Question for Muslims

[Hobbs]

I've neither read the books or watched the movies. The first book was so full of grammatical errors, I wondered if the editor even read it before greenlighting it.

Both men and women steer evolution. It takes mutations between the genes of both parents, mind you.

It's not just within Latin America that Mary is venerated. That's a bit stereotypical. She's venerated throughout the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church. She started to lose that as denominations moved farther and farther away from Catholicism.

The Church does not believe that Jesus married Mary Magdelene, and there's no proof that He did. So there's no cover-up.

[Fryk]

True, Hobbes, but generally speaking in nature (and in human nature) it is the female who selects the traits that a potential mate must have in order for her to mate with him.

[Hobbs]

That's a bit pessimistic. I generally believed that it was mutual attraction. As for "selecting" much of human history is full of forced and arranged marriages.

Oh, and it's "Hobbs" not "Hobbes." One is my name, the other is not.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Actually I believe the other one is in fact a cartoon stuffed tiger with apparent magical powers...

Also, isn't if fair to say that men choose who they go after and women choose who to accept? by-and-large historically speaking I mean...

[Fryk]

That's a bit pessimistic. I generally believed that it was mutual attraction. As for "selecting" much of human history is full of forced and arranged marriages.

Oh, and it's "Hobbs" not "Hobbes." One is my name, the other is not.

But silent e's are coooooooooooooool!!!! Ok, it was a dumb mistake. From now on, as penance, feel free to call me Fryke.

I was speaking more in terms of nature and natural selection, not society.

[Hobbs]

I was actually contemplating doing that, but I didn't want to chance being thought of as snarky once again.

Within nature, wasn't it men who dominated early hominid societies?

[HYHYBT]

Popular wisdom is that, while women are selective, men will go for anything that moves. Or, rather, anything that doesn't move fast enough.

It doesn't ring true with the people I know, though.

Dangit.

[Fryk]

You might be right, Hobbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.

And I wouldn't have taken that as snarky. Well, I WOULD, but it would be well-deserved snark, that I would except with full pomp and circumstance.

So, it's all good, [-e*(Hobbes)]

[draggar]

The Church does not believe that Jesus married Mary Magdelene, and there's no proof that He did. So there's no cover-up.

If you really want to get technical there's no proof that Jesus actually existed. There are no records of him existing around the time he did. The oldest known documentation of him existing are from around the second to fourth century (100-300AD).

There are so many assumptions about him with very little fact.

But I digress.

So, if you didn't watch the movies or read the books then how do you know he painted the church with such a bad image? Don't tell me you just believed people's opinions who actually did read them?

[HYHYBT]

And here I thought demanding to see *Obama's* birth certificate was silly

[Hobbs]

If you really want to get technical there's no proof that Jesus actually existed. There are no records of him existing around the time he did. The oldest known documentation of him existing are from around the second to fourth century (100-300AD).

There are so many assumptions about him with very little fact.

But I digress.

So, if you didn't watch the movies or read the books then how do you know he painted the church with such a bad image? Don't tell me you just believed people's opinions who actually did read them?

I saw the tv specials on History Channel.

It paints one priest as being a fanatical flaggelant. You're saying that's not painting my religion in a bad picture?

My beliefs are based on faith, and as such, I don't need your petty "proof-ness"

[smileyeagle1021]

So, if you didn't watch the movies or read the books then how do you know he painted the church with such a bad image?

He actually does paint a rather damning image of the Church in the Davinci Code, he pulls no punches in painting a colorful picture of the Church's darker history, but he does not do so in a way where there can be no redemption... he allows Fausch to realize that he was duped and still keep his faith, he gives Tom Hanks the oppurtunity to defend the Church's future with the message that one's past need not determine their future.

Angels and Demons doesn't really hold punches on the Church's past either, but it does paint the modern church as overall an organization with a great potential for good (or evil, there is always that implication that which can go good can go evil) where one man with delusions of granduere went over the edge and nearly took everyone with him.

Is it the most flattering picture that could be painted? No, of course not. That doesn't necassarily mean that he's set out to write a book to destroy the church.

[draggar]

I saw the tv specials on History Channel.

It paints one priest as being a fanatical flaggelant. You're saying that's not painting my religion in a bad picture?

So you saw a TV show about the book? That makes a lot of sense.

So you're saying that all priests are the same? You say "it paints one priest as being a fanatical flaggelant" and insinuate that it paints the religion in a bad picture. Talk about generalizing.

[AdminAssistant]

It paints one priest as being a fanatical flaggelant. You're saying that's not painting my religion in a bad picture?

It also states quite explicitly, in the book and the movie, that 'the Albino' (what was his name?) is a member of a radical sect, Agnus Dei. I personally found the books to be interesting works of historical fiction, and that's all.

[smileyeagle1021]

It also states quite explicitly, in the book and the movie, that 'the Albino' (what was his name?) is a member of a radical sect, Agnus Dei. I personally found the books to be interesting works of historical fiction, and that's all.

Silas, and it was Opus Dei... not that I've nearly memorized the book or anything