Who's ready for some controversy!?!?!

Ok I've wanted to start this thread for a while now and decided to do it about a week before the movie comes out to allow some conversation before anybody sees this thing.

Also PLEASE don't turn this into a religion/athiest debate or go off topic. I want the debate and discussion to focus on Dan Brown's book and the subjects tied in with it.

As we all know the Da Vinci Code opens on May 19th and there has been a whole lot of controversy.

For those of you who don't know it's pretty much summed up in this sentence.

In "The Da Vinci Code," the Holy Grail is neither an object nor an objective. It symbolizes an earthshaking secret: Mary Magdalene bore a child with Jesus.

Ok this is nothing that is new to me. I know this little theory has been floating around before Dan Brown was even born. My dad told me he met a guy when he was in the Air Force and one of his hobbies was to do research to prove Christ was married.

Now why is there such an uproar over this book? I am a Christian and a believer and this doesn't offend me at all.

NOTE: Brown himself is a self-proclaimed Christian :eek:

I know people at my chruch are saying this is anti-Christian, it's out to ruin the Christian faith, it slams God and Jesus, blah blah blah.

NEWS FLASH, IT'S A WORK OF FICTION! Where are all these people when Indiana Jones was out? It said that the Holy Grail is in a temple in Northern Africa guarded by a knight from the first Cruisade. Double standards?

Here's a few examples of ideas in the Da Vinci Code that are proven false by history (I didn't write this, I saw this on a message board somewhere, feel free though to correct or debate it as I'm no historian):

1. "No Christian believed Christ was divine before the Emperor Constantine deified him in 325 A.D." You can read 300 years worth of writings from the Church Fathers professing Jesus as God before 325. Or you can look at the pagan Pliny the Younger's statement that the Christians sing "hymns unto Christus as unto a god."

2. "Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married." There is no evidence to support this. Not even the gnostic texts make that claim. The only "evidence" is Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Supper, in which John the Apostle looks feminine. But don't listen to any art historians or scholars, who are unanimous in saying it is John. Or Leonardo's notes, which also say it is John.

3. "Emperor Constantine edited the New Testament at Nicea." The New Testament canon was decided at the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage; each taking place approximately a hundred years after Nicea. What Constantine did was commission 50 or so copies of the NT texts to make reparation for the destruction of NT texts done by the Roman Empire when Christians were still being persecuted.

So why is there still an uproar? I have come up with a couple of theories.

1. Some people don't have much faith - If your faith is questioned by a work of fiction when you claim to be a follower, you obviously got bigger problems. Instead of facing those problems though they go to the simple source, the book.

2. People can't picture Christ having sex - I'm serious about this one. I for one don't believe he got married because I think that wasn't his plan. If he did though, what's wrong with that? He came to live as a man and don't men get married? The thing is if he was married he probably had sex, and I guess most people just look down at that and something they can't acknowledge.

3. Preachers and members of most churches don't want people to question things - Yes, there is a gap in the Bible where Christ could have been married during the time. If he was, it isn't there, so what? Just because it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen. So I'm guessing preaches next Sunday don't want members coming up asking "How come..." "What if..." "Why doesn't..." when they don't have the answer.

Now, am I going to go see this movie? Yes.
Am I questioning my faith becuase of it? No.
Do I understand it's fiction but does have some factual evidence? Yes.
Am I shutting out the idea that Christ could have been married? No.


Alright then, debate.

Well for one it also deals with a real group of people. I dont remember the name of the group but its the ones after tom hanks in the movie. They feel that the movie is going to put a bad picture of them in everyones mind.
Two the author has gone before and said that alot of this book holds merit. He said that he has talked to people of this secret sect of the church and some of the things in the book were fact. Which of course the sect denies.

I think alot of the uproar comes from people who don't know anything about the historical situation, the book, the movie, the bible or much else for that matter and have been told that the book/movie goes against their beliefs or confirms their suspicions so they get they're panties in a knot about it without really looking into it.

But then again I am a wee bit cynical.

I think the Christians that are freaking out over it need to calm down. Like you said, it's a work of fiction. Dan Brown never expected the book to get this big. I think if people are so insecure in their religion that they have to freak out over a book, something's wrong...

I'm not a Christian, but even if I was this wouldn't bother me. Also, the group is called Opus Dei.

On a side note, I freaking loved this book. Angels & Demons was better though. Oh man, Dan Brown is such a good author...I'm so excited for The Solomon Key.

This book instills doubt, and doubt...is the killer of faith.
Doubt, is the complete adversary of faith.

Faith is an all or nothing thing, there is no such thing as alittle faith.


I mean, religion operates on one thing, and one thing only: faith.
You either trust and follow your religion, or you don't.
However, having doubt causes you to question your religion.
And questioning leads to distrust.
And distrust leads to desertion.

I mean, after reading that book, do you truly view your religion in the same light? Do you still fully trust and follow its teachings?


Are you sure there isn't a little doubt in the back of your head?

Something which you are repressing and forcing out of mainstream thought?

I mean, after reading that book, do you truly view your religion in the same light? Do you still fully trust and follow its teachings?


Are you sure there isn't a little doubt in the back of your head?

Something which you are repressing and forcing out of mainstream thought?


You know I kinda do agree what you're saying. I've read Angels & Demons. Its an ok book but I do question the author on why would he make up such stories like that? I know its fiction but I think it has some subliminal messages in that book.

If you're goin to have a fictional story and use Prophets or holy ppl as characters, that can lead ppl astray from there beliefs. In a way if they love the fiction story more than the non fiction...yeh definitely. Because you're only creating or imagining your faith in someone else's view and not a Prophet. Thats how I look at it.

This book instills doubt, and doubt...is the killer of faith.
Doubt, is the complete adversary of faith.

Doubt about what though? So what IF Jesus was married? Is there really anything wrong with that? I really don't think so.

I mean, after reading that book, do you truly view your religion in the same light? Do you still fully trust and follow its teachings?

Well I'll be honest, I haven't read the book. It's not because I don't believe it or don't want to, but because I just don't read much. Maybe after I see the movie I might give it a try.

My parents have though and they've told me all the stuff in it that's causing an uproar. They personally don't see what all the fuss is about and they haven't had any doubt or lost faith at all.

Are you sure there isn't a little doubt in the back of your head?

Nope.

Speaking of faith I was trying to find an interview with Dan Brown on Fox News and came across this little quote...

Dan Brown is capable of passing fiction for fact because Christians don’t know their faith — what and why they believe. That’s not Mr. Brown’s fault.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194665,00.html

I agree with all of Muscletang's theories and am looking forward to seeing the movie. Why? Not for religious gratification or some Hollywood answering to a lack of faith or questioning of religion, but because I have always been interested in archeology, artifacts and symbology - which this movie happens to deal with (just like the "Indiana Jones" movies dealt with). It really is amazing that people are losing sleep over it.

I was raised Catholic so you already know how fucked up this is for my family, but wait there's more... My mother started to read the book because she likes to read fiction, but my dad prohibited her from continuing to read it and gave the book away. Can you believe that? He is studying to be a deacon so naturally he will obey everything the Pope declares as truth. My family is so closed minded that my mother doesn't even believe in the Gnostic Scrolls or Dead Sea Scrolls because the New Testament was written "by God's hand." Needless to say, I don't go to church anymore; although I still have faith in what I believe. How is that possible? I somehow became an open minded individual, which apparently according to Catholic teachings is a direct ticket straight to hell...

Muscletang, you should read the book. It's a page turner and won't take more than a couple days to read it. The dialogue is sometimes a bit cheesy between Langdon (Hanks' character) and Sir Teabing (Ian McKellan's character) but there is a lot of action sequences that make it seem exciting; despite the religious stuff going on...

Muscletang, you should read the book. It's a page turner and won't take more than a couple days to read it. The dialogue is sometimes a bit cheesy between Langdon (Hanks' character) and Sir Teabing (Ian McKellan's character) but there is a lot of action sequences that make it seem exciting; despite the religious stuff going on...

Yeah I've been thinking about it. I may go pick me up a copy sometime this weekend. As I said my mom read it and she loved it. She has told me a whole lot of good things and all this stuff going on just makes me more curious about it.

Speaking of faith I was trying to find an interview with Dan Brown on Fox News and came across this little quote...



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194665,00.html


Now that explains it.

Now that explains it.

Do I detect a little bit of sarcasm or were you just getting right to the point?

Even if you don't believe what he talks about mellowboy you have to admit he does make some good points.

1. controversy and boycotting = box office success
Passion of the Christ? Fahrenheit 9/11?

2. if you have no knowledge of your faith, it's easy to become pursuaded

Do I detect a little bit of sarcasm or were you just getting right to the point?

Even if you don't believe what he talks about mellowboy you have to admit he does make some good points.

1. controversy and boycotting = box office success
Passion of the Christ? Fahrenheit 9/11?

2. if you have no knowledge of your faith, it's easy to become pursuaded

No not at all. I was referring to my first post...

Its an ok book but I do question the author on why would he make up such stories like that? I know its fiction but I think it has some subliminal messages in that book.




2. if you have no knowledge of your faith, it's easy to become pursuaded


I agree with you 100%:thumbsup:

2. if you have no knowledge of your faith, it's easy to become pursuaded

That has to be right. It just seems right. Because I can't see how people can be making such a serious uproar over a book. It's just a book. And now, just a movie...

I consider myself fairly smart, and I understand lots of things, but this is something I just can't comprehend. I wonder if the people boycotting this are the same people that were boycotting Harry Potter.

I agree with you 100%:thumbsup:

Oh ok just making sure. Sorry for the mis-understanding.

Talking about this though made me think more on my 3rd theory. I started to think and remembered my preacher talking about the book and how it was "bad" and all.

He talks about all the things Dan Brown says and then goes on to show how they are wrong by pointing out verses in the Bible. Ok, I can see that but for most people that won't do. The Bible is just another book to them. Is it really too hard to do a Google search and look up historical and archeology facts to help back up your claim?

Or could it be that most people aren't ready or prepared to defend their religion? That or they just don't want to?

Muscletang,

It instills doubt in your religion.
Its changes nothing about the teachings of Jesus, but it makes you question the religion spawned from Jesus.

It discredits aspects of Christianity.
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not Christian, Catholic, etc.) but isn't Mary Magdalen a whore? Shouldn't she be despised? Also, aren't priests forbidden to marry and have children?


It doesn't change your faith in Jesus, but it makes you question your religion,

and we all know where that leads.


Also, you should read it before seeing the movie.
People tend to judge succeeding productions based on the first thing they see. Meaning, most (including myself) judge everything but the original to suck.
And if you see the movie first, it will be like "your original", and then reading the book; might not hold up to your expectations (which would be based on the movie).

But then again, it might not.
It depends on how well Ron Howard stays true to the book. But in many cases, Hollywood tends to stray from books, games, and whatever else movies are based off of.

So, long story short: read the book first

I would think this would be wrong because someone with no knowledge on faith would probably be persuaded based on fiction and therefore you're faith wouldn't be vaild. I could be wrong though but it seems logical.

Mary Magdelene was not necessarily "a whore", however, she has been made out to be that way over time. You have to remember this is 2000 years of history. What I've learned studying history in college is that (and historeographers will confirm this) the objectivity of history is skewed by the simple relaying of the story. Facts get jumbled and sometimes completely withdrawn. I need not mention that the Bible itself has been restructured numerous times in both text and translation.

It discredits aspects of Christianity.
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not Christian, Catholic, etc.) but isn't Mary Magdelin a whore? Shouldn't she be despised?

Don't quote me on this because I don't really know.

I believe she wasn't a whore while Jesus was alive. One theory I saw was after Christ was dead she had his child and became a whore to raise it. There are two different theories that spawn from this as well. One says she moved to France and became a whore. The other says she stayed in Isrial.

If anything else I don't think she started that life style until after Jesus and not while he was around.

Now this brings up points like "Jesus was involved with a whore!"

Was she a whore at the time is the question to ask. If she wasn't then you can also say "well if he was the son of God he would have known she would have become a whore!"

True, but did you also know that Jesus' great great grandmother (I forget how many generations) was a whore? Since that's true why couldn't another mother have been picked that didn't come from whore?

Why pick a mother who had a whore in her family line and also had King David? (If you don't know King David slept with another man's wife, got her pregnant, and then killed the husband.)

Questions, questions, questions.

Also, aren't priests forbidden to marry and have children?

I've seen several things on this. I thought that but I've seen recently that people are saying it was just uncommon for priests in that time to marry but not forbidden.

Don't quote me on this because I don't really know.

I believe she wasn't a whore while Jesus was alive. One theory I saw was after Christ was dead she had his child and became a whore to raise it. There are two different theories that spawn from this as well. One says she moved to France and became a whore. The other says she stayed in Isrial.

If anything else I don't think she started that life style until after Jesus and not while he was around.

Now this brings up points like "Jesus was involved with a whore!"

Was she a whore at the time is the question to ask. If she wasn't then you can also say "well if he was the son of God he would have known she would have become a whore!"

True, but did you also know that Jesus' great great grandmother (I forget how many generations) was a whore? Since that's true why couldn't another mother have been picked that didn't come from whore?

Why pick a mother who had a whore in her family line and also had King David? (If you don't know King David slept with another man's wife, got her pregnant, and then killed the husband.)

Questions, questions, questions.



I've seen several things on this. I thought that but I've seen recently that people are saying it was just uncommon for priests in that time to marry but not forbidden.

The theories you mentioned are in the book. She isn't portrayed as a whore in the explanation. Basically, Mary Magdalene fled the Holy Land to France in order to raise the child. Maybe, she started showing signs of pregnancy and if the so-called marriage between her and Jesus was a secret (or however Christianity has passed it along through history), then maybe people considered her a whore and she left ashamed. Anyway, the book states that she went to France to raise the child under the protection of the Priory of Sion (the secret organization that has kept the blood lineage of Christ aka the Holy Grail a secret throughout history) which is basically the underlying theme of Dan Brown's book.

The theories you mentioned are in the book. She isn't portrayed as a whore in the explanation. Basically, Mary Magdalene fled the Holy Land to France in order to raise the child. Maybe, she started showing signs of pregnancy and if the so-called marriage between her and Jesus was a secret (or however Christianity has passed it along through history), then maybe people considered her a whore and she left ashamed. Anyway, the book states that she went to France to raise the child under the protection of the Priory of Sion (the secret organization that has kept the blood lineage of Christ aka the Holy Grail a secret throughout history) which is basically the underlying theme of Dan Brown's book.

Yeah I was told that but I've read and apparently there are some people out there that believed she went to France. Maybe they believe it now after the book or maybe it was a theory before the book?

there's also a whole load of stuff about the frenchman who originally started the bloodline in france story (that ended up being made into a documentary) admitting that as being a complete hoax.

Actually the media is making more of the few Christians that are making a stink about this than Chriatians are making over it. Frankly....it's just a movie and a book. Not a very well written book at that.

Later

Actually the media is making more of the few Christians that are making a stink about this than Chriatians are making over it.

I don't know about that. I know a whole lot of people that are telling my parents and I "don't go see that movie it's EVIL!"

Frankly....it's just a movie and a book. Not a very well written book at that.

Later

I wouldn't say that now. If you have in print 60.5 million copies then you must have done something right. I could write a controversial book but if I know nothing about writing or creating a story it won't do well.

Oh I'm sorry I thought carlos mencia was here...

I don't know about that. I know a whole lot of people that are telling my parents and I "don't go see that movie it's EVIL!".

Tell your parents to start hanging with a different group of people.


I wouldn't say that now. If you have in print 60.5 million copies then you must have done something right. I could write a controversial book but if I know nothing about writing or creating a story it won't do well.

That was my opinion. I read it and I didn't feel it was very well written. I have read much better from more talented writters. Maybe one of his other books are better but I most likely wont bother trying another. JMHO

That was my opinion. I read it and I didn't feel it was very well written. I have read much better from more talented writters. Maybe one of his other books are better but I most likely wont bother trying another. JMHO

I agree that it isn't exactly a great piece of literature. It was written so that it could sell so many copies. In other words, it was written in such basic easy to understand language so that everybody with a 4th grade education could read it...

Well I just saw this on Yahoo movies. Apparently in the movie they took it down a little. Some things that really pissed off some people were taken out.

I'll post the article when I find it.

^ Just like in India it is being postponed until the catholics there get a private screening of it first.

I have a question;

If this was all true; that Christ did have a child, why would the organization holding the secret still keep it a secret?

Without referencing "The Da Vinci Code", why wouldn't they just reveal the truth instead of keeping it a secret?

I think you hit the head on the nail with your first theory

I have a question;

If this was all true; that Christ did have a child, why would the organization holding the secret still keep it a secret?

Without referencing "The Da Vinci Code", why wouldn't they just reveal the truth instead of keeping it a secret?

I would guess that there would be wars break out over this I'm sure. What if person A says this and person B says this. Person A is of Christ's bloodline but the follows of B say they're just using their bloodline to throw their weight around.

I mean we can see how the Pope has power. Yeah I know it's not political power but anybody can see he can really throw some weight if he wants too. Now that's just the Pope, think if this person were of the bloodline of Christ?

I even saw one article where a guy suggested that later on probably the Pope and the Catholic Church would maybe try to fight the rule of a Christ's offspring and there would be a power struggle.

Those are just educated guesses though.

I have a question;

If this was all true; that Christ did have a child, why would the organization holding the secret still keep it a secret?

Without referencing "The Da Vinci Code", why wouldn't they just reveal the truth instead of keeping it a secret?

Whats the truth? Different religions have different views on Jesus's (p) life. Jesus(p) having a child with "Mary Magdalene" is completely created. Never it was mentioned in the Bible. Mary Magdalene was never mentioned in the Qur'an as far as my understanding. So I can't really say she ever really existed.

Jesus(p) got married and had a child is completely rejected by the major Christian denominations (Catholic/Orthodox).

How big of a clash would it be?

I mean, if it was suddenly revealed, with exhaustive and irrefutable DNA backed evidence (I figure thats how they would reveal the news; irrefutable due to the fact they would have had so much time to prepare and would cover every angle in which the church could attack discredit them with), wouldn't most just simply "quit" the current form of Catholicism without making a fuss?


The current church would loose all power.

How big of a clash would it be?



Not that big? Or non at all. You're over thinkin this too much.





The current church would loose all power.


What church and what power? No church has any power.

I havn't seen the movie, not have I read much of the book (Just read the "Facts Page"), although I intend to read it when my dad finishes the book. I think it's a good novel, in the fact that it grabs and holds your attention, and can be a fun read. However, what I take exception to is the supposed "facts" that are listed on the fact pages and declared. One example is when the deity of Christ is portrayed to have been determined at the Council of Nicea. There was little question that he was, as the "close vote" on the subject was 318-2. What was more in question was HOW he was divine. There are a number of other problems with his "facts," but ya, good book, not good history.

BTW, if anybody is interested in a perspecitive from a highly educated Christian scholar, check out this link:

(http://www.christianstandard.com/pdfs/649.pdf) http://www.christianstandard.com/pdfs/649.pdf (http://www.christianstandard.com/pdfs/649.pdf)

He's a friend of my family and a very intelligent man.

I've always said this, religion as well as science are tools. Though science need to be proved and tested to be of use, religion doesn't. If all believers were to be truly 'good' christians, or whatever the religion, these discussions wouldn't have to take place. Religion is to help one with theoretical answers to questions that can't be answered or guidence in life. This movie is for entertainment and brain tickeling, not questioning christianity. As an atheist I can't give arguments of a christian point of view, but I'd probably say that i watch it 'cause It's a good movie and Tom Hanks is a great actor. Dumb people... I agree with Muscle, its one mans Fiction ffs, get over it.

What church and what power? No church has any power.



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Orgainised Religion is ALL ABOUT POWER.

I've always said this, religion as well as science are tools. Though science need to be proved and tested to be of use, religion doesn't. If all believers were to be truly 'good' christians, or whatever the religion, these discussions wouldn't have to take place. Religion is to help one with theoretical answers to questions that can't be answered or guidence in life. This movie is for entertainment and brain tickeling, not questioning christianity. As an atheist I can't give arguments of a christian point of view, but I'd probably say that i watch it 'cause It's a good movie and Tom Hanks is a great actor. Dumb people... I agree with Muscle, its one mans Fiction ffs, get over it.

I would agree, but when he makes false claims as facts (not within the story, but on a facts page), that's when I have a problem with it. It's not the idea of his story, it's a good job of fiction I think, but claiming things as facts that aren't that bothers me.

What church and what power? No church has any power.

The Catholic Church is all about power. Shit the Vatican is its own country for the most part. The Pope is probably the most powerfull and respected man in the world. I guess thats what you get for all the wars and crusades and all the other things they did in the name of god over the decades.
Another thing to, Bill Gates or whoever might be the richest person but the Catholic Church is the richest out of anyone on the planet and they own more property than any one as well. Bill Gates couldn't even dream up so much money and land.

The Catholic Church is all about power. Shit the Vatican is its own country for the most part. The Pope is probably the most powerfull and respected man in the world.



Well define power. The Popes power (temporal power) is only limited to certain extent. They have hardly or no political stance on world issues. Pope John Paul II says, "do not invade Iraq." Did anyone listen to him? NO! Why? Because he has no say in the matter. Hes only a catholic religious leader. They're not the President,Military Generals, Sergeants etc.... They have no army. What power does he have? They use to have temporal power.The temporal power ended in 1929!

Mellow, you sound like a Niave teenager.
There is more to power than being a president, infact most presidents have very little power, its all for show.
The pope himself has very little power, but the Chruch has lots, there are roughly a 1 billion catholics in the world, thats a big army to draw from if you need to. And its a lot of people having sex with out condoms.

The pope himself has very little power, but the Chruch has lots,



I was tryin to make my point but you didn't seem to get it. The Pope has internal powers within the Catholic community. As far as my knowledge atleast.Please explain to me what kind of power the Church has? All you keep saying is the church has power. So answer my question please.


but the Chruch has lots, there are roughly a 1 billion catholics in the world, thats a big army to draw from if you need to.



Are you describing faith or world dominance?

mellowboy, your understanding of power is elemantary at best.

How does the pope have power? I would start with the billions and billions of dollars in cash and assets the Catholic Church has, and his ability to influence the views of millions of people worldwide.

mellowboy, your understanding of power is elemantary at best.

How does the pope have power? I would start with the billions and billions of dollars in cash and assets the Catholic Church has, and his ability to influence the views of millions of people worldwide.

WOW! No need to insult here? We're having a discussion. Can we be civilized about this?


How does the pope have power? I would start with the billions and billions of dollars in cash and assets the Catholic Church has, and his ability to influence the views of millions of people worldwide.

So just like I said...you're describing power as in faith. Thats all I needed to know.

No, not power as in faith. Power as in influencing opinion. Get it right. The Catholic Church has influenced popular opinion countless times for their own ends over the centuries. Faith has very little to do with it.

And I was being civilized, if I was going to insult you I would have used profanity. :)

I would agree, but when he makes false claims as facts (not within the story, but on a facts page), that's when I have a problem with it. It's not the idea of his story, it's a good job of fiction I think, but claiming things as facts that aren't that bothers me.

You mean Hanks should turn to the camera once in a while and insure the audience this is fiction, not the authors proclaims? And how do you know they're false anyway? when i go to church i hear 'Jesus did that and said that' not 'We think that Jesus did that and said that, but it's up to you if you want to believe it', still i don't feel in anyway offended.

Never it was mentioned in the Bible.
The bible has been written and rewritten, translated many times over where things could have gotten lost. Not to mention that the bible that everyone reads is not the whole bible. There were many many other books that never made it into the bible. The church went through and selected the ones it wanted and did whatever with the rest (i forgot what)

Hes only a catholic religious leader. They're not the President,Military Generals, Sergeants etc.... They have no army. What power does he have?

There are many diff types of power, millions+ people follow the church and the pope, give their money to the church, practicly worship the pope. Its not as evident as it used to be considering they dont wage crusades or anything anymore but it is still there. People of all nations and religions have the upmost respect for the pope even if they dont for the church. How many people in the world can you say have that.
The president and whatever other world leaders are practicly at the mercy of their govt.s. The prez cant do anything without the permision of congress.
Now if your looking for absolute power you wont find anyone with that. The last person to hold such power and influence over people in that manner, sad to say, was Hitler. He commanded a whole country and the did his bidding without fear but with respect and admiration of him.

There are many diff types of power, millions+ people follow the church and the pope, give their money to the church, practicly worship the pope.




I know bro I agree with you. Thats what I was tryin to figure out when I asked them to define power. Moppie laughed at me :(


People of all nations and religions have the upmost respect for the pope even if they dont for the church. How many people in the world can you say have that.




I only respected John Paul 2nd. Hes been very kind to muslims. I remember him picking up the Qur'an and he kissed it. :)


. Its not as evident as it used to be considering they dont wage crusades or anything anymore but it is still there.




They did before and its called Temporal power as I mentioned in one of my post. It ended in 1929. I've studied this in college in religious studies course. They say they still use Temporal power but very little. They're more of internal power now.

Im not religious or anything but i liked John Paul 2nd as well he was niciest fella ive seen in a great long time.

I dont keep up on alot of things but i think they should make him a saint if they havent already. He actually did things diff from alot of other popes. Kind of set the bar for others that come after him.