Is there secret in Da Vinci Painting
-
Yes, but then it follows that Dan Brown made his conclusions made from facts... facts that are shown to be in error. It then logically follows that the conclusion is quite wrong.Originally posted by skyfoo:but u gotta realise that the 'researched facts' are not so facts after all. it's just conclusions made.
For example Dan Brown makes this bizzare claim that Judasim was decended from Pagan fertility religions, making this conclusion from the 'fact' that early temple worship in Judasim involving having ritualistic sex in the holies of holies.
This is a most bizzare claim that certainly even any secular expert on Judaism would refute. Judaism was a concept of God quite devoid of any gender whatsoever, and in fact the hebrew language even lacks a word for goddess. Wherever that fact, (and the following conclusion) came from... Dan Brown must have plucked it out of thin air.
One might buy an alternative theory about Christianity, but I would think Dan Brown's version is one of the weaker ones. There are better ones out there that would stand up better to debate.
If Christianity is a lie, very well then, but what good is trading one lie for another lie? In any case, be Christianity true of false, Dan Brown's version of it is certainly a lie, and a rather big one at that.
I could make a series of conclusions that Singapore was founded in 1999, but of course if the facts I made my conclusions on are false... then my conclusion is but a work of fiction... and is fiction worth staking one's life on? Would I like to live my life by a lie?
Imagine somebody tells me that my house is on fire and I have to get out, but I choose to disbelieve this person based on false facts (I never bothered to check out) that made me conclude that this person is lying. Will holding onto this false conclusion save me from the fire? -
Now I am beginning to understand why some Catholics and Christians are against the screening of the movie.
Some people who posted here were precisely those they fear.
Well, The Da Vinci Code is just a novel. Fiction capitalising on facts. If choosing to believe that it actually reveals the truth, that's your decision.
But the truth will prevail, regardless of what you say, or what you choose to believe. -
so i wld say, in short, everything is a mystery. god or no, it's just mystery. dun u agree?
-
or there could be some truths in it after all, that the Church are trying to cover up. who knows?Originally posted by ellisbeck:Now I am beginning to understand why some Catholics and Christians are against the screening of the movie.
Some people who posted here were precisely those they fear.
Well, The Da Vinci Code is just a novel. Fiction capitalising on facts. If choosing to believe that it actually reveals the truth, that's your decision.
But the truth will prevail, regardless of what you say, or what you choose to believe. -
I don't think you got my point. It does not matter. Truths are defined by Earthly Beings.Originally posted by skyfoo:or there could be some truths in it after all, that the Church are trying to cover up. who knows? -
May God bless u all...
-
-
Originally posted by Apache766:
i bless myself, not somebody or something else.
[b]May God bless u all...
[/b] -
can we move on? this topic is passe.
-
someone trying to divert attention bah
-
No cup? That means Da Vinci draw wrongly lor.Originally posted by nightzip:one thing is obvious and has been stated by Ian McKellan in the movie....the painting has no cups, grails or chalice?
so what are the people drinking? pure eating without drinks can be very very very dry for your throat leh....
-
ya very foundations of mankind such as mistakes and forgetful. eg. Da Vinci forgot to draw the cups and a little bit of moustache on John.Originally posted by Apache766:Can u handle the truth?
The truth which will shake the very foundations of mankind..... -
Good lor. once the mystery is solved, come back and tell us lor.Originally posted by Apache766:I will get to the bottom of the mystery -
That may be very true, but I believe the real task is to dig up the real truth, if any, that the Church is trying to hide. What is the point of making up more lies that we 'dug' up to decieve ourselves with that?Originally posted by skyfoo:or there could be some truths in it after all, that the Church are trying to cover up. who knows?
If we like something we do know to be below our own standards of truthfulness simply because it happens to confirm what we like to believe... does it not mean that we don't really seek the truth as much as we liked to say it in the first place...
And if we don't like the truth in the first place, what right do we have to accuse the church of covering up the truth? The claims of the Da Vinci Code should only be accepted if we know they make a strong and truthful case... not because one hates Christianity and would love to see any kind of mud stick. -
he only live for three years?Originally posted by vince69:Leonardo da Vinci lived from AD 1495 till AD 1497
The painting is in the first post "The Last Supper" is completed around AD 1498, so only about 500+ years old, and had went through several restoration after that. The person whose face was circled is actually the Apostle John.
-
argue so much for what? only da vinci himself will know the truth.
-
Umm... You can't say that. Do you mean that reading Da Vinci Code can change one's faith about Christianity, which you believe is bad? Then in the first place you are assuming that Christianity is the only true and good religion for all humans, which is not necessary true. Saying something like this is very self-centred and a great disrespect for other religions, as well as freethinkers.Originally posted by laurence82:reading too much of dan brown's works can be good or bad -
Originally posted by Honeybunz:No cup? That means Da Vinci draw wrongly lor.
That thing on the left wall looks like a chalice. -
Hi good catch, my mistake....Originally posted by darkensun:he only live for three years?
here is the correct dates
(April 15, 1452 – May 2, 1519)
cheers -
The problem (if one might call it that) about truth is that it is exclusive and very unforgiving of anything outside of it. Even making the claim that all truth is subjective is in effect, stating an absolute truth in itself that the person making that claim expects to impose on everybody else.Originally posted by chenc:Then in the first place you are assuming that Christianity is the only true and good religion for all humans, which is not necessary true. Saying something like this is very self-centred and a great disrespect for other religions, as well as freethinkers.
In short, I don't think people make the truth for themselves, rather they try to see it. The real question and debate is of course, whose view of truth is closer to it then the other.
This means that out there, there is an absolute truth that has to apply to everybody, and demands something from everybody.
The real question then, is not if Christianity (or any form of thought) is being self-centered or disrespectful in making their absolute truth claims... but rather if their claims are true.
If the claims of Christianity (or any other belief) to be the true are correct, then it would not be self-centered at all to say that only it is good for all people. In fact it would be important to say so.
It's like saying that oxygen should not be always said to be as if it was the only gas required for humans to survive, for it is being self-centered and disrespectful to other gases.
No, I believe the real question is if Christianity (as with any other absolute claim) is true, not if it is self-centered. For if it was true one must certainly make no compromise with it. -
STFU and go sleep. It is lateOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The problem (if one might call it that) about truth is that it is exclusive and very unforgiving of anything outside of it. Even making the claim that all truth is subjective is in effect, stating an absolute truth in itself that the person making that claim expects to impose on everybody else.
In short, I don't think people make the truth for themselves, rather they try to see it. The real question and debate is of course, whose view of truth is closer to it then the other.
This means that out there, there is an absolute truth that has to apply to everybody, and demands something from everybody.
The real question then, is not if Christianity (or any form of thought) is being self-centered or disrespectful in making their absolute truth claims... but rather if their claims are true.
If the claims of Christianity (or any other belief) to be the true are correct, then it would not be self-centered at all to say that only it is good for all people. In fact it would be important to say so.
It's like saying that oxygen should not be always said to be as if it was the only gas required for humans to survive, for it is being self-centered and disrespectful to other gases.
No, I believe the real question is if Christianity (as with any other absolute claim) is true, not if it is self-centered. For if it was true one must certainly make no compromise with it. -
that's a stain.Originally posted by dahliamorie:
That thing on the left wall looks like a chalice. -
It is alright to believe in your very own faith. However, this touch of self-centreness came when Christian groups are trying to ban the movie. Banning it means no one, no matter what religion or belief, cannot view the movie even if it is only for entertainment. Is this fair to all other religions and believes?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The problem (if one might call it that) about truth is that it is exclusive and very unforgiving of anything outside of it. Even making the claim that all truth is subjective is in effect, stating an absolute truth in itself that the person making that claim expects to impose on everybody else.
In short, I don't think people make the truth for themselves, rather they try to see it. The real question and debate is of course, whose view of truth is closer to it then the other.
This means that out there, there is an absolute truth that has to apply to everybody, and demands something from everybody.
The real question then, is not if Christianity (or any form of thought) is being self-centered or disrespectful in making their absolute truth claims... but rather if their claims are true.
If the claims of Christianity (or any other belief) to be the true are correct, then it would not be self-centered at all to say that only it is good for all people. In fact it would be important to say so.
It's like saying that oxygen should not be always said to be as if it was the only gas required for humans to survive, for it is being self-centered and disrespectful to other gases.
No, I believe the real question is if Christianity (as with any other absolute claim) is true, not if it is self-centered. For if it was true one must certainly make no compromise with it.
Singapore censorship board had made a right choice by not banning the show but putting age restrictions to it. In this way, hopefully that both the Christians and non-christians out there will be satisfied. -
Let's see what will happen when similar thing happens to other religions. But most likely there will be none occuring to them.
-
Just like how some people believe in aliens or government conspiracies.Originally posted by Apache766:I dont believe it again. I believe the Da Vinci code is real and the painting has a horrible secret.