# Da Vinci Code movie



## Matty B. (20 May 2006)

Just curious about the history of the chevron...

I just read Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" and saw the movie. Brown says that the ^ chevron represents masculinity (the phallus) and the v chevron represents femininity (the vagina/chalice).

My question is: (for people who have read/ seen the film) does anyone have any historical information about the chevron? Why does America use the upward chevron whilst Canada and Britain use the downward chevron?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 May 2006)

Matty B. said:
			
		

> Just curious about the history of the chevron...
> 
> I just read Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" and saw the movie. Brown says that the ^ chevron represents masculinity (the phallus) and the v chevron represents femininity (the vagina/chalice).
> 
> My question is: (for people who have read/ seen the film) does anyone have any historical information about the chevron? Why does America use the upward chevron whilst Canada and Britain use the downward chevron?



Canada and Britain use both; appointment badges for pipe majors, drum majors and bugle majors point up; it used to be the insignia for a sergeant major also before 1915. Good Conduct Badges up until Unification also pointed upwards.

The Da Vinci Code is fiction and much "research" in it has been called into question.

FWIW there is good info on military rank insignia at wikipedia.org - use at your own risk.


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 May 2006)

Actually, the chevron is a modified horseshoe shape.  The word is derived from ancient Frankish, CHEV-horse, later Cheval in French, and RON-  The name of the very first farrier in mythology.  The V chevron indicates a horseshoe in it's propper position, so the luck doesn't fall out......

That's all I got, the creativity fornets are quiet today..... 8)


----------



## paracowboy (20 May 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> The Da Vinci Code is fiction and much "research" in it has been called into question.


exactly. It was thoroughly de-bunked by Nat'l Geographic, among others.


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 May 2006)

The first bit of research that many who have concerns over the Da Vinci Code should have done can be found at dictionary.com:



> fic·tion
> n.
> 
> 1.
> ...



The purpose of the Da Vinci Code was simple: to sell books to readers of fiction.  I am sure that Dan Brown welcomes every bit of controversy that leads new readers to purchase his book(s).  You couldn't buy that kind of advertising.  It's a successful novel, not because of the merits of its content, or the quality of writing, but because it has sold lots of copies.


----------



## Enzo (20 May 2006)

Seems the movie had a scene (only saw a trailer so I'm on weak ground here) where Hanks is showing icons and the human bias that accompanies each, i.e., the swastika's meaning to a Nazi vs. some of certain faiths in India, etc.

So, for one there is a meaning that may be contradicted by another, hence the Da Vinci reference's application to any of the aforementioned militiaries.

As for the book, it's a brilliantly executed concept and the author is reaping his success. This subject isn't exactly ground breaking (tour your pick of many churches/museums in France and they'll laugh over this subject) and all he did was create a story around it. It's entertainment and to rally against it is to simply increase the promotion of the material - no such thing as bad advertising. It's in the same vein as _National Treasure's_ and _From Hell's_ connections to the Mason's. So enjoy guilt free if you choose to, or go to _Kinky Boots_ if you'd prefer and put lots of "REAL" butter on your ginormous bag of popcorn. :cheers:


----------



## paracowboy (20 May 2006)

never read the book, having learned shortly after it's publication that it was formulated on the writings of some whacko chick named Songbird, who took her theories from a novel titled Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent. Her books, and therefore Brown's, are blatant plagierism of his hypothsis. And I despise the idea of these people claiming his idea as their own, and making money off it. But, I digress.

But, I have found that it stimulated a lot of interesting documentaries debunking the entire theory, though. Very informative, from a historical perspective.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 May 2006)

I still prefer the more factually accurate "Monty Python's Holy Grail"!  ;D

p.s.  To give you an indication about how the movie panders to American understanding of the issue, Ron Howard even went as far as to add American police car siren sound effects to the London Metro Police vehicles, as opposed to the proper "hi-low" horns that almost all European countries use...it kind of added a "Dukes of Hazzard" element to those particular scenes in the movie... :

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Enzo (21 May 2006)

Doesn't exist until Hollywood says it does  ;D


----------



## paracowboy (21 May 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> To give you an indication about how the movie panders to American understanding of the issue, Ron Howard even went as far as to add American police car siren sound effects to the London Metro Police vehicles, as opposed to the proper "hi-low" horns that almost all European countries use...it kind of added a "Dukes of Hazzard" element to those particular scenes in the movie...


that's kind of understandable. America is where the over-whelming majority of Hollywood's money comes from. Opie ain't stupid.


----------



## swanita (22 May 2006)

So, this  being the big movie weekend for Da Vinci Code......what are the thoughts behind the movie, or book, & the story it presents.....

I haven't seen the movie as of yet but have read the book & found it an interesting read. Not sure if i believe the story line though but who's to say in the absolute positive in either direction?? Thoughts.....??  ???


----------



## George Wallace (22 May 2006)

It is a work of Fiction.  A work of fiction based around a Historical event.  Would you ask the same question on the movie "The Guns of Navarone (1961)",  or "Battle of the Bulge (1965)" , or perhaps the movie "Kelly's Heroes (1970)" ?  I am sure that you wouldn't.  So why ask about this work of fiction?


----------



## Old Sweat (22 May 2006)

Further to George's points, the book is a work of fiction, pure and simple. It is based on conjecture, a mish-mash of unrelated events and misstatements of historical record. Even with the turgid prose, it is an interesting read and quite an entertaining thriller. However it is no more factual than the Space Aliens Kidnapped Elvis genre of story in the supermarket check out tabloids. (I know I am going to be sorry for the preceding sentence.)


----------



## George Wallace (22 May 2006)

Watch it......you'll have everyone heading to Tweed, Ontario to seek out Elvis, if you keep it up.


----------



## paracowboy (22 May 2006)

it's a work of fiction based on an interesting hypothesis put forward in the book, Holy Blood Holy Grail. A woman named Songbird read it, and ran with it to further her own agenda. Brown took it, and wrote a semi-interesting book, which he is promoting by using the controversy around it.

It has been thoroughly de-bunked over the years by any number of historians, archaeologists, and even Nat'l Geographic.

Even the author of Holy Blood Holy Grail has stated that he doesn't believe the hypothesis he put forward, he just found it an interesting mental puzzle.


----------



## Conquistador (22 May 2006)

I haven't read the book, but I found the movie to be a bit rushed at times. It was good, not great.


----------



## Enzo (22 May 2006)

I went to the movie last night with some good friends. Here's what happened.

We left the theatre... and game on!  :

The debate went downhill from there. We've all read the book and consider ourselves to be reasonably intelligent, i.e., I can tie my shoes without assistance, but this was something to behold.

Later, when the dust cleared, I began to wonder. How many others are having similar debates? So here's the Coles notes version. I'm an atheist. I believe in myself and my faith resides within the same. My friends were raised within religious houesholds of various beliefs and held differing views. The main crux of our debate appeared to be: if the son of Jesus were to appear today as a mortal, would Western society survive the ramifications of this revealing?

My friend held that our society would crumble as the Judeo-Christian foundations of our laws would no longer hold sway over our populations and anarchy would be the end result. Time frames are suppositional depending upon your views.

Anyone care to get into this aspect of the debate?


----------



## paracowboy (22 May 2006)

meh,

he was supposedly the son of God made flesh. So, he was supposed to be human for a while. Humans have sex. They have children.

If he did have a kid, he did his job right. Well done.

Considering the plethora of religions, pseudo-religions, cults, athiests, agnostics, and whatever else, I somehow doubt that this sort of revelation would have much impact on the world aside from a few Christian zealots.


----------



## mdh (22 May 2006)

> My friend held that our society would crumble as the Judeo-Christian foundations of our laws would no longer hold sway over our populations and anarchy would be the end result. Time frames are suppositional depending upon your views



I'm not sure about anarchy; that would require a febrile energy that most of the West can barely muster. If you look at Eurosecularism and its attendant values, it appears to have created a culture of self-referential decadence and malaise.   

The end-end result? Declining birth rates which threaten to depopulate the Europe, while Muslim populations grow rapidly in the opposite direction (sustained by an enduring religiosity that resists our materialist blandishments). 

Perhaps the decline of Judeo-Christianity (or in modern times its purposeful eradication and replacement by the religion of the welfare state) ends in the West's collective suicide? 

Just a cheery thought,
cheers, mdh


----------



## George Wallace (22 May 2006)

mdh said:
			
		

> The end-end result? Declining birth rates which threaten to depopulate the Europe, while Muslim populations grow rapidly in the opposite direction (sustained by an enduring religiosity that resists our materialist blandishments).
> 
> Perhaps the decline of Judeo-Christianity (or in modern times its purposeful eradication and replacement by the religion of the welfare state) ends in the West's collective suicide?



 ???

The Birthrates of nations are less to do with 'Religion', than they are pure 'Economics'.  You will notice the tendency of any 'well-to-do' society in history to have lower birthrates than the poverty stricken.  It is economical for the rich to have few children, and for the poor to have more in order to achieve financial/economical survival.  Religion has little to do with it.


----------



## GO!!! (22 May 2006)

Saw the movie, it was OK, not the best I've seen. 

Far more entertaining was the fundamentalist Christians ranting and raving about blasphemy and handing out flyers that stated how stupid you would have to be to believe anything the movie said....

Why can't anyone just believe that this is a work of fiction and treat it as such? There were no Egyptians rioting in the streets when Indiana Jones came out, or Christians screaming at the Monty Python skits? What makes this story such news?


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (22 May 2006)

Maybee the fundamentalists know something we don't and its all part of a cover up by George Bush and the makers of tinfoil????


----------



## Armymedic (22 May 2006)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> its all part of a cover up by George Bush and the makers of tinfoil????



THATS IT!

Another Bush caused controversy...Everything else in the world is his fault, why not this too?   :evil:


----------



## Sheerin (22 May 2006)

> Even the author of Holy Blood Holy Grail has stated that he doesn't believe the hypothesis he put forward, he just found it an interesting mental puzzle.



You sure?  I don't know much about him other than he has another book out (or soon to be out) in which he suggests that Jesus wasn't actually crucified...

As for the book, it was an interesting story.  As for the controversey, I honestly don't care.  I'm not Christian, so it doesn't matter to me.  Though the one thing that always gets me wondering and I ask my Christian friends this, why does it matter?  Isn't the important thing following his teachings, and not his sex life?


----------



## paracowboy (22 May 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> You sure?


yup. He said so in the recent Nat'l Geographic special, that was on last week.


----------



## exsemjingo (22 May 2006)

Oh the irony of this thread!

Read my name and see if you can decipher it's meaning.  As a Christian well versed in theology, I can express the meaning of the book and film to all of you in this way:  the Davinci code is to Christians as pacifist-liberal rhetoric is to soldiers.  
Both ideas flow from a fundamental misunderstanding of, in one case, Biblical Orthodoxy, and in the other case, political necessity.  If we all listened to pacifist rhetoric and minimized our army, the nation would go unprotected and Canada as we know it would cease to exist.  Likewise, when one takes the Davinci code seriously (as some do), the Christian belief of salvation is unraveled.
Neither erronus example can work, both take too much for granted, and, as many of you must know from experience, neither can be reasoned with!

I suggest that any involved in this thread bone up on their biblical literacy, if they haven't already.  In military occupations, death is a distinct possibility, and all shall meet their maker sooner than they think.


----------



## George Wallace (22 May 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> Oh the irony of this thread!
> ..........  the Davinci code is to Christians as pacifist-liberal rhetoric is to soldiers.
> Both ideas flow from a fundamental misunderstanding of, in one case, Biblical Orthodoxy, and in the other case, political necessity.  If we all listened to pacifist rhetoric and minimized our army, the nation would go unprotected and Canada as we know it would cease to exist.  Likewise, when one takes the Davinci code seriously (as some do), the Christian belief of salvation is unraveled.
> Neither erronus example can work, both take too much for granted, and, as many of you must know from experience, neither can be reasoned with!



Interesting points.  We all know the Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction and nothing more than a tale with a morbid sense of humour about getting a young French woman to a Family Reunion in the UK, but I digress.  If I look at your statement on the pacifist rhetoric and minimizing of our army.......Isn't that exactly what we have seen happen?


----------



## paracowboy (22 May 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> Oh the irony of this thread!
> 
> Read my name and see if you can decipher it's meaning.  As a Christian well versed in theology, I can express the meaning of the book and film to all of you in this way:  the Davinci code is to Christians as pacifist-liberal rhetoric is to soldiers.
> Both ideas flow from a fundamental misunderstanding of, in one case, Biblical Orthodoxy, and in the other case, political necessity.  If we all listened to pacifist rhetoric and minimized our army, the nation would go unprotected and Canada as we know it would cease to exist.  Likewise, when one takes the Davinci code seriously (as some do), the Christian belief of salvation is unraveled.
> ...


well, now, your entire post revolves around one accepting the conventional Christian faith. If one doesn't, it falls apart.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 May 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> I suggest that any involved in this thread bone up on their biblical literacy, if they haven't already.



Why? There's a large school of thought that feels the same way about the bible as many do the Da Vinci Code. An adulterated, work of fiction. Any truth it held has long been obliterated by the many self serving rewrites, and the lost, purged and destroyed books and chapters, but it's a good story none the less.


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 May 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why? There's a large school of thought that feels the same way about the bible as many do the Da Vinci Code. An adulterated, work of fiction. Any truth it held has long been obliterated by the many self serving rewrites, and the lost, purged and destroyed books and chapters, but it's a good story none the less.



You beat me to it  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (22 May 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why? There's a large school of thought that feels the same way about the bible as many do the Da Vinci Code. An adulterated, work of fiction. Any truth it held has long been obliterated by the many self serving rewrites, and the lost, purged and destroyed books and chapters, but it's a good story none the less.



True.  In the days of Chaucer, how many monks may have taken a few literary licences with transcribing of the Lord's word?  Which version of the Bible, if any, is an accurate translation or representation of the ancient scrolls?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 May 2006)

Went to see it today (gotta love girls who eat lots of cheerios - result: free movies).  Saw Art School Confidential as well.

Reaction: Meh.  Just a movie.  Entertaining enough.


----------



## Sheerin (23 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> yup. He said so in the recent Nat'l Geographic special, that was on last week.



Out of curosity, which author said that?  _ Holy Bloody, Holy Grail _ was written by three guys, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln,


----------



## Retired AF Guy (25 May 2006)

Interesting discussion. I've read the book, but have not seen the movie yet (may be today). After reading the book the first thought that came to my mind was that I've read it all before; specifically_ Holy Blood, Holy Grail._ How Dan Brown escaped the law suit against him is beyond me. As with previous posters I consider the book out-an-out fiction. What Brown has down has taken several different threads and weave them together. If you want to read some critiques on the book I recommend Bart Ehrman's "_Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code_."  Ehrman is well-known expect on early Christianity and his book debunks Brown's contention about Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married, Brown's contention that it wasn't until the Emperor Constantine that the Gospels were finally decided on, among other things. He doesn't look at latter allegations Brown makes such as about the Priory of Sion. For that, check out Skeptics Magazine website. As an aside someone previous mentioned about how accurate the Bible, Ehrman has another book out called _"Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind who changed the Bible and Why."_  

Another poster brought up want would happen if Jesus would return. Yes it would have a significant impact on the Christian world. Not to sure about the impact among the Jews as they do no consider him a prophet. Where the biggest impact I think would among Muslims. Why Muslims you ask? Well, the Shia's believe (if I remember correctly) that the return of the Twelfth Imam will occur when the Prophet Isa (Jesus) returns, declares Shi'ism the one true religion and that the final battle between good and evil will occur.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 May 2006)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Another poster brought up want would happen if Jesus would return. Yes it would have a significant impact on the Christian world. Not to sure about the impact among the Jews as they do no consider him a prophet. Where the biggest impact I think would among Muslims. Why Muslims you ask? Well, the Shia's believe (if I remember correctly) that the return of the Twelfth Imam will occur when the Prophet Isa (Jesus) returns, declares Shi'ism the one true religion and that the final battle between good and evil will occur.



Will suck when we all realize in that event that we're on the same side. Which side is yet to be determined.

In other news, one of the ladies magazines on sale at the check out stand at the grocery store today was advertising how one can TAKE POUNDS OFF WITH THE DA VINCI CODE DIET! Having seen that, and the effect it has had on my faith in humanity, I hope Armageddon and the Rapture comes sooner rather than later.


----------



## gaspasser (25 May 2006)

Many posters have written just what the first page of the book says it is...a work of fiction.  It is fiction based on historical facts and pieced together with conspiracy theories into a well written-quick read.  My question is: If it is mostly fiction and untrue, why are so many people of knowledge and the church trying to debunk it?  
 I am reminded of my Holy Land tour in Jerusalem many years ago.  The tour guide, Mark, had a great sense of humour and relayed to me and my wife the basic difference between the Christian and Judaic religions.  If (he said) on Judgement Day, when the Messiah comes down the line, stops at me and says. "Mark, where's a great place to get a pizza?"  I will know that the Jews were right.  If, however, The Messiah comes to me and says, "Great to be back, wanna go for a pizza." I will know that the Christians were right.  
    Sorry, cute story that may or may not need to be here.  Suffice it to say that half of two plus two will always equal three.  The novel makes you think.  
Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (25 May 2006)

Gaspasser said:
			
		

> Many posters have written just what the first page of the book says it is...a work of fiction.  It is fiction based on historical facts and pieced together with conspiracy theories into a well written-quick read.  My question is: If it is mostly fiction and untrue, why are so many people of knowledge and the church trying to debunk it?
> I am reminded of my Holy Land tour in Jerusalem many years ago.  The tour guide, Mark, had a great sense of humour and relayed to me and my wife the basic difference between the Christian and Judaic religions.  If (he said) on Judgement Day, when the Messiah comes down the line, stops at me and says. "Mark, where's a great place to get a pizza?"  I will know that the Jews were right.  If, however, The Messiah comes to me and says, "Great to be back, wanna go for a pizza." I will know that the Christians were right.
> Sorry, cute story that may or may not need to be here.  Suffice it to say that half of two plus two will always equal three.  The novel makes you think.
> Cheers.



Wouldn't he have to turn a stone into a pizza for the prophecy to be true?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (26 May 2006)

I agree that the _Da Vinci Code _ is not bad of a read. One thing it did do is stimulate my interest in early Christian history. This is especially true after I had read Ehrman's take on the Da Vinci. Previously to that I had always assumed that that after the death of Jesus there was only one version of Christianity; Well there wasn't, in fact, there were many different versions of Christianity that were vying for first place. To broaden my horizons I started buying additional books on early Christianity. So, you can say that Dan Brown has actually accomplished something and that is a renewed discussion of Christianity and its beginnings and the Roman Catholic Church. A good example is how Opus Dei has used the controversy to its own advantage.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 May 2006)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I agree that the _Da Vinci Code _ is not bad of a read. One thing it did do is stimulate my interest in early Christian history. This is especially true after I had read Ehrman's take on the Da Vinci. Previously to that I had always assumed that that after the death of Jesus there was only one version of Christianity; Well there wasn't, in fact, there were many different versions of Christianity that were vying for first place. To broaden my horizons I started buying additional books on early Christianity. So, you can say that Dan Brown has actually accomplished something and that is a renewed discussion of Christianity and its beginnings and the Roman Catholic Church. A good example is how Opus Dei has used the controversy to its own advantage.



I think movie is supposed to do just that - after Saving Private Ryan, no matter what one thought of it, you can't deny that there was a huge renewal of interest in D-Day and the Second World War in general. Including huge sales figures for books, Ambroses' in particular. Veterans benefited directly from that movie in ways not even imagined for decades - Tom Hanks seems to be a magnet for positive attention for stuff like that; he renewed interest in the Apollo moon program with his miniseries also.


----------



## Aislinn (28 May 2006)

Am I the only one that thinks the book was horribly written. The prose was unimaginative and pedantic and did not give any credence to the reader's intelligence. I got so annoyed with the childish style of writing I almost gave up half way through the book, but decided to finish it so I could say with all honesty, "Yes I read it. It's a work of fiction and not well done, at that." The premise is interesting, though. I like the author Kathereine Neville better. She also often uses pseudo-religious and philosophical ideas as plots; she also has neat puzzles placed throughout her books, but her writing itself is infinitely better.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 May 2006)

Enami said:
			
		

> Am I the only one that thinks the book was horribly written. The prose was unimaginative and pedantic and did not give any credence to the reader's intelligence. I got so annoyed with the childish style of writing I almost gave up half way through the book, but decided to finish it so I could say with all honesty, "Yes I read it. It's a work of fiction and not well done, at that." The premise is interesting, though. I like the author Kathereine Neville better. She also often uses pseudo-religious and philosophical ideas as plots; she also has neat puzzles placed throughout her books, but her writing itself is infinitely better.



Of Dan Brown's four books (DaVinci Code, Angel and Demons, Digital Fortress, and Deception Point) I think that DaVinci Code was the least favourite of mine.  It was a little simplistic in how it treats the reader, with a lot of, "of course...that must mean....."  I enjoyed _Angels and Demons_ the most followed by Deception Point, Digital Fortress and DaVinci Code in last.

That said, I think the movie was a fair representation of a fair to middling book.

Mein 2 ¢

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Sheerin (29 May 2006)

My biggest problem with Brown is that he seems to lose interest in the story he's telling about halfway through.  Its almost as if he writes the first half and then realises he needs to throw an ending on it at the last moment.


----------



## winchable (29 May 2006)

Just crashed through the book in three days, the premise is interesting enough I suppose but it was actually poorly written, that's not just pretentious literary critics talking.
I called one of the major plot twists 1/4 of the way through the book which really disappointed me because normally I'm wrong.

I will go see the movie out of morbid interest.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 May 2006)

Che said:
			
		

> Just crashed through the book in three days, the premise is interesting enough I suppose but it was actually poorly written, that's not just pretentious literary critics talking.
> I called one of the major plot twists 1/4 of the way through the book which really disappointed me because normally I'm wrong.
> 
> I will go see the movie out of morbid interest.



Che, it's a bland train wreck but you just can't help yourself...  ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Matty B. (1 Jun 2006)

Che and Sheerin... you guys are so right.  It's sad to see that Dan Brown has become filthy rich because of the pulp-fiction novel he wrote. I read the novel and saw the movie on the same day (May 19) and thought that both of them weren't that good...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jun 2006)

Matty B. said:
			
		

> Che and Sheerin... you guys are so right.  It's sad to see that Dan Brown has become filthy rich because of the pulp-fiction novel he wrote. I read the novel and saw the movie on the same day (May 19) and thought that both of them weren't that good...



Time to pull out some history books and do a plot layout.......


----------



## 043 (6 Jun 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Watch it......you'll have everyone heading to Tweed, Ontario to seek out Elvis, if you keep it up.



He does live in Tweed dammit!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## geo (6 Jun 2006)

It's a good yarn..... 
period

That's all it is - a story.


----------



## exsemjingo (1 Jul 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> well, now, your entire post revolves around one accepting the conventional Christian faith. If one doesn't, it falls apart.



Here we go!
 When evaluating any given material, judgements must be drawn from the context of that material.  It is true; one cannot compare apples to oranges.
My post on the other hand compares apples to apples.  If the Gospels are correct about Jesus, then he is important.  If they are not, he is a nobody and why bother with him?  
The Davinci code is not meant to be taken seriously, but if someone does take it seriously, they believe some parts of scripture and not others.  To do that , one needs to do a lot more research and scholarly work than what Dan Brown writes about in the book.
I am only speaking generally about critical biblical scholarship.
To put it another way, a person is free to believe whatever they want.  But if they take themselves seriously, their beliefs will be based on well-researched, fully thought out ideas.
On to the Smalcald war, er, thread!


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jul 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> To put it another way, a person is free to believe whatever they want.  But if they take themselves seriously, their beliefs will be based on well-researched, fully thought out ideas.



Uh, sorry, but an entire (multiple) universe of conspiracy theorists disproves this little hypothesis.  Every tin-foil-beanie-wearing rant monkey actually believes they are right, and that everyone else should take them as serriously as they do themselves.

"Just because my assumptions are wrong, doesn't mean my logic isn't valid."


----------



## exsemjingo (1 Jul 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Uh, sorry, but an entire (multiple) universe of conspiracy theorists disproves this little hypothesis.  Every tin-foil-beanie-wearing rant monkey actually believes they are right, and that everyone else should take them as seriously as they do themselves.
> 
> "Just because my assumptions are wrong, doesn't mean my logic isn't valid."



So, how do we know who's wearing tinfoil and who's not?  I'm not saying most opinions are well thought out; they definitely are not.  I'm saying they should be, and that there is an evaluation method.
Otherwise we may as well all be black-turtleneck wearing beatnicks.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jul 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> So, how do we know who's wearing tinfoil and who's not?



Occam's razor


----------

