Let Freedom Ring

My thoughts on The Da Vinci Code movie

2006-06-12T02:18:00.000-04:00

Well I sat through this film the other day. I would call it a seething pile of horse manure but that would be a disservice to seething manure that comes from horses. Ill comment on the heresies of the film in a moment, first lets approach the quality of the film. The film had an awesome lineup of Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen, Alfred Molina, and my favorite Paul Bettany. (Whose character was the best one in the movie.) The lineup is pretty much the only thing I can praise about this movie. I felt like I was in the theater for 9 hours, it moved that slowly. Apart from a few cool items, (the cryptext) there was nothing of note about the movie. Even if I wasnt turned off by blasphemous heresies of the ending, it was an uneventful climax that was akin to opening the biggest present under the Christmas tree only to find the Greatest Hits of Celine Dion in the bottom.

On to the subject matter I would like to point out a few things that were false about the movie, but it is so hard to do so. Almost everything in the film and the book is an outright lie. For me to enumerate them it would fill 2 collections of the Encyclopedia Britannica, War and Peace, and my college calculus book. Here is one persons attempt at pointing out a few of the errors:

Originally posted by someone with a lot more time on their hands

First of all -- the Da Vinvi Code is a good work of FICTION. And, only in that realm. It screws up by stating one just about the first page the supposed "Facts."

One: Priory of Scion -- fake, there is no historical evidence that it existed before 1956 (founded by Pierre Plantard). In the same year the "Dossiers Secrets" was published claiming that the Prior had been around since 1099 and was founded in Jerusalem. In this same document, it listed its grand masters -- such as Da Vinci, Hugo, Newton, etc.

In 1993 Pierre Plantard admitted under oath in a French court that he had fabricated the entire story behind the Priory of Scion. So -- historical "fact" -- not even close.

Two: Da Vinci in no means painted Mary into the picture. The picture isn't about the last supper -- but the betrayal, when Jesus tells them that one will betray him, and they're all asking "surely it isn't me, Lord" etc. Keep in mind that in those times, a painter was given a commision to paint a picture, and was given guidelines to do so, with a fair amount of freedom. In this case it was the Duke of Mulan that wanted a nice picture so the monks had something nice to look at while they ate.

John -- who the Bible states was Jesus' favorite -- and also the youngest (he had no beard yet) was placed at the right hand side. The "V" between him and Jesus -- reading into things way to far. And -- Da Vinci answered the question of who it was long ago -- we have drawings that he made before he painted the final product, where all the disciples are labeled -- and the no beard, long hair one is labeled -- yup -- John. Not Mary.

Three: Jesus was not married. Jesus did not have children. There is NO -- none -- nada -- historical evidence for this. Even in the Gnostic gospels it says "companion" which in no way ALWAYS means marriage, but most often meant friendship. And Brown took the liberty upon himself to say that Jesus kissed her on the "mouth" -- the actual book states "kissed her often on the *blank*" -- it isn't there.

Another is that none of the later books of the Bible state that Jesus was married. Paul even preached that one should remain unmarried if they can. Not something a follower of Christ would preach if their master did it. They would then preach, and proclaim, that Jesus was married. So -- fanciful wishing on Dan's part.

Four: Constatine -- did not make Christianity the main religion. All he merely did was give the 'edict of toleration' which basically gave Christians the ability to worship without persecution/death/etc. It wasn't made the main religion until years later -- and not under Constatine's rule.

Five: The council of Nicaea was indeed called by Constatine -- but not for the fact the book claims. Constatine was tired of Christians fighting each other on their claims. The Diety of Christ was already known before the council took place. There are even secular records of Christians praising Jesus as God. And out of all those in attendant -- only 2 voted in favor against the view of Christ as God. While the others all voted in favor (about 316) -- in no way was it a cliff hanger.

The books of the Bible -- or the cannon -- was taken from what were already being taught by the followers in that day. Most were already accepted as doctrine. The council merely made it known for all.

We still have the text of the First Council of Nicaea. And everything that took place. (Emphasis mine read that sentence again. We know exactly what went on at this council and the facts the film and book reported, simply are not there.)

Six: Da Vinci on his death bed. Had a Christian death. And spoke nothing about females or the sacred fem. goddess.

Seven: The Rosslyn Chapel does not have the star of david on its floor. Go take a look.

Really -- this book is full of sick and horrid historical errors. It is a horribly diabolical book, in the sense that it has a great story mixed in with lies of historical events that your average person will accept...because, obviously so much research had went into the writing of the book.

The book based the bulk of its theology on some hotly disputed gospels which are more like op-ed pieces than gospels. They were written in the 2nd - 4th centuries and hold beliefs that are nowhere found in the first century of Christianity. They were also written under pseudonyms to give the writings more validity. The magnitude of this absurdity is along the lines of an author writing a novel 400 years from now claiming he knows more about what happened with the Kennedy assassination than the people who were there.

The worst part of the movie is the claim that Jesus was not divine; that this was simply made up by the church 300 years later. Without Jesus divinity, we have no hope. The entire Old and New Testaments points to Jesus and his ability to cleanse us of our sins. Without this we are doomed to hell. Jesus claimed to be divine, that is why he was crucified. Not only this, his disciples died grisly deaths in later years clinging to the same claim. Had they not believed that Jesus died and rose from the dead they would have dismissed this claim. If it was all a lie, they would have not laid down their lives for it. A person doesnt knowingly give up their lives for a lie.

I've ruffled some feathers

2006-03-04T04:54:00.000-05:00

I guess bad press is better than no press at all.

Chris Meece is an idiot and a loser, and he shouldn't be allowed to call himself a conservative.

Conservatives see drought of similar views on campuses - News

2006-02-23T22:20:00.000-05:00

Click to read the newstory
Here is today's article containing a small interview of me on the topic of liberal bias on EKU's campus. I am glad that I was quoted correctly, however this article is not without its misleadings. David Fifer was quoted to say that he has never felt uncomfortable in his classes. What the paper leaves out is that Fifer is a very vocal liberal. They masquerade him as a conservative to take air out of our complaints.

A second glaring point of this story was the claim that “Eastern's affirmative action statement does not expressly forbid discrimination based on political leanings.”

The statement says, "Eastern … does not discriminate on the basis of age, race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, national origin or Vietnam era or other veteran status." It's available at http://www.president.eku.edu/equalop/statement

So basically a student can stand up and say "I'm queer and I'm here" and have no fear of discrimination from the administration. However if a student stands up and claims to be pro-life or a Bush supporter, they are not covered by this clause. For those that think I am over reacting about this. I have heard with my own ears from two conservative professors who are afraid to stand up with us in our causes, due to their lack of tenure. They fear losing their jobs. This is not acceptable and I hope, with the help of the college republicans, that we can enact change in this clause.

It's ok to be a man

2005-08-18T15:55:00.000-04:00

Today I was musing on the characteristics of our past leaders, most notably President Ronald Reagan. I had just watched a 1964 TV ad that Reagan did for Senator Barry Goldwater. The idea that resounded through my head was, now that’s a man. Here was someone who said what he felt was right irregardless if it was politically correct. He was a man’s man, a leader, a John Wayne.

I attempted to dismiss my ideas with the thought that, sure he’s a man; it was perfectly acceptable to be a man back then. The media didn’t criticize strong men as being chauvinistic or bigots. Women’s studies professors didn’t host regular man-hating speakers and presentations on campuses. It was ok to be a man. And there it was staring me right in the face … it is ok to be a man, even today.

It is ok to be a man. It is ok to stand upon principles even as you are pelted with hate speech and called every name under the sun. It is ok to be chivalrous, and you better darn well be. It is ok not to be in touch with your sensitive side. It is ok to eat meat and potatoes and turn your nose up at tofu. It is ok to defend a woman’s honor, even if it results in a fist fight. It is ok to discuss your morals and base your decisions on them. It is ok to love your country. It is ok to fight for that that you love. It is ok to love one woman your entire life. It is ok to let your sons play with war toys and wrestle in the dirt. It is ok to be labeled intolerant and close-minded for not believing that all lifestyles and choices are moral. It is ok to believe there is right and wrong answers, and that the truth is not subjective. It is ok to be a Christian and take pride in your Christian heritage. It is ok to be a man, and it is time for more of us to step up to the plate and accept this mantle. This country, unapologetically, has a deep history of strong men. We need to look to the past and go back to some basic principles, if there is going to be any future worth having.

My Inaugural Blog

2005-08-08T15:21:00.000-04:00

The following is from a blog I composed on yahoo 360. I recieved such good feedback I have decided to post it here.

My inaugural blog will be briefly detailing my past week at the Young Americas Foundation conference in DC. http://www.yaf.org/

I must say, besides becoming a Christian, this week has been the most life altering I have ever experienced. I have cultivated a desire to be into politics that I never knew was there.

What an extreme lineup: Ann Coulter, Ben Stein, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Malkin, Lt. Col. Scott Rutter, Richard Wirthlin and many others. I learned more from these individuals in one week than I did in all the years I have been in college.

The biggest thing I learned from this week was not being afraid to stick to my guns and speak up for what I believe in. I am going to become a thorn in the side of many campus liberals this following year. Unlike them I won’t resort to ugly tactics and will temper all my comments with a smile.

Since I mentioned speaking up for what I believe in I feel this is a perfect place to enumerate this. The following is the first paragraph in my essay I submitted to be accepted to the YAF conference:

Why do I want to come to this conference? Well, you might as well ask me why I am a republican, because the motivation is the same. I feel this is a battle between a group whose morals dictate their actions versus a group that embraces the lowest ideals of our country. I am not the type to ‘agree to disagree.’ I don’t look for a happy medium between my ideas and their ideas. Their agenda has to be stopped. We have made great strides in previous elections but there is still a long road ahead of us. When activist judges can override the will of the people - we need to take action. When individuals can starve a woman to death in Florida and kill millions of innocent babies every year but think it is unjust to put a dangerous killer to death - we need to take action. When journalists try to shape our elections and also damage our troops’ efforts - we need to take action. Our country was founded by Christians, not Muslims or atheists, and although the latter two groups are in the vast minority, look whose will is being upheld – we need to take action. I believe a woman’s right to choose ends at conception. I don’t agree with the actions of some over zealous people in bombing abortion clinics and shooting abortion doctors; that is wrong. I feel those doctors should have had a trial before being executed.