Comments | terrylj: My Big Fat Da Vinci Code Post

terrylj

My Big Fat Da Vinci Code Post

May 25, 2006 10:05

Geoffrey Chaucer hath a blog.

http://syndicated.livejournal.com/chaucerhathblog/

And in one post (link follows), he hath written (in Reallye Olde Englishe verse, of course) the first chapter of what he calls a "romaunce thrillere", tentatively titled "The Ciphere of Leonardo".

The man on ( Read more... )

religious stupidity, humor, book discussions, religion

Comments 11

eldritchhobbit May 25 2006, 15:12:38 UTC

My own take on the subject, which I have already expressed in Moggy's comments, is basically as follows.

LOL! Great comebacks. :)

mosinging1986 May 25 2006, 16:04:52 UTC

Well, questions of Jesus’ marriage or divinity were hardly the biggest problems in the book. But I’ve pretty much given up trying to talk to people about these sorts of things. Most don’t care one way or the other. Those who do have an interest refuse to look at any factual information because ‘we all have our own truth’. I’m about ready to pack my bags and head for some other country where people have a real interest in learning about Christ. It’s not fair that we have such easy access to information (and so MUCH information) in this country, and yet people outright refuse it.

You win at the internets. kalquessa May 25 2006, 16:49:17 UTC

Ich wille thyne fangyrle bee frome hence forth aye und evere.

The Chaucer blog version is genius. Have added the LJsynd to my friendslist (darn it, and I just cleaned that thing out, too!).

The most pressing question I have for Mr. Brown is: If jesus was, in fact, a regular dude who got married, had kids, was crucified and then failed to be resurrected...then who the deuce cares if anyone is descended from him? I've got lots of average dudes in my family tree, too, but so far I haven't discovered any secret societies bent on keeping this fact as secret.

Re: You win at the internets. terrylj May 25 2006, 17:07:50 UTC

Well, but nobody has founded several world religions around you.

Yet. :D

so far I haven't discovered any secret societies bent on keeping this fact as secret.

Well of course you haven't discovered them. They're secret. Not all secret societies are as inept as the Priorities of Simon.

Re: You win at the internets. kalquessa May 25 2006, 17:10:37 UTC

Well, but nobody has founded several world religions around you.

Yet. :D

True, but it's only a matter of time. :D

My secret societies are a little smarter, so they avoid high-profile Europeans and artists prone to leaving obvious clues in their paintings.

miss_becki May 26 2006, 04:01:38 UTC

If Jesus was God manifest in flesh, then no amount of disbelief is going to change that. If he wasn't, then no amount of belief is going to change that either.
I love the way you think, girl!

terrylj May 26 2006, 13:04:35 UTC

I just get so aggravated when people are all, "Oh, well, I have a right to believe this or that or the other." Yes, you DO have a right to believe it. But you have a responsibility to recognize that your belief isn't going to change what's true.

People on LSD might sincerely believe they can fly. But when they open the window and jump, they crash every single time. Because what they sincerely believed didn't change what was really true.

mark_landon May 26 2006, 16:23:56 UTC

Oh give me a break. Read my comment to her. Obviously no amount of belief is going to change the facts of the God-head one way or the other. That's freaking not the point! Disbelief one way or the other WILL influence what other people believe. And that is the point. Of why we're all still here, spreading the good news of Jesus Christ.

Just TRY and picture, real quick, this propoganda coming out during the early church days. Do you think the apostles would've put up with this? Don't we have the same mission they did?

mark_landon May 26 2006, 16:17:23 UTC

--OMG it's critical of Jesus!
Nowadays, what ISN'T critical of Jesus? If Jesus is really God, He can take care of himself, can't He? And do you think He's really worried about His image?

Right, so it's OK to support yet another thing that's critical? Because there's already so much of it, it makes it OK to jump on board with it? You don't think He's worried about His image? What do you think the great commission is? How about if I be lifted up, I'll draw all men unto me? Not if I be taken down, or made fun of. That's not going to lead anybody to Him. I bet you think it's OK to watch Will & Grace.

--It will influence millions of people to disbelieve!
If those people are getting their religious beliefs from the fiction section of the library, then they're probably already halfway to Scientology, and you can't help them.So you think everybody has your background and can stand up to deceit the same way you can? My little church alone is full of kids who come from horrible backgrounds. At youth service Sunday night when the ( ... )

terrylj May 26 2006, 16:59:31 UTC

Right, so it's OK to support yet another thing that's critical?

There's a difference between "supporting it" and "refusing to freak out about it". That's what my post was all about. I refuse to think that this is the worst thing to ever happen to Christianity.

Sure, debate the historical merits of the movie (not many), spread the truth and enlighten people whenever you can. But getting hysterical about it and trying to have it banned is not going to win you any more friends than walking up to people on the street and informing them that they're going to hell. It's the same mentality at work in both cases.

(As you said, this is a hypothetical "you", not you personally. We really need to adopt the formal British "one".)

mark_landon May 26 2006, 17:13:30 UTC

I agree freaking out about it is pointless. Trying to have it banned? Eh, a good cause in my opinion, to the extent that you can portray yourself as working towards a goal and not as a Freaked-Out Nut. I say have it banned because I do think this is one of the worst things to happen to Christianity. There have been many blatant, devastating attacks on Christians and Christianity, but they are seen as such and aren't going to further the cause of the people who instigated them. This is not so much an attack as it is an infiltration, which is infinitely worse. To plant little seeds of disbelief here and there about the foundations of Christianity is excessively detrimental. And so in the end I guess my point is that I'm angry/saddened that there are many Christians who don't see this as something that's working against them and therefore they are lacadazical(sp?) in countering it ( ... )