the spanish monarchy. the local priests and bishops were aguast and tried to protect thier parishishnors froms them. the actual inquistion was a rudimentary justice system setup by the church to hear cases and hold those officials accoutable. the bad treatment of the indegionous peoples of the americas; again the spanish state; the spanish soldiers were the scum of the earth(wellington said the same about the british soldier),(for most of history thats what the common soldier was; when war was emminant the jails the taverns the thieves dens the work houses were all emptied the baddies impressed into service) the priests who went along with the conquest were agast at the soldiers behavior and tried(and failed) thier best to have the conquered peoples rights and lands respected witch burning - everyone at the time was high on lsd. europe had gone through a mini ice age. everything was cold and wet perfect for the ergot fungus, wich has been found in acient grain store, it infects wheat and barely and looks like regular grain if your not paying attention. all that violence you attribute to christaniaty, not so much, the dark and early middle ages were just violent in general and had a lack of government, your thinking is post treaty of westphalia when the government seized a monopoly on warfare. prior to that anyone could engange in warfare. all on their own. against anyone. for any reason. you just had to say i declare war on you, give them by convention a 2-4 notice and you could go and kill them( except if you were a priest, any priest that kills anyone, period, is in big trouble, they are suppose lose thier privileges protections, get handed over to the state for trial, and they are excomincated wich means they go to hell not heaven, a priest is supposed to die rather than take life, (cant even shed a drop of blood) even in self defense ) of course that person could kill the other guy back upon reciept of the declaration. another example galileo. Contratry to what you have heard, he was not a victum of religious perscution. Galieo was a friend of the pope who was a great patron of the arts.(catholic philosphy created science, that you could understand the world through the use of reason and that you should do so) galeos professioal rivals got him, they were mad he introduced math into physics, and so they pulled strings to screw him over. the pope tried to protect him as much as he could, he let him publish his work as a hypothetical. Relating back to those rivals, they lied and said galieo made fun of his friend. he was given house arrest and allowed to continue his work. he would gotten nothing at all if the 67 year war hadden been raging. the pope could just not afford to give more fuel to the fire. as for helping the nazis escape
well they helped jews escape too. the church has a long standing traditon of santuary. (think the hunch back of notre dam) if your fleeing perscution, if you can get to a certain church or monastasty, and ask the priest or monk for help he has to help has feed clothe house and protect you with his life, and spirit you away from danger, no matter who you are or what you have done period, they have to take you in and find a place for you. see what i mean, what you dont find in the history book can fill 100 history books. sorry if i a rambled

Woah woah woah, I said Christian church, not Catholic church. Hah, calm down...I have studied the Protestant Revolution, Martin Luther, etc. in AP Euro, and you are right, there is much that the history books don't cover. (A lot of history's basically propaganda about the past, in a way.) I'm just as anti-Protestant as I am anti-Catholic...I'm just anti-Christian in general. People can believe what they want, yeah, but the Christian religions all bleed intollerance. Not every Christian is, but--well, it tells you something when people try convering you in third grade. I also do agree that it's not always good to believe something just because it fits your pre-established opinion of what it deals with, but for this I make an exception. I won't believe every bad thing I hear about Christianity, no, but if I hear about them trying to cover something up or trying to violently convert people, I'm inclined to believe it because the religion's many forms have done both again and again. I know that in a way that makes me intollerant, but I'm not intollerant of people believing in any of the religion's forms--just the organization as a whole. (I just dislike organized religion in general....)

about tolerance. tolerance is not an whole idea, its just a tactic and not even whole one at that. It more of personaliy trait. tolerance and intolerance are actually the same thing. like flammable and inflamable. intolerance say your automaiticly and unthinkly supposed be against something before you even hear the idea. tolerance says the same in reverse. your supposed to be automotically For, or atleast never oppose, something just because. both are very unfree propositions. tolerance is not so much a value as a lack of them

Your also indavertly lumping cults in with religion. pascal and (maestroson?) created ad defination of authentic reliogion

Your also forgetting about state of nature. Rules do not exist between civilazations, except ones that have been contracted. attempting to setup an alien civilation within the borders of an existing one is an act of war.

Also again it was a jesuit priest who developed the idea people having rights. to be fair as an example buddhists have a long history of bloodshed. the shoalin monks(who were by the way not organised) were guerrilla fighters who fought the chinese emperors and killed anyone who supported the dynasties, terrorists really. they fled to tibet and became pacificistic only after having been military routed.

Sweden was also a major military power at some point, until they were defeated. and then turn extremly pacifiist

i apoligize if i sound curt, im getting off a major life crisis, and i dont have many oppurtunities to talk about things with people

this is not really correct, if an individual lacked values, there would be no need for tolerance, as the lack of any values would preclude the possibilty of something being intollerable. tollerance is about accepting that others may hold different values than yourself, and reasoning that since they are free individuals, they deserve the right not to be persecuted on the grounds of their beliefs/values/actions. and conversely, intolerance also inherently requires a system of values or beliefs, for the smae reason.
in the context of the discussion, the previous poster was making the point that he is not intolerant of christians per se, (since he obviously believes in individual rights of freedom of thought and belief), but is intollerant of the collective actions of organised christianity. (possibly because of the lack of tolerance displayed therein).
its not the same as your flammable arguement, in this instance, for intolerant, you could substitute non-tolerant. i think you've become confused due to inconsistencies of the english language.

An aAaAaAa-lien civilization, oooooh! Nice one, McCarthy.

I never said anything about cults--stop putting words in my mouth, honestly! How am I lumping them together? By saying that to me, religion is basically bull? That doesn't mean I consider it the same as cults--cults, like scientology, are scams to get money out of people by manipulating them with false belief. Religion, conversely, is more about controlling people and their values, and using the idea of God to justify immoral actions.




I'd really appreciate it if, the next time you were responding to one of my posts, you'd actually explain what the heck you're talking about and how it relates to what I've said.




Don't appologize for being curt, just try to explain how what you're saying relates to what I've said. It seems you're just rabbling on about things without ever connecting them to what I've been saying. Forgive my lack of understanding.

I have never read the book, but I heard it makes children books like Percy Jackson look well written and for the highly educated. Just saying.

Wait, I am actually insulting the Percy Jackson books there. Sorry.