Wednesday, September 16, 2009

LOL! Pope vs. Dan Brown - GetReligion

This is a good article showing the nonsense spouted by the main stream media. There seems to be this perception that the Vatican is somehow mainly concerned with the US and all the details of life there. The Vatican is truly international and probably pays as much attention to American Catholics as they deserve. Believe it or not, the Vatican doesn't care about Dan Brown's books, or what George Carlin said about the Church, or any of these other little details. The media would love to believe that the Vatican cares what Americans, mostly non-religious ones, think about women ordination, or gay marriage. The reality is the Church is not a democracy and it certainly doesn't listen to liberal American voices from the media. Saying the pope wrote Jesus of Nazareth in response to Dan Brown's books is like saying the Encyclopedia Britannica was written in response to a fifth grader's essay about a super hero. Dan Brown is a bad author whose books do not even resemble reality, a fact which is attested by even atheists. No serious scholar believes anything he writes. The Pope on the other hand is an acclaimed theologian, among the best in the world, plus he is the head of the universal church on Earth, with over 1 billion members. Compared to the pope, Dan Brown is child's play.

LOL! Pope vs. Dan Brown - GetReligion


  1. Here's an idea that seems to explain some confusing (at least to me) aspects of Christians. That pathetic combination of meekness and self-righteousness stereotypical of Christians reminds me of an abused spouse or child. In particular, Christians believe that god at least allows all the suffering in their lives--for example, god lets your priest sexually abuse you, god lets your parents beat you, god lets you get fired, god lets you lose your house, god lets your spouse get cancer, god lets your kid get hit by a car, and eventually god kills you (or at least lets you die).
    Now, consider the symptoms of "battered woman's syndrome" (it has nothing to do with women in particular):
    There are four general characteristics of the syndrome:
    1. The woman believes that the violence was her fault.
    2. The woman has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere.
    3. The woman fears for her life and/or her children's lives.
    4. The woman has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient.
    If we cast god as the abusive spouse, then these all ring true. It's never his fault (you are a sinner), it's inconceivable that there is some other explanation (don't question god), god is scary (Christians use 'god-fearing' as some kind of bizarre compliment), and god is everywhere and all powerful.


  2. Never read a Dan Brown book, got any website links to the ones he has written?

  3. Hey guys. I will answer the first posting about the abusive spouse later, because that's a longer topic.

    As for the second comment, you can find Dan Brown's books pretty much anywhere. Libraries, bookstores, or do a search on

  4. The first poster seems to be a little angry with Christianity. I will try to address some of his/her concerns.

    God's will can be divided into two categories, his sovereign will and his permissive will. His sovereign will is what God does in a proactive way. He willed the creation of the Earth, he willed us into existence (gave us a rational soul), he wills to love us at all times. God also willed to give us free will. Free will allows us to freely choose to do good and avoid evil. Without free will, we would be automatons. If we cannot choose to do evil, then there is no choice in our doing good.

    The people you describe above chose to do things which were evil, because they are not robots and they can make those decisions.

    As for the battered women's syndrome, there are many differences with the Christian's belief about God. In fact, they are the opposite of what you said.

    1. We do not believe evil perpetrated against us is our own fault. If I am assaulted while walking down the street, I do not blame myself. I blame the person who did it to me. We are asked to give forgiveness if the person requests it, because that helps us as much as it helps the perpetrator. We pray for these people also so that they may become a better person and live a good life.

    2. I think this is addressed in #1. We place the blame where it belongs, but we also try to improve the situation.

    3. We do not fear for our lives. In fact, Christians have been famous for not being overly concerned for their lives. Look at the martyrs who were sacrificed in early Rome. They sang hymns of praise to God as they were being martyred.

    4. We believe God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. but the key difference from your example is that we believe God is also omnibenevolent, and that he loves each one of us a lot.

    God goes a lot further than just loving us. God went so far that he give his only son to be tortured and killed by us. He suffered immensely, and according to Christians, suffered more than anyone who has ever lived because he not only received physical injuries, but also he bore the sins of all of humanity.

    We also believe God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are of the same substance. Their wills are directed in the same way for all eternity. Therefore they act in unison, there is no divergence. So Jesus came to Earth as much as he was sent. If a theological scholar would like to state that more precisely, please do.

    I hope this clarifies some of your questions. Please let me know if you have any more.


  5. Why is it with everything about the Jesus story being taken from many other Gods, you still call him the Son of God? I'm not going to say the man didn't exist, I'm not going to say the man was evil. Jesus could have been the greatest humanitarian on the planet. But a divine? I can't believe that.

  6. Jesus could not have been simply a good man, if he was not divine. That is logically impossible. Here's why.

    Most everyone agrees that Jesus was a great and wise man, and very holy. Gandhi believed he was the world's greatest moral teacher. Jesus claimed to be God, he told people he is the truth, the way and the life. He said before Abraham, "I Am", which is what God the Father referred to himself as. Jesus forgave sins, something no man could do. Jesus gave Peter the name Simon. Only God could change someone's name, so Jesus was showing that he is God. Ultimately Jesus was crucified for what he said about his divinity.

    For a Jewish man to call himself God (if he wasn't) was the greatest blasphemy, a horrible wicked lie. But a good and holy man does not lie, especially not a lie this enormous. If Jesus lied about this, it is the greatest, most evil lie ever told. A satanic lie, that Jesus said on many occassions, that would send billions on the wrong path.

    But this is not possible since our first premise has already shown Jesus to not only be good, but one of the greatest men who has ever lived. You even said yourself, he may be the greatest humanitarian in history. A great humanitarian who sacrificed his own life could not be a blasphemous, evil liar. On top of that, if he was a liar, then he is the only known liar in history who had no motive for his lying. He accumulated no great wealth, people dispised him, he was tortured and crucified at a relatively young age, even though he could have escaped. Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that Jesus is God.

  7. I did say a great humanitarian, I will never deny that. But from what I learned, the bible we have today isn't THE original bible, obviously. The bible that we have could (Probably is) edited. Edited over the years since it was written by corrupt men who figured "If God said it, they would believe it." Well, I would call them corrupt if they would edit a holy book to fit their beliefs.

    Jesus, like Gandhi, was a great humanitarian. A great teacher who only had the passion to help other people in non-violent ways. Like Gandhi, I believe Jesus was just a man. Not a divine. Of course, we all hold separate beliefs.

  8. Answer to last comment:
    Well, then the obvious question is if the Bible is edited(i.e. made up) how can you then even believe Jesus to be a "great humanitarian", it's on the Bible you base that assertion, is it not? You can't have it both ways.

    Most scholars will tell you that the historical credibility of the Gospels is high. For instance, the Gospel of Mark was written about only 30 years after the events had taken place, and the letters of Paul even earlier.
    It's difficult to "edit" historical events to serve your purposes when there are still a lot of people from those times living who can dispute your claims.

    You don't seem to like Christianity, that's your problem I suppose. But the whole Bible conspiracy theory just doesn't fly.