Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Medical marijuana

2008-11-11T01:12:10Z

Jhan: Evidence that supporters smoke marijuana? Analgesia is proven.

'''Medical marijuana''' is [[marijuana]] used for its analgesic or otherwise therapeutic effects.

Critics doubt that there are any medicinal effects of marijuana, other than an overall effect sought by drug addicts. However, some studies show that Cannabidiol, a chemical compound found in marijuana, inhibits cancer cell growth in lab animals<ref>Mechoulam R., Peters M., Murillo-Rodriguez E., Hanus L.O. '''Cannabidiol - recent advances'''. Chemistry & Biodiversity. August 2007. Vol. 4, Issue 8. Page 1678-92. pmid=17712814. doi=10.1002/cbdv.200790147</ref>. Recent studies have shown cannabidiol to be as effective as [[atypical antipsychotics]] in treating [[schizophrenia]].<ref>Zuardi A.W., Crippa J.A.S., Hallak J.E.C., Moreira F.A., Guimarães F.S. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research [http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjmbr/v39n4/6164.pdf Cannabidiol as an antipsychotic drug] (PDF) 2006. Vol. 39. Page 421-9. ISSN 0100-879X</ref>, and [[marijuana]] is commonly viewed as a natural alternative to any otherwise synthetic pharmaceutical drugs. It has also been shown to increase brain cell growth <ref>[http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2005-3/issue9/ne-mj.html science: Study shows marijuana increases brain cell growth ]</ref>. Other well confirmed effects include the possibility of treating asthma, glaucoma, and anorexia, while it has also been somewhat effective in treating anxiety and bipolar disorder, infection, and inflammation. Despite the label as an addictive drug, it has ironically been shown to reduce the effects of withdrawal from benzodiazepines, opiates, and alcohol, decreasing not only the stress, but also physical symptoms. Some refer to the drug as a gateway drug back, as the effects of sudden, unassisted withdrawal from these groups of drugs can progress to delirium, tachycardia, hypertension, diaphoresis, seizures, and even death. <ref>[http://www.medboardwatch.com/wb/pages/therapeutic-effects.php: Therapeutic effects of Cannabis]</ref>.

Opponents of [[drug abuse]] charge that efforts to legalize medical marijuana are intended to be a step towards complete decriminalization and generally decry marijuana as a "[[gateway drug]]".

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[category:law]]
[[category:medicine]]
[[category:health]]

Russell's teapot

2008-10-29T23:15:54Z

Jhan: Fallacy is misleading, the rebuttal would completely change the original argument so that any conclusion is irrelevant.

'''Russel's Teapot''' is an [[argument]] first formulated by the [[philosopher]] [[Bertrand Russell]] as a [[reductio ad absurdum]] of the notion that in an argument about the possible existence of an [[unseen]] entity, the burden of proof is upon the skeptic.
{{cquote|If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.<ref>[http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html Is There A God?]</ref>}}

Some state that there is a fallacy in the argument is that there is in fact nothing absurd about believing the teapot to be there, if those "ancient books" were written by an ancient astronaut or other being who placed the teapot there.
The argument ''presumes'' that such is not the case, so presumes what it sets out to prove, and is thus a [[circular argument]]; the argument is based on the ''presumption'' that there is no valid reason, beyond widespread belief, to believe that the teapot exists.
But if the validity of those ancient books could be established, there is indeed reason to believe that the teapot exists, and thus the presumption in the argument is false.

Though seemingly logical, the rebuttal is irrelevant, because the validity of the ancient books cannot be established, as the argument is intended to refute religion by analogy. The argument is intended to emulate religion as closely as possible. The rebuttal relies on the premise that if the trustworthiness could be established, then the teapot would be reasonable. That is true, but the idea of an established book renders the analogy useless, because all premises must come from existing religion; if the religious cannot be completely affirmed, then Russell's teapot is a valid argument without the addition of a reliable source.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Logical fallacy

2008-10-29T02:35:34Z

Jhan: Examples made more clear.

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]]. A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false.

==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].

===Appeal to force===
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:

*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

===Appeal to pity===
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:

*Person A argues P
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P

For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the premise ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the conclusion ("I was racing to see my wife").

Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.

===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: "argument directed toward the man") fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).

====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore P is false

For example: "We all know that George beats his wife, so obviously he's wrong when he says that we should vote against this proposition." This is fallacious reasoning because the premise ("George beats his wife") does not have a logical link with the conclusion ("George is wrong"). Whatever undesirable qualities a person may have, they do not affect the truth or falsity of what he says.

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My opponent does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.

====''Poisoning the well''====
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold. The argument follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X
*Person A is wrong about Y
*Therefore person A must also be wrong about X

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects.

===Genetic fallacy===
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Q is true
*P is false
*Therefore Q is false

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Proof by numbers===
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:

:Most people believe P
:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others.

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:

*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q

For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.

===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore Q is false

For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."

===False cause===
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:

*P causes Q (faulty reasoning)
*P is true
*Therefore Q is true

For example: "I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades." While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.

====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after the thing, therefore because of the thing") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:

*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore P caused Q

For example: "Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off." Clearly this is not the case.

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:

*P
*Therefore R is true

For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."

===Overgeneralization===
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization or converse accident) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allows. Overgeneralization follows the form:

*P is Q
*P is in R
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"

Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

====Proving too much====
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore Q is true

A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well.

==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.

===Accident===
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:

*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".

===Contradiction===
:''Main article: [[Contradiction]]''

A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:

*P
*Not P

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?"

===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:

*P is true

Often the argument is simply repeated over and over, and no evidence for support is given.

Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

====Circular reasoning====
:''Main article: [[Circular reasoning]]''

[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

====Infinite regression====
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''

An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:

*P1 causes Q1
*Q2 causes P1
*P3 causes Q2
*Q4 causes P3
*And so on, forever

For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

====Manufacturing facts from a theory====

Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact.

In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.

====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' 

This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:

*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Therefore theory A is wrong

For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."
It should be noted that although the above argument by itself is a fallacy, strong evidence supporting the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago, as well as other evidence, will result in the argument being a proof by contradiction, not necessarily a fallacy.

===Straw man===
:''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]]

A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Person A says P
*Therefore Q

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

===Tautology===
:''Main article: [[tautology]]''

A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', "these") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of this" or "the study of these." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.

===Amphiboly===
Amphiboly is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:

For example: "Save soap and waste paper".

===Composition===
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.

For example: "Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy".

===Conflation===
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one.

For example: "Comparing apples to oranges".

===Division===
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.

For example: "That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important."

===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

== Related References ==
<references/>
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
*"The Fine Art of Baloney Detection." Sagan, Carl. ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark.'' Ballantine: New York, 1996; pp 201-218.

== See Also ==
*[[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]

[[Category:Logic]]

Logical fallacy

2008-10-29T02:29:30Z

Jhan: Example flawed.

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined as a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref> The maker of such an argument, however, need not be aware of its fallacious nature.

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.

There are four categories of informal fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]]. A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false.

==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].

===Appeal to force===
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:

*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30." It is fallacious because no amount of force can change the truth or falsity of the initial proposition.

===Appeal to pity===
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:

*Person A argues P
*Person B agrees P, but adds X, where X is an emotional argument unconnected to P

For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the premise ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the conclusion ("I was racing to see my wife").

Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.

===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: "argument directed toward the man") fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).

====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore P is false

For example: "We all know that George beats his wife, so obviously he's wrong when he says that we should vote against this proposition." This is fallacious reasoning because the premise ("George beats his wife") does not have a logical link with the conclusion ("George is wrong"). Whatever undesirable qualities a person may have, they do not affect the truth or falsity of what he says.

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My opponent does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.

====''Poisoning the well''====
Poisoning the well is a particular type of ''ad hominem'' argument. It consists of attempts to discredit a speaker (and, by extension, their argument) by criticizing unrelated opinions that they hold. The argument follows this form:

*Person A makes argument X
*Person B counters that person A also believes Y, where Y is something unacceptable, foolish, or easily disprovable, but unrelated to X
*Person A is wrong about Y
*Therefore person A must also be wrong about X

When spelled out in the above form, the fallacy is easily seen, but it is used very frequently in political debate where skillful use of rhetoric can mask the underlying fallacy. The argument is fallacious because a person's opinions on one subject do not affect the truth or falsity of their statements on other subjects.

===Genetic fallacy===
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Q is true
*P is false
*Therefore Q is false

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Proof by numbers===
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:

:Most people believe P
:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others.

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:

*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q

For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.

===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore Q is false

For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."

===False cause===
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:

*P causes Q (faulty reasoning)
*P is true
*Therefore Q is true

For example: "I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary. Therefore, I must have been paid based on my students' grades." While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.

====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after the thing, therefore because of the thing") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:

*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore P caused Q

For example: "Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off." Clearly this is not the case.

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:

*P
*Therefore R is true

For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."

===Overgeneralization===
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization or converse accident) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allows. Overgeneralization follows the form:

*P is Q
*P is in R
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"

Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

====Proving too much====
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore Q is true

A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well.

==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.

===Accident===
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:

*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".

===Contradiction===
:''Main article: [[Contradiction]]''

A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:

*P
*Not P

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?"

===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:

*P is true

Often the argument is simply repeated over and over, and no evidence for support is given.

Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

====Circular reasoning====
:''Main article: [[Circular reasoning]]''

[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

====Infinite regression====
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''

An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:

*P1 causes Q1
*Q2 causes P1
*P3 causes Q2
*Q4 causes P3
*And so on, forever

For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

====Manufacturing facts from a theory====

Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact.

In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.

====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' 

This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:

*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Therefore theory A is wrong

For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."

===Straw man===
:''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]]

A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Person A says P
*Therefore Q

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

===Tautology===
:''Main article: [[tautology]]''

A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', "these") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of this" or "the study of these." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.

===Amphiboli===
Amphiboli is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:

For example: "Save soap and waste paper".

===Composition===
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.

For example: "Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy".

===Conflation===
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one.

For example: "Comparing apples to oranges".

===Division===
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.

For example: "That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important."

===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

== Related References ==
<references/>
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
*"The Fine Art of Baloney Detection." Sagan, Carl. ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark.'' Ballantine: New York, 1996; pp 201-218.

== See Also ==
*[[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]

[[Category:Logic]]

Talk:God

2008-10-09T01:55:16Z

Jhan: Confused, seeks a complete explanation.

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--[[Elamdri|Elamdri]]

Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Neutrality==

Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:00, 12 March 2007
::Prove your "God" exists, then we'll talk. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:42, 22 March 2007

::Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called '''Conserv'''apedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::you have a source for that definition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::As a sociologist, I challenge you to definitively explain the "objective" right and wrong. I would also ask you to support your argument that "Christianity is right" with at least one academic source. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree to the necessary explanation of right and wrong. Many different religions have many different views on god. Some have very different views on creation. An example of this would be [[Bumba]]. We need to make sure that all religions are encompassed.--[[User:Liberal|Liberal]] 14:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm, reads here that "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". How about the existence of God? or merely his nature? That goes unnoticed?

::''Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it?'' Is 48:6
::''For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made'' Rm 1:20 [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Luke-Jr, your statement that Christianity is right is a perfect example of begging the question. Why is Christianity right? Because Christianity says so. Right? Secondly, You've got the definition of liberal wrong: A liberal is someone who favors personal freedom of choice for all individuals, as opposed to oppression of the people by a minority of individuals. Given that the entire core of Christianity is predicated on the notion of a person choosing whether or not to believe in God, whether or not to be saved, ot seems to me that a good Christian should BE a liberal: Why would you want to deny anyone the joy of choosing to have a relationship with God of their own accord, as opposed to using fear or coercion to make them? If you believe that using your mind to make decisions for yourself is evil, then by all means, don't do it, but with that choice you also forfeit the right to tell other people how to think or behave, because THINKING about why they're wrong would be wrong for you.
Also, the word "deitic" in the opening paragraph of this entry is not even a word. This is yet another Conservapedia article that I would give to a third-grade english class with the assignment of pointing out the mistakes. --[[GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:45, 5 April 2007 (CST)

The bible is proof that god exists; it has historical accounts of people meeting god. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 02:10, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

There is also the case of [[irreducible complexity]]. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 02:13, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==
"However, many are skeptical of this idea." -- The idea of it being the same god, or that it's a Muslim plot? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Note==
Excuse me, but is that really a fair assumption? I'm also pretty sure that Judaism is the source of both Islam and Christianity, but those two aren't actually connected to each other. But I could be wrong. Either way, it also seems to paint Islam in some sort of satanic light. They're just different and probably wrong, not evil.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Errors==
I appreciate the conclusion that the article needs to be locked in view of the high volume of vandalism, but I hope it's only temporary - especially as it prevents fine-tuning, and doesn't allow even alternative ''Christian'' views a look-in. For example, the article speaks of 'God' as a given, and without defining ''which'' God (as a previous version helpfully did). The expression 'fourth century' should in fact read 'second century' (I should know - I wrote it!). And the Bible doesn't require belief in a ''personal'' lord and saviour, whatever other kind of lord and saviour it may require belief in, and whatever additional ideas evangelicals might prefer to read into the Messianic texts. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Omnibenevolence==
Is god omnibenevolent? [[User:Zed|Zed]] 06:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia is not open==

How can you claim to have a communally edited encyclopedia if some pages are locked. What a sham! I would think the article on God would be one that quite a lot of people would like to contribute to.--[[User:Golden|Golden]]

:Wikipedia blocks articles also, don't forget. Article which are subject to constant vandalism have editing disabled, George W Bush for example. Given the nature of this site it's reasonable to expect much vandalism directed towards the god article. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 11:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Conservatives==

I think, Golden, that you will find, in general, that only by preventing freedom and the right of free speech can any Conservative system of power maintain it's rule. This very website is an excellent example of such a system. This is why many essential pages such as "[[god|god]]" and "[[jesus|jesus]]" tend to be locked- thus also heavily reducing their usefulness.

I thought American conservatives such as yourself are extremely patriotic to America? And isn't freedom of speech something America supposedly stands for? Doesn't your extremely conservative president constantly talk about freedom in America? So from what I can gather locking out users from contributing to articles in very un-conservative

==Attributes of God==
These are contradictory - consider that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and also that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). If God loves unconditionally, and is all-powerful and all knowing - why is there needless suffering. eg. disease, infant death, natural disasters etc. - if he KNOWS how to remove suffering (omniscience), has the POWER to relieve suffering (omnipotence), and loves us UNCONDITIONALLY, then there should be no suffering in the world. By deduction, one can assume that either God does not either a) have the power b) have the knowledge required or c) care enough. His abilities should not be listed like superpowers as this article does. [[User:Zed|Zed]] 03:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, "Jealousy" is left off the list. Its the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no gods before me, for I am a jealous god." Striking omission. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe" They did, actually. It's there in your bible.

I heard something about god which I found quite interesting, if good is all powerful and loves us all why is there needless suffering in the world? If good is all powerful and doesn't love us why worship him? If god isn't all powerful and loves us then he's pretty much useless and if god isn't all powerful and doesn't love us then it's pretty much the same thing[[User:Nobodyyouareawareof|Nobodyyouareawareof]] 02:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm far from a zealot, but these arguments always strike me as hopelessly simplistic. Why do we presume that we can understand God? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even? I imagine that small children (never mind animals, insects, etc...) can't comprehend why, if I claim to love them, I make them eat their vegetables, don't let them stay up as long they want, and so on. Just because a person believes that unconditional love and unlimited power should yield no suffering doesn't actually make it true.

:Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-wonders, wonders (ooom ba doo-oo oom!) who wrote the book of Job...''

:The argument against God's benevolence is severely flawed. It assumes that suffering serves no useful purpose and that a human society where God prohibits all suffering will necessarily be better than having suffering.
:Even reading the Book of Job won't be enough. You're going to need a doctorate or two in religious philosophy, etc., before you can seriously debate the Problem of Evil. --[[User:BaneWintermute|BaneWintermute]]

== Bad sentence ==

In "notes" the phrase ''a ritualized 'adoption' ritual'' appears. What would a non-ritualised ritual be like, I wonder? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I dont believe in god.

== Capitalization Concerns ==

If referring to the Creator of the Universe, then the word 'creator' should be capitalized.
Also, when referring to THE Cross, or the actual place of 'Cavalry' (and not mounted soldiers) or THE Ressurection, the words 'cross', 'cavalry' and 'ressurection' should all be capitalized.
<ref>http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm#terms</ref>
:Just a note, the PLACE is Calvary, the military unit is cavalry. Note the difference in the location of the 'l'.
::I think lots of people have problems with both words...I still do that sometimes! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==other views of god==

The god this article refers to is not just the god of christianity, it is also the god of Islam and Judaism, that piece of information should also be included, as well as the views on god from other religions, if only one perspective of the subject is given then it severely undermines the reliability of the article.<--Previous comment left by [[Nobodyyouareawareof]]
:Take a look at [[Allah]]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
{{cquote|James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.}}

== Error in first sentence (concept of God), or missing reference==
It is WRONG to say that God is the creator of the Universe. The Holy Bible tells us that God has created the HEAVENS and the EARTH. The author of this entry distorts this knowledge by claiming that God has created the Universe. There is no reference for this, however. Kluivert 18 August 2007

==God's Evidence==
I say we should include the fact that, despite many philosophical and scientific tentatives of people to prove him, God has never ever unconfutably shown his existence. I think this is very important in the being of God, because he is so good he leaves us the freedom to choose to believe him or not. He still wants us to search for him, and not accept him as an unquestionable truth. He wants as to believe, he wants us to ''choose'' to believe. This can't be kept unwritten. P.S. Sorry for any language mistakes, I'm Italian.[[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 09:21, 24 January 2008 (EST)

: I appreciate that you have problems with the language, but I can't figure out what word you meant by "unconfutably". "Irrefutably", perhaps? No matter how strong the evidence, some still won't believe, so I'm not sure that irrefutable evidence, in the absolute sense, is really possible. And for someone who is basically saying that we can't know of God's existence as a certainty, you seem to be quite certain about what this uncertain God wants us to believe. I agree that He wants us to ''choose'' to believe, but I also think that He wants us to be convinced, not uncertain. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: Yes, I meant that he has not clearly stated his existence so to result obviously present to us. I think we should write of his choice not to ever been proven [[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 11:53, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::: I believe that He has made His existence quite clear, but my point was that because some people won't believe no matter how clear He makes existence known, so there's no point is saying that He could have made it clearer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::::He can certainly make it clearer. Every action we can observe today has an explanation independent of God, and the Bible is old enough that many believe it to be of dubious credibility in terms of the literal, physical events that took place. Consistent, verifiable, clear violations of the laws of physics (especially connected with a religious setting) would do much to convince many unbelievers. Nonetheless, God does not intervene in that way, and this is an important aspect of His character. [[User:BaneWintermute|BaneWintermute]]
::::: Sounds like a bit of chronological snobbery in there. Why does its age undermine its credibility? (Or are you suggesting that that's the view of many people, but not your view?) If there were ''consistent'' and ''verifiable'' (by means of repeatable tests) "violations" of the laws of physics, then surely those "violations" would indicate that we have the laws of physics wrong? And that they aren't really "violations" at all? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Breach of commandments? ==

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't know how any of the article as is follows this rule. The most flagrant violation being

"God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin."

How is this even remotely verifiable?[[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:23, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
: By reference to a very reliable document: The Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:04, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::So then the bible counts as absolute truth? And "verification" means "looking at the bible"? [[User:Qc|Qc]] 08:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Why did you just move the goalposts from "verifiable" to "absolute truth"? Is that a tacit admission that your original criticism didn't stand up to scrutiny? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:23, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Since the references to the bible that deal with this article are impossible to verify objectively, (ie, god punishes the wicked in hell) the only conclusion is that CP (or at least you as an editor) treat the bible as absolute truth. Not that this is wrong in itself, but it seems to violate the "verifiable" commandment or at least represent a lack of understanding of the word. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 11:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: If someone posts a claim on Wikipedia, it has to be cited from a "reliable source". They say nothing about being able to verify that the "reliable source" is correct. Similar applies here. The claim can be verified from a source that has proven reliability. There's no requirement to independently check every claim made by that source. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I think the problem is here a lack of clarity in the first commandment, specifically what is meant by "verifiable" They really should elaborate considerably, especially since this is such a controversial arena. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

*Add to the start of the article:

::''This article is about the God of the Bible. For the use of the term to refer to any deity, see [[Other gods]].''

:My usual disclaimers apply. Feel free to ignore this if you want. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 19:53, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
:: There's already a link to [[Other gods]]. I nearly did add a line similar to your suggestion, but then decided that it really wasn't necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==
Why is God usually referred to as a 'he'? Wouldn't God be more properly termed an 'it', being what God is? That's just a small section of Christianity that I was curious about. --[[User:GeorgeO|GeorgeO]] 16:06, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
: My opinion is that "he" is not primarily a ''masculine'' term, but a term used for a ''person'', i.e. a gender-neutral term, as is the term "man" (which is not to deny that both terms ''also'' have gender-specific uses). In Genesis, it says that God created "man" both male and female. "Man" can be used as synonymous with "mankind" or "human", and I believe that "he" and similar terms are similarly used in a gender-neutral way. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence?==

Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves? If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late? If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it? If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain? And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 6 August 2008

* Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves?
:Often times dealing with infinite elements has a tendency to appear to be contradictory, even in nature. If two objects are approaching each other with each going the speed of light, then how fast are they approaching? 1+1=2, but not in this case. The answer is the speed of light. 1+1=1

* If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late?
:Not intervening is not the same as not seeing

* If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it?
:Yes. But this is more of an exercise in absurdity than anything having to do with God. It's basically taking a nonsensical statement and then putting God into it. Example: Can God make a color that is bluer than blue?

* If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain?
:Taking the story of Adam and Eve that you reference above, our original moral compass has been skewed, but He has still given us a way to know Him personally.

* And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god?
:Jealous has a different meaning there than we usually ascribe to it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:36, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Why would two objects going at the speed of light approach at the speed of light?

:Science states that is what occurs; it is a paradox. But when a paradox comes from science, which is limited, it is accepted. When it comes from God, who is not limited, it is fought.

If he saw it, but was just not intervening, why would he ask them how they knew they were naked?

:The same reason parents will ask their children questions that they already know the answer to. It has more to do with the children than the parents doesn't it?

If we had a good original moral compass, then why would he let us take it away,

:Free will

... and why did Eve disobey God on the advice of a snake?

:Free will

Exercise in absurdity? Yes. But doesn't that have something to do with omnipotence? Absurdity in the form of a direct contradiction is a valid argument form, a reductio ad absurdum, also known as proof by contradiction. This shows that nothing is omnipotent.

:I would disagree that the ability to create a nonsense argument means that omnipotence is impossible. By the same logic there is no such thing as infinity (a much easier argument), but infinity must exist for current secular positions on where our universe came from.

What's wrong with it? And jealousy is defined by resentment of a rival. Didn't Elijah kill the prophets of Baal in the name of God? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 6 August 2008

:Yes he did. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:11, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

It is not a paradox. You are simply not adding velocities correctly. At very high speeds, special relativity tends to be counter-intuitive. 90%c+90%c does not equal 180%c. It comes over 99%c, but not quite at the speed of light. Counter-intuitive in numbers, but it is also faulty to think that winning a game of chance with 1% to win can have the chance be raised in a linear fashion because 1/100 + 1/100 = 2/100 or 1/50, as 100 tries will not guarantee you a win, although 1/100 multiplied by 100 equals 100%.

Free will is your answer for almost half of these. But is it truly free? Science shows that serotonin, dopamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, etc. can influence behaviors such as aggression and addiction. Doesn't he know what neurons are activating in our brain?

Could you provide an example of a contradiction proving infinity wrong? Because if A leads to B, and B isn't true, how can A be true. You would disagree, but could you tell me why?

Yes, Elijah killed the prophets of Baal, that tore their hair out in an attempt to stir their god. They clearly believed in Baal, but there was no mercy nonetheless. So isn't he a jealous god, in every sense of the word? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 9 October 2008

Talk:God

2008-08-21T13:08:34Z

Jhan: omnipotence?

I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--[[Elamdri|Elamdri]]

Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Neutrality==

Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:00, 12 March 2007
::Prove your "God" exists, then we'll talk. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:42, 22 March 2007

::Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called '''Conserv'''apedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::you have a source for that definition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::As a sociologist, I challenge you to definitively explain the "objective" right and wrong. I would also ask you to support your argument that "Christianity is right" with at least one academic source. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree to the necessary explanation of right and wrong. Many different religions have many different views on god. Some have very different views on creation. An example of this would be [[Bumba]]. We need to make sure that all religions are encompassed.--[[User:Liberal|Liberal]] 14:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm, reads here that "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". How about the existence of God? or merely his nature? That goes unnoticed?

::''Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it?'' Is 48:6
::''For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made'' Rm 1:20 [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Luke-Jr, your statement that Christianity is right is a perfect example of begging the question. Why is Christianity right? Because Christianity says so. Right? Secondly, You've got the definition of liberal wrong: A liberal is someone who favors personal freedom of choice for all individuals, as opposed to oppression of the people by a minority of individuals. Given that the entire core of Christianity is predicated on the notion of a person choosing whether or not to believe in God, whether or not to be saved, ot seems to me that a good Christian should BE a liberal: Why would you want to deny anyone the joy of choosing to have a relationship with God of their own accord, as opposed to using fear or coercion to make them? If you believe that using your mind to make decisions for yourself is evil, then by all means, don't do it, but with that choice you also forfeit the right to tell other people how to think or behave, because THINKING about why they're wrong would be wrong for you.
Also, the word "deitic" in the opening paragraph of this entry is not even a word. This is yet another Conservapedia article that I would give to a third-grade english class with the assignment of pointing out the mistakes. --[[GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:45, 5 April 2007 (CST)

==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==
"However, many are skeptical of this idea." -- The idea of it being the same god, or that it's a Muslim plot? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Note==
Excuse me, but is that really a fair assumption? I'm also pretty sure that Judaism is the source of both Islam and Christianity, but those two aren't actually connected to each other. But I could be wrong. Either way, it also seems to paint Islam in some sort of satanic light. They're just different and probably wrong, not evil.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Errors==
I appreciate the conclusion that the article needs to be locked in view of the high volume of vandalism, but I hope it's only temporary - especially as it prevents fine-tuning, and doesn't allow even alternative ''Christian'' views a look-in. For example, the article speaks of 'God' as a given, and without defining ''which'' God (as a previous version helpfully did). The expression 'fourth century' should in fact read 'second century' (I should know - I wrote it!). And the Bible doesn't require belief in a ''personal'' lord and saviour, whatever other kind of lord and saviour it may require belief in, and whatever additional ideas evangelicals might prefer to read into the Messianic texts. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Omnibenevolence==
Is god omnibenevolent? [[User:Zed|Zed]] 06:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia is not open==

How can you claim to have a communally edited encyclopedia if some pages are locked. What a sham! I would think the article on God would be one that quite a lot of people would like to contribute to.--[[User:Golden|Golden]]

:Wikipedia blocks articles also, don't forget. Article which are subject to constant vandalism have editing disabled, George W Bush for example. Given the nature of this site it's reasonable to expect much vandalism directed towards the god article. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 11:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Conservatives==

I think, Golden, that you will find, in general, that only by preventing freedom and the right of free speech can any Conservative system of power maintain it's rule. This very website is an excellent example of such a system. This is why many essential pages such as "[[god|god]]" and "[[jesus|jesus]]" tend to be locked- thus also heavily reducing their usefulness.

I thought American conservatives such as yourself are extremely patriotic to America? And isn't freedom of speech something America supposedly stands for? Doesn't your extremely conservative president constantly talk about freedom in America? So from what I can gather locking out users from contributing to articles in very un-conservative

==Attributes of God==
These are contradictory - consider that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and also that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). If God loves unconditionally, and is all-powerful and all knowing - why is there needless suffering. eg. disease, infant death, natural disasters etc. - if he KNOWS how to remove suffering (omniscience), has the POWER to relieve suffering (omnipotence), and loves us UNCONDITIONALLY, then there should be no suffering in the world. By deduction, one can assume that either God does not either a) have the power b) have the knowledge required or c) care enough. His abilities should not be listed like superpowers as this article does. [[User:Zed|Zed]] 03:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, "Jealousy" is left off the list. Its the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no gods before me, for I am a jealous god." Striking omission. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe" They did, actually. It's there in your bible.

I heard something about god which I found quite interesting, if good is all powerful and loves us all why is there needless suffering in the world? If good is all powerful and doesn't love us why worship him? If god isn't all powerful and loves us then he's pretty much useless and if god isn't all powerful and doesn't love us then it's pretty much the same thing[[User:Nobodyyouareawareof|Nobodyyouareawareof]] 02:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm far from a zealot, but these arguments always strike me as hopelessly simplistic. Why do we presume that we can understand God? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even? I imagine that small children (never mind animals, insects, etc...) can't comprehend why, if I claim to love them, I make them eat their vegetables, don't let them stay up as long they want, and so on. Just because a person believes that unconditional love and unlimited power should yield no suffering doesn't actually make it true.

:Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-wonders, wonders (ooom ba doo-oo oom!) who wrote the book of Job...''

== Bad sentence ==

In "notes" the phrase ''a ritualized 'adoption' ritual'' appears. What would a non-ritualised ritual be like, I wonder? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I dont believe in god.

== Capitalization Concerns ==

If referring to the Creator of the Universe, then the word 'creator' should be capitalized.
Also, when referring to THE Cross, or the actual place of 'Cavalry' (and not mounted soldiers) or THE Ressurection, the words 'cross', 'cavalry' and 'ressurection' should all be capitalized.
<ref>http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm#terms</ref>
:Just a note, the PLACE is Calvary, the military unit is cavalry. Note the difference in the location of the 'l'.
::I think lots of people have problems with both words...I still do that sometimes! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==other views of god==

The god this article refers to is not just the god of christianity, it is also the god of Islam and Judaism, that piece of information should also be included, as well as the views on god from other religions, if only one perspective of the subject is given then it severely undermines the reliability of the article.<--Previous comment left by [[Nobodyyouareawareof]]
:Take a look at [[Allah]]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
{{cquote|James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.}}

== Error in first sentence (concept of God), or missing reference==
It is WRONG to say that God is the creator of the Universe. The Holy Bible tells us that God has created the HEAVENS and the EARTH. The author of this entry distorts this knowledge by claiming that God has created the Universe. There is no reference for this, however. Kluivert 18 August 2007

==God's Evidence==
I say we should include the fact that, despite many philosophical and scientific tentatives of people to prove him, God has never ever unconfutably shown his existence. I think this is very important in the being of God, because he is so good he leaves us the freedom to choose to believe him or not. He still wants us to search for him, and not accept him as an unquestionable truth. He wants as to believe, he wants us to ''choose'' to believe. This can't be kept unwritten. P.S. Sorry for any language mistakes, I'm Italian.[[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 09:21, 24 January 2008 (EST)

: I appreciate that you have problems with the language, but I can't figure out what word you meant by "unconfutably". "Irrefutably", perhaps? No matter how strong the evidence, some still won't believe, so I'm not sure that irrefutable evidence, in the absolute sense, is really possible. And for someone who is basically saying that we can't know of God's existence as a certainty, you seem to be quite certain about what this uncertain God wants us to believe. I agree that He wants us to ''choose'' to believe, but I also think that He wants us to be convinced, not uncertain. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: Yes, I meant that he has not clearly stated his existence so to result obviously present to us. I think we should write of his choice not to ever been proven [[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 11:53, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::: I believe that He has made His existence quite clear, but my point was that because some people won't believe no matter how clear He makes existence known, so there's no point is saying that He could have made it clearer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Breach of commandments? ==

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't know how any of the article as is follows this rule. The most flagrant violation being

"God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin."

How is this even remotely verifiable?[[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:23, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
: By reference to a very reliable document: The Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:04, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::So then the bible counts as absolute truth? And "verification" means "looking at the bible"? [[User:Qc|Qc]] 08:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Why did you just move the goalposts from "verifiable" to "absolute truth"? Is that a tacit admission that your original criticism didn't stand up to scrutiny? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:23, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Since the references to the bible that deal with this article are impossible to verify objectively, (ie, god punishes the wicked in hell) the only conclusion is that CP (or at least you as an editor) treat the bible as absolute truth. Not that this is wrong in itself, but it seems to violate the "verifiable" commandment or at least represent a lack of understanding of the word. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 11:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: If someone posts a claim on Wikipedia, it has to be cited from a "reliable source". They say nothing about being able to verify that the "reliable source" is correct. Similar applies here. The claim can be verified from a source that has proven reliability. There's no requirement to independently check every claim made by that source. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I think the problem is here a lack of clarity in the first commandment, specifically what is meant by "verifiable" They really should elaborate considerably, especially since this is such a controversial arena. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

*Add to the start of the article:

::''This article is about the God of the Bible. For the use of the term to refer to any deity, see [[Other gods]].''

:My usual disclaimers apply. Feel free to ignore this if you want. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 19:53, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
:: There's already a link to [[Other gods]]. I nearly did add a line similar to your suggestion, but then decided that it really wasn't necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==
Why is God usually referred to as a 'he'? Wouldn't God be more properly termed an 'it', being what God is? That's just a small section of Christianity that I was curious about. --[[User:GeorgeO|GeorgeO]] 16:06, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
: My opinion is that "he" is not primarily a ''masculine'' term, but a term used for a ''person'', i.e. a gender-neutral term, as is the term "man" (which is not to deny that both terms ''also'' have gender-specific uses). In Genesis, it says that God created "man" both male and female. "Man" can be used as synonymous with "mankind" or "human", and I believe that "he" and similar terms are similarly used in a gender-neutral way. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence?==

Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves? If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late? If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it? If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain? And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 6 August 2008

* Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves?
:Often times dealing with infinite elements has a tendency to appear to be contradictory, even in nature. If two objects are approaching each other with each going the speed of light, then how fast are they approaching? 1+1=2, but not in this case. The answer is the speed of light. 1+1=1

* If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late?
:Not intervening is not the same as not seeing

* If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it?
:Yes. But this is more of an exercise in absurdity than anything having to do with God. It's basically taking a nonsensical statement and then putting God into it. Example: Can God make a color that is bluer than blue?

* If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain?
:Taking the story of Adam and Eve that you reference above, our original moral compass has been skewed, but He has still given us a way to know Him personally.

* And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god?
:Jealous has a different meaning there than we usually ascribe to it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:36, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Why would two objects going at the speed of light approach at the speed of light? If he saw it, but was just not intervening, why would he ask them how they knew they were naked? If we had a good original moral compass, then why would he let us take it away, and why did Eve disobey God on the advice of a snake? Exercise in absurdity? Yes. But doesn't that have something to do with omnipotence? Absurdity in the form of a direct contradiction is a valid argument form, a reductio ad absurdum, also known as proof by contradiction. This shows that nothing is omnipotent. What's wrong with it? And jealousy is defined by resentment of a rival. Didn't Elijah kill the prophets of Baal in the name of God? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 6 August 2008

Vestigial structures

2008-08-20T17:15:47Z

Jhan: Lack of understanding of evolution, devolution is not a word

'''Vestigial structures''' are structures or organs that have been claimed by evolutionists as [[theory of evolution|evolutionary]] "leftovers", that are no longer functional, and this has been used as evidence for evolution, as [[God]] would not have created useless structures and organs.<ref name="JB2000">Bergman, 2000</ref>

This is not a scientific argument, but a [[theology|theological]] argument.<ref>Doyle, 2008</ref>
Also, the list of supposedly vestigial organs in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to none in 1999<ref name="JB2000" />, as functions have been found for such organs.

== Functional "vestigial" organs ==

Some of the organs previously thought to be vestigial have important functions. Jerry Bergman wrote:<ref name="JB2000" />
{{QuoteBox|Few examples of vestigial organs in humans are now offered, and the ones that are have been shown by more recent research to be completely functional (and in many cases critically so, see Bergman and Howe)...
 
One popular book on the human body which discussed vestigial organs stated that next to [[circumcision]]
<blockquote>‘… [[tonsillectomy]] is the most frequently performed piece of surgery. Doctors once thought [[tonsils]] were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract ''after'' tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for [[surgery]]...’</blockquote>}}

== Loss of function does not prove evolution ==

Evolutionist claim that [[snake]]s have vestigial features.<ref>Zimmer, 1997</ref>
According to the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'':
{{QuoteBox|Scientists have found fossils of a legged snake with “hips” – a specimen that could be the most primitive snake ever unearthed. The find suggests early snakes were not creatures of the sea and has reignited the debate over how snakes evolved.

Sebastián Apesteguía at the Argentine Museum of Natural History and his team found the snake fossil in a terrestrial deposit in the Río Negro province of north Patagonia, Argentina, in 2003. Unlike a handful of legged fossils found in marine deposits and identified as snakes over the past decade, the new fossil, named Najash rionegrina, has a well-defined sacrum supporting a pelvis and functional hind legs outside of its ribcage.<ref>New Scientist, 2006</ref>}}

[[Creation Science|Creation scientists]] dispute that snakes with legs are evidence for the theory of evolution:
{{QuoteBox|Even assuming it could be established that the ancestor of snakes today had legs, creationists have no problem in principle with loss of features through natural processes. Development of leglessness is not evidence for molecules-to-man evolution, which requires addition of ''new'' genetic information. Loss of legs could be achieved through degeneration of the DNA information sequences that specify leg development.<ref>Anon, 2000 (emphasis in original)</ref>}}

== Different views ==

In the view of secular evolutionists, vestigial structures are some of the best evidence in favor of [[evolution]] and against [[Intelligent Design]] because the most parsimonious explanation for these structures' existence is that they were once functional in progenitor species, but were rendered useless by evolution. According to [[Occam's Razor]], all other things being equal, the solution that makes the fewest assumptions is the best.

However, this argument ignores the counter argument of [[the fall]], where it is understood that current conditions are not the way God originally designed.

Furthermore, the fact that science has not determined the function of a particular structure does not mean that the structure has no function. Indeed, as stated earlier evolutionists have in the past proposed 180 human organs as being vestigial, but we now know that the vast majority of those organs have since been found to have definite functions,<ref name="JB2000" /> including the [[tonsils]], [[thymus]], and the [[pineal gland]]. The tonsils were found to help fight infection, and the thymus and pineal gland were both found to secrete important hormones.<ref>Darwinism Refuted.com</ref>. In addition, a number of suggestions have been made about the role of the human appendix.<ref>Glover, 1998; Ham and Wieland, 1997; Wilkinson, 2004; Anon., 2007; Wieland and Doyle, 2008.</ref>

== Sources ==
* Anon., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3649 Snakes with legs? A preliminary reply], 20th March 2000.
* Anon., [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/ Scientists may have found appendix’s purpose], MSNBC, 5th October, 2007.
* Batten, Don, and Sarfati, John, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3863/ ‘Vestigial’ Organs: What do they prove?] (Creation Ministries International).
* Bergman, Jerry, "Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?", ''Journal of Creation'' 14(2):95–98, August 2000. [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1663 HTML], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_2/j14_2_95-98.pdf PDF].
* Darwinism Refuted.com, [http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_02.html The Myth of Vestigial Organs].
* Doyle, Shaun, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5811 Vestigial arguments: remnants of evolution], 11th June 2008 (Creation Ministries International)
* Glover, Warwick, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1759 The human vermiform appendix] ''Journal of Creation'' 3(1):31–38, April 1988.
* Ham, Ken, and Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/709 Your appendix ... it’s there for a reason], ''Creation'' 20(1):41–42, December 1997.
* New Scientist [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9020.html Oldest snake fossil shows a bit of leg], 19th April, 2006
* Wilkinson, Richard, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/559 Cutting out a useless vestigial argument], ''Creation'' 26(3):51, June 2004.
* Wieland, Carl, and Doyle, Shaun, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5756 More musings on our ‘useless’ appendix], May 2008 (Creation Ministries International).
* Zimmer, Carl, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n7_v18/ai_19560108 How the snake lost its legs: Snakes, researchers once thought, descended from humble burrowing lizards. New evidence suggests a marine pedigree, and a family tree that includes 45-foot reptiles], Discover, July 1997.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/tailbone.html Do Humans really have a Vestigial Tailbone? If not then what is it?]

[[category:biology]]
[[Category:Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]

The Da Vinci Code

2008-08-10T00:16:52Z

Jhan: Irrelevant, not neutral

==='''Introduction'''===
----
The Da Vinci Code is a bestselling novel by author [[Dan Brown]]. It has sold over 40 million copies worldwide, and has been translated into over 40 languages. (ParisInfo.com) It has been on the top of the [[NY Times]] Bestseller List since its release in 2003, and held the coveted #1 spot for many weeks. (Catholic.com) The book’s exciting storyline and interesting characters have contributed to its record sales—as has its highly controversial content.

[[Image: davincicode.jpg|thumb|right|120px|''The Da Vinci Code'' book cover (UK 1st edition)]]

The Da Vinci Code creates an alternate history of Christianity which contradicts much of the historical record, leading to protests that the book is attacking the church. Although only a novel, Dan Brown feeds the impression throughout The Da Vinci Code of having meticulously researched the history of Christianity, although many assertions have been pointed out as spurious, including the existence of the Priory of Sion, an organization created in 1099 in the book, while in truth it was a hoax created in 1956. He includes a fact page in the beginning of the book and makes references to numerous historical sources, historians and scholars throughout to give an appearance of scholarly research. In an interview on [[Good Morning America]], Dan Brown stated with conviction that if he had been asked to write a non-fiction version of The Da Vinci Code he would change none of the historical material he included in the novel. Brown's critics of his claims for historacity asked him to appear with them and answer the charges of his many errors (over 30), but Brown refused to do so, saying he was too busy working on his next book.

Many authors have written books debunking the historical inaccuracies in the Brown's book, selling millions of copies.

==='''Plot Summary'''===
----

The book is set up to be a thriller. Robert Langdon, a [Harverd] “symbologist” (a fictitious field of study), is summoned to help solve a murder committed at the [Louvre]. Langdon and Sophie Neveu, a cryptographer with the French police, are left with a trail of clues to unravel, and with the help of resident scholar Sir Leigh Teabing, crack the codes to uncover groundbreaking secrets.

The first astounding thing Langdon discovers is "the truth" about the biblical figure [[Mary Magdalene]]. In the novel Mary Magdalene was a Jewish woman from the tribe of Benjamin and [[Jesus]]’ single most important disciple—in fact she was more than his disciple, she was his lover and wife, and the mother of their child, Sarah. She was Jesus’ female counterpart, if not entirely “equal” to him, she was pretty close, and meant to be worshipped as a goddess.

Furthermore, according to the novel, Mary was actually intended to be the leader of the church after Jesus’ death (instead of Peter), but was demonized and diminished by Peter and his followers—the chauvinistic “winners"—until history saw her as nothing more than a prostitute. Although every historical document recording these so-called facts about Mary were destroyed by the “winners”, some groups of people throughout history knew and preserved the secret. Specifically, these organizations were the [[Knight’s Templar]] and the [[Priory of Scion]] who were dedicated to preserving the truth of who Mary Magdalene was. One way of doing this was through the legend of the [[Holy Grail]], which the book says is Mary Magdalene’s womb—the sacred vessel which bore the blood line of Christ. Both organizations secretly worshipped Mary Magdalene as a goddess.
[[Image: monalisa2.jpg|thumb|left|200px|''The Mona Lisa'']]

Jesus’ divinity in the novel is another issue altogether. It wasn’t until 300 years after his death that his divinity was invented by [[Constantine]] at the [[Council of Nicaea]]. His disciples did not view him as God in the flesh, but instead as a mere mortal prophet. As for the Biblical Gospels, well they were four of “over eighty” which were selected at the Council of Nicaea—the four gospels that emphasized Jesus’ divinity and demonized women the most. The rest were destroyed, and the Canon as we know it today is not the inspired Word of God as many believe.

It is story above revealing this fictional conspiracy that gives the Da Vinci Code its allure.

==='''Part I: Mary Magdalene, Wife of the Messiah?'''===
----
Mary Magdalene is a good place to start, because she and her supposed marriage to Jesus are the cornerstones upon which Brown’s claims rest. In The Da Vinci Code, Brown states that Mary Magdalene is a “royal” Jewish woman from the tribe of Benjamin and Jesus’ single most important disciple. She is not a prostitute—in fact this was a lie invented by the Catholic Church to demonize her. She is also his lover, wife, and the mother of their daughter, Sarah. She was supposed to be the leader of the church after Jesus’ death, but was forced by “Peter’s Party” aka “the winners” to escape to Provence, France with her daughter. Her womb is the “Holy Grail”, her bones are buried under the glass pyramid at the [[Louvre]], the Priory of Scion and Knight’s Templar were dedicated to preserving her story and worshipped her as a goddess, she was the “Divine Mother” and represented the real purpose of Jesus’ life and teaching—to reintegrate the “Sacred Feminine” into society. However, Mary Magdalene is mentioned only a few times in the gospels—and never once is a single one of Brown’s claims about Mary supported by the Biblical record. (Welborn 63)

Where did all of these ideas come from? According to The Da Vinci Code’s resident scholar, Teabing, “the royal bloodline has been chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians,” citing The Templar Revelation and [[Holy Blood, Holy Grail]] as sources. Interestingly, these books (which are also found in Dan Brown’s official bibliography) are dismissed by all serious historians, and described as being “schlock pseudo-history and conspiracy-theory.” (Welborn 63) Teabing also mentions ''[[The Woman with the Alabaster Jar]]'' and ''[[The Goddess in the Gospels]]'', both by [[Margaret Starbird]], who uses, among other things, [[numerology]] (the sum of the numbers in her name), to conclude that Mary Magdalene was worshipped as a goddess. Additional sources for Brown’s claims lie in the [[Gnostic gospels]] (Welborn 63)

[[Image: littlemermaid.jpg|thumb|right|200px|In TDVC, Brown gives credence to Margaret Starbird’s idea that Ariel, the ‘Little Mermaid’ in the Disney film, is not just a fictional fairy tale character, but a symbol representing Mary Magdalene. According to Brown, Walt Disney was a believer in the Sacred Feminine and purposefully filled the movie with hidden codes about Mary Magdalene, including Ariel’s red hair (supposedly MM’s was red as well) and the painting she finds at the bottom of the sea ([[Georges de la Tour]]’s [[Magdalene with the Smoking Flame]]). (Starbird) These claims seem to be disproven given that Walt Disney had been dead for over 20 years when The Little Mermaid was made in 1989.]]

Even with these incredulous sources to occasionally back him up, most of Brown’s claims about Mary Magdalene have no historical evidence behind them whatsoever. There is no record anywhere to even suggest that Mary Magdalene was of the tribe of Benjamin—and this would not have made her “royal”. (Ehrman 160) It is true that in the gospels there is no mention of Mary Magdalene as having been a prostitute. This idea first came into existence 500 years after the gospels were written, and became popular in the [[Middle Ages]] and [[the Renaissance]]. In 1969, the [[Catholic Church]] issued a formal statement clearing Mary’s reputation, and separating her from Mary from Bethany, the “sinful woman.” (Van Biema)

The idea continually perpetuated by Brown throughout The Da Vinci Code that the church demonized Mary Magdalene (and women in general) for centuries is also highly inconsistent with historical record. Incidentally, this idea is not an original one—in fact, it is quite popular among feminist scholars and professors. (Welborn 68) They teach that Christianity is about men being “the winners” and women being suppressed and diminished and “use a few Gnostic gospels (written over 100 years after Jesus’ death) to speculate [their] ideologically-motivated interpretation of Christianity.” (Welborn 69)

This is totally incompatible with historical evidence, however. During the time period that Mary was supposedly being subdued by Peter’s party, prominent church leaders such as [[Hippolytus]], [[St. Ambrose]], and [[St. Augustine]] were writing her praises in their literature, describing her as “the new Eve” and “the apostle to the apostles”. If the mainstream Christian church—the winners—were trying to eliminate Mary’s influence and reputation would they at the same time be extolling her virtues and cherishing the fact that she was the first to see Jesus after the Resurrection? (Welborn 69-70)

The single shred of evidence upon which the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married is found in a portion of the [[Gnostic gospel of Philip]], written a full 200 years after Jesus’ death, which states, “and the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene. […] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her […].” Brackets indicate where holes exist in the original manuscript, and clearly any interpretation of this passage requires much guesswork. Many assume [mouth] was the place where [Jesus] used to kiss Mary [often], however, it could just as likely have been forehead, cheek, arm, hand, or foot—we have no way of knowing if it was even speaking of Christ. (Bock 21)
Teabing apparently is of the belief that Jesus used to kiss Mary on the mouth, and reports this to Sophie and Langdon as a fact without any explanation. He then goes on to inform a spellbound Sophie and Langdon that “as any Aramaic scholar can tell you, the word ‘companion,’ in those days, literally meant spouse.” (Ehrman 142) Unfortunately for our scholar, this is simply not true. First of all, the word is not Aramaic—the gospel of Peter is written in Coptic, and the word used here for “companion” is actually a loan word—borrowed from Greek—koinόnos. In Greek the word for “spouse,” “wife” or “lover” would have been a form of gyn—koinόnos is a word used for friends and associates. (Ehrman 143)

There is no evidence anywhere that indicates that Jesus was married. (Bock 32) In the [[Bible]], women are often identified by the men whom they are associated with. (Mary the mother of Jesus, the mother of Mark, and the wives of several of the apostles are mentioned.) Mary was never tied to any male when she was named. Instead, she was identified by her hometown, Magdala. (Bock 41) While the Bible talks in great detail about Jesus’ other relationships—his mother, father, siblings, aunt, uncle, disciples’ parents, disciples’ wives, not once is Jesus’ wife mentioned. (Welborn 60)

Additionally, when Jesus was dying on the cross, he turned to John and instructed him to take care of his mother. He shows no concern whatsoever for Mary Magdalene in his last moments, which seems odd. After all, if she was his wife, pregnant with his child, his last hope for restoring the sacred feminine, the future leader of his church, etc. …wouldn’t he be slightly worried about her well being? Widowed women in those days had little hope of anything but a destitute future with no caretaker. Perhaps the reason why Jesus did not mention her is because, well, she wasn’t his wife. (Bock 44)
Further evidence that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not married is the fact that in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul cites reasons why men should marry. [[Darrell L. Bock]], P.H.D. writes about this evidence against Jesus’ marriage in the following excerpt:
<blockquote>
''First Corinthians 9:4–6 may be the most important text for this topic. It reads, “Do we not have the right to the company of a believing wife, like the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I lack the right not to work?” Paul noted in this aside that the apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas (Peter) had the right to a wife. In other words, they had every right to be married. It would have been simple for Paul to add that Jesus was married—had He been. Such a point would have sealed his argument, but he did not make that point…This 1 Corinthians 9 passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married—or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus if He had been married. In fact, had Jesus been married, there would have been no better place for Paul to say it than here. It would have clinched Paul’s case that he also had the right to be married. Paul did not mention it because Jesus had not been married.''</blockquote>
If it were true, Jesus’ marriage would have been a significant addition to Paul’s argument –but it is not mentioned. Perhaps this is because Jesus was not married.(Bock 42)

The Da Vinci Code assumes Jesus must be married “because Jesus was a Jew and the social decorum during that time virtually forbade a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned.” Actually, celibacy was not condemned, nor was it even looked down upon. (Bock 53) Several Jewish sects—most notably the Essenes—lived celibate lives dedicating their time wholly to their religion. Additionally, many Jewish prophets and teachers were unmarried and chose to remain celibate: Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and many scholars believe, Paul. It was a way of expressing total devotion to God, but those who did choose to marry were not viewed as any less. (Welborn 60) In an article, [[Archbishop George H. Niederauer]] points out that when Brown talks about Jesus’ marriage, he “stresses the importance of the social decorum at that time. If “social decorum” had been a high priority for Jesus he wouldn’t have healed people on the Sabbath, talked to the Samaritan woman at the well, knocked over the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple, or socialized often with public sinners.” (Niederauer 2)

Teabing states that Jesus’ marriage is “a matter of historical record,” and has been meticulously documented by “scores of historians” throughout history. OK, so where might these historical records be found? The answer is, nowhere… except in Dan Brown’s imagination, perhaps. Essentially, in every single early Christian writing combined there is not one single reference to Jesus’ marriage. This includes the canonical and non-canonical texts—the Constantine-approved, biased selection of scripture known as the Bible as well as the unaltered, censored Gnostic gospels. (Ehrman 153) In his book, Darrell L. Bock explains… in my office there are 38 volumes or early church documents, each several hundred pages, double columns, in small print. The fact that out of all this material only two texts can be brought forward as even ancient candidates for the theory shows how unlikely it is..

===Part II: “Peter’s Party” vs. “Mary’s Party”===

Dan Brown proves Mary Magdalene to be the true goddess, while at the same time he shows how the early church did not believe Jesus was divine, and in fact, definitively justifies how Jesus himself did not claim to be the Son of God. Jesus' divinity is a myth invented by the “winners”, beginning with Jesus’ chauvinistic disciple Peter. After Jesus’ death, Mary Magdalene was intended to be the leader of the church, but the men of the time refused to let this happen, they would not consider a woman as their leader and guide into salvation. Thus, Mary was forced to flee to France with her child. The church, although not formally created at the time yet, then proceeded to suppress the truth about who Mary was, the wife of Jesus and mother of his child.

This idea appears inconsistent with Biblical record because in fact the Bible and all records kept of it were written and decided upon by the chauvinistic male authorities of the time. In four of the chosen Biblical gospels Mary Magdalene is the first witness of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. One of the single most important events in the history of Christianity, the resurrection of Christ was first witnessed by Mary Magdalene. Some may argue that the early church fathers made no attempt whatsoever to hide this, and in fact they did not. Yes, the writers of the Bible the incredible honor of being the first to witness the resurrected Jesus is attributed to Mary Magdalene. Some may argue that this makes no sense at all; it is the only argument that they have. in reality it fit perfectly. Mary Magdalene was such and intricate, critical, important part of the life of Jesus that it was impossible to completely eradicated her from memory. The theory goes that if they included her in a positive light other that her true being they could always have a reasonable defense for their heinous immoral actions and lies, they could present them as their truth. There is also continuing criticism that the Bible had not been used while conducting research for The Da Vinci Code, however Dan Brown being a devout Christian himself is very fammilur with the Bible and its gospel and use the lost, abolished, forgotten and conveniently neglected byt the church, gospels of John and Mary herself!

This passage from gospel of Mary Magdalene (conveniently rejected in during the Nicene Creed - the writting of the Bible) Shows the view of Jesus toward Mary Magdalene and her true position within the Church.. (Welborn2)
<blockquote>
''And Peter said, 'did the savior really speak with a woman without our knowledge? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us? And Levi answered, 'Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like an adversary. If the savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us.''
</blockquote>

This gospel was written over a century after the events it speaks of because of the persecution and destruction of women within the church. (Welborn 69) While some may argue that this gospel, and other like it, are not traceable to a single person who knew Jesus so is true for all the gospels as the only real evidence linking them to Jesus is the writings themselves - a very convenient way to one's point (proof by simply stating you are telling the truth!). (Welborn 55) This therefore is just as credible a source as the Bible itself. In The Da Vinci Code, after hearing this passage, Sophie remarks, “I daresay Peter was something of a sexist,” and indeed he was. To refute this other gospels were written depicting Jesus wit the same chauvinistic tendencies as Peter, in some gospels the Gnostic Jesus did not have very different views on women thus vindicating Peter and proving his was a true gospel; review words from the Gnostic gospel of Thomas, and two scholars’ explanation of it.
<blockquote>
''"Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.’” (Gospel of Thomas 114)
“Jesus is not suggesting a sex-change operation, but is using 'male' and 'female' metaphorically to refer to the higher and lower aspects of human nature. Mary is thus to undergo a spiritual transformation from her earthly, material, passionate nature (she is a free thinking human which is ultimately a danger to power hungry men) to a heavenly, spiritual, intellectual nature (which the evangelist equates with the male, however males have historically proven time and time again that they are the least intellectual, more rash and violent sex).” ''(Funk and Hoover 532)
</blockquote>
In reality, Brown refutes this gospel with several others and is showing how the true position of man and women is that of equality in all aspect according to numerous other gospels. "Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of the church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene." -Sir Leigh Teabing TDVC 248)

===Part III: The Gnostics ===
[[category:literature|Da Vinci Code]]

==Film adaptation==
Director Ron Howard, producer Brian Grazer and actor Tom Hanks teamed up to make a film adaptation of the novel. It opened at the Cannes Festival and was conformed of an enseble cast. It failed to live up to box office expectations which called for a super blockbuster and was critically lambasted for its pacing and ridiculous sounding dialog.

Talk:The Da Vinci Code

2008-08-06T14:10:53Z

Jhan: Learn together wanted me to discuss

== Duplication ==

We seem to have dupliacte articles on this topic, one here and one at [[Da vinci code]]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:20, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Which one should be deleted in your opinion: Da vinci code or The Da Vinci Code? The first option is the best title, but the second one has a better setup. The text looks as if it has been copied exactly. I could delete the first one and move the second to its title. Let me know what you think. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:25, 5 March 2007 (EST)

: "Da vinci code" is clearly wrong. "The Da Vinci Code" is better. I'm not sure we need such a long article on the topic at all though. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:39, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Ok, then would you like me to do the opposite with the two articles: delete the second one and move the first to its title? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:41, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Well-written, well-illustrated article ==

Wikipedia has a process for nominating "featured articles" (the ones that get featured each day on the main page).... if this were WIkipedia I'd think it was time to start the discussion process for this one. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:20, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Are you serious? This is one of the most polarized articles on the entire site, if anything the sections attempted to disprove the book should be deleted. It's hardly encyclopedia material. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 23:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:: This article on a work of fiction is signifantly larger than the article on Jesus. I don't feel proficient to add to Jesus or reduce this one, but if you're looking for credibility this needs to be addressed one way or the other. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 09:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Srsly ==

PROTIP: Don't try to disprove fictional novels.[http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385504201]

FICTION, people. Just because it encorporates some history and is well-written, that does not make it real or even attempting to be real. [http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html]

If you read these links and still take this book seriously, you are probably more concerned with the validity of your religion than Dan Brown himself. Srsly.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 22:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Fictional ==

The author designates the book as fiction with the subtitle "A Novel." Opinions? [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 21:11, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
:Opinion on what? That the author does designate it as fiction? Yep, that's pretty clear. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:12, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Recent Changes ==

It's not enough to say that it is an alternate history. That could be Robin Hood set in a historical time period. Going directly against the written record as it exists is noteworthy.

Brown's religious experience is suspect, and, from the article, unclear. Again, what does he mean? Has he come to acknowledge Christ as Lord and Savior who as fully God and fully man died for the sins of the world and for him personally? Or has he merely reinforced ancient pagan fertility rights and decided to call that Christianity? The entire second paragraph is rather odd, and I would like to know its relevance. It explains little, and leaves more questions than it answers. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:The words religious experience "that he says he had" should be changed to "apparent" because "that he says he had" is a phrase loaded against the author. Also, if it's an ALTERNATE history, and according to Microsoft Bookshelf the definition is "serving in place of another," then shouldn't it be redundant that it changes "much of the historical record?" The encyclopedia's job is not to form opinion, anyway. [[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 6 August 2008

Talk:God

2008-08-06T14:00:08Z

Jhan: Attribute section needs to be changed?

I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--[[Elamdri|Elamdri]]

Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence?==

Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves? If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late? If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it? If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain? And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 6 August 2008

==Neutrality==

Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:00, 12 March 2007
::Prove your "God" exists, then we'll talk. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:42, 22 March 2007

::Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called '''Conserv'''apedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::you have a source for that definition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::As a sociologist, I challenge you to definitively explain the "objective" right and wrong. I would also ask you to support your argument that "Christianity is right" with at least one academic source. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree to the necessary explanation of right and wrong. Many different religions have many different views on god. Some have very different views on creation. An example of this would be [[Bumba]]. We need to make sure that all religions are encompassed.--[[User:Liberal|Liberal]] 14:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm, reads here that "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". How about the existence of God? or merely his nature? That goes unnoticed?

::''Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it?'' Is 48:6
::''For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made'' Rm 1:20 [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Luke-Jr, your statement that Christianity is right is a perfect example of begging the question. Why is Christianity right? Because Christianity says so. Right? Secondly, You've got the definition of liberal wrong: A liberal is someone who favors personal freedom of choice for all individuals, as opposed to oppression of the people by a minority of individuals. Given that the entire core of Christianity is predicated on the notion of a person choosing whether or not to believe in God, whether or not to be saved, ot seems to me that a good Christian should BE a liberal: Why would you want to deny anyone the joy of choosing to have a relationship with God of their own accord, as opposed to using fear or coercion to make them? If you believe that using your mind to make decisions for yourself is evil, then by all means, don't do it, but with that choice you also forfeit the right to tell other people how to think or behave, because THINKING about why they're wrong would be wrong for you.
Also, the word "deitic" in the opening paragraph of this entry is not even a word. This is yet another Conservapedia article that I would give to a third-grade english class with the assignment of pointing out the mistakes. --[[GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:45, 5 April 2007 (CST)

==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==
"However, many are skeptical of this idea." -- The idea of it being the same god, or that it's a Muslim plot? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Note==
Excuse me, but is that really a fair assumption? I'm also pretty sure that Judaism is the source of both Islam and Christianity, but those two aren't actually connected to each other. But I could be wrong. Either way, it also seems to paint Islam in some sort of satanic light. They're just different and probably wrong, not evil.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Errors==
I appreciate the conclusion that the article needs to be locked in view of the high volume of vandalism, but I hope it's only temporary - especially as it prevents fine-tuning, and doesn't allow even alternative ''Christian'' views a look-in. For example, the article speaks of 'God' as a given, and without defining ''which'' God (as a previous version helpfully did). The expression 'fourth century' should in fact read 'second century' (I should know - I wrote it!). And the Bible doesn't require belief in a ''personal'' lord and saviour, whatever other kind of lord and saviour it may require belief in, and whatever additional ideas evangelicals might prefer to read into the Messianic texts. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Omnibenevolence==
Is god omnibenevolent? [[User:Zed|Zed]] 06:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia is not open==

How can you claim to have a communally edited encyclopedia if some pages are locked. What a sham! I would think the article on God would be one that quite a lot of people would like to contribute to.--[[User:Golden|Golden]]

:Wikipedia blocks articles also, don't forget. Article which are subject to constant vandalism have editing disabled, George W Bush for example. Given the nature of this site it's reasonable to expect much vandalism directed towards the god article. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 11:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Conservatives==

I think, Golden, that you will find, in general, that only by preventing freedom and the right of free speech can any Conservative system of power maintain it's rule. This very website is an excellent example of such a system. This is why many essential pages such as "[[god|god]]" and "[[jesus|jesus]]" tend to be locked- thus also heavily reducing their usefulness.

I thought American conservatives such as yourself are extremely patriotic to America? And isn't freedom of speech something America supposedly stands for? Doesn't your extremely conservative president constantly talk about freedom in America? So from what I can gather locking out users from contributing to articles in very un-conservative

==Attributes of God==
These are contradictory - consider that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and also that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). If God loves unconditionally, and is all-powerful and all knowing - why is there needless suffering. eg. disease, infant death, natural disasters etc. - if he KNOWS how to remove suffering (omniscience), has the POWER to relieve suffering (omnipotence), and loves us UNCONDITIONALLY, then there should be no suffering in the world. By deduction, one can assume that either God does not either a) have the power b) have the knowledge required or c) care enough. His abilities should not be listed like superpowers as this article does. [[User:Zed|Zed]] 03:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, "Jealousy" is left off the list. Its the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no gods before me, for I am a jealous god." Striking omission. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe" They did, actually. It's there in your bible.

I heard something about god which I found quite interesting, if good is all powerful and loves us all why is there needless suffering in the world? If good is all powerful and doesn't love us why worship him? If god isn't all powerful and loves us then he's pretty much useless and if god isn't all powerful and doesn't love us then it's pretty much the same thing[[User:Nobodyyouareawareof|Nobodyyouareawareof]] 02:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm far from a zealot, but these arguments always strike me as hopelessly simplistic. Why do we presume that we can understand God? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even? I imagine that small children (never mind animals, insects, etc...) can't comprehend why, if I claim to love them, I make them eat their vegetables, don't let them stay up as long they want, and so on. Just because a person believes that unconditional love and unlimited power should yield no suffering doesn't actually make it true.

:Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-wonders, wonders (ooom ba doo-oo oom!) who wrote the book of Job...''

== Bad sentence ==

In "notes" the phrase ''a ritualized 'adoption' ritual'' appears. What would a non-ritualised ritual be like, I wonder? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I dont believe in god.

== Capitalization Concerns ==

If referring to the Creator of the Universe, then the word 'creator' should be capitalized.
Also, when referring to THE Cross, or the actual place of 'Cavalry' (and not mounted soldiers) or THE Ressurection, the words 'cross', 'cavalry' and 'ressurection' should all be capitalized.
<ref>http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm#terms</ref>
:Just a note, the PLACE is Calvary, the military unit is cavalry. Note the difference in the location of the 'l'.
::I think lots of people have problems with both words...I still do that sometimes! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==other views of god==

The god this article refers to is not just the god of christianity, it is also the god of Islam and Judaism, that piece of information should also be included, as well as the views on god from other religions, if only one perspective of the subject is given then it severely undermines the reliability of the article.<--Previous comment left by [[Nobodyyouareawareof]]
:Take a look at [[Allah]]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
{{cquote|James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.}}

== Error in first sentence (concept of God), or missing reference==
It is WRONG to say that God is the creator of the Universe. The Holy Bible tells us that God has created the HEAVENS and the EARTH. The author of this entry distorts this knowledge by claiming that God has created the Universe. There is no reference for this, however. Kluivert 18 August 2007

==God's Evidence==
I say we should include the fact that, despite many philosophical and scientific tentatives of people to prove him, God has never ever unconfutably shown his existence. I think this is very important in the being of God, because he is so good he leaves us the freedom to choose to believe him or not. He still wants us to search for him, and not accept him as an unquestionable truth. He wants as to believe, he wants us to ''choose'' to believe. This can't be kept unwritten. P.S. Sorry for any language mistakes, I'm Italian.[[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 09:21, 24 January 2008 (EST)

: I appreciate that you have problems with the language, but I can't figure out what word you meant by "unconfutably". "Irrefutably", perhaps? No matter how strong the evidence, some still won't believe, so I'm not sure that irrefutable evidence, in the absolute sense, is really possible. And for someone who is basically saying that we can't know of God's existence as a certainty, you seem to be quite certain about what this uncertain God wants us to believe. I agree that He wants us to ''choose'' to believe, but I also think that He wants us to be convinced, not uncertain. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: Yes, I meant that he has not clearly stated his existence so to result obviously present to us. I think we should write of his choice not to ever been proven [[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 11:53, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::: I believe that He has made His existence quite clear, but my point was that because some people won't believe no matter how clear He makes existence known, so there's no point is saying that He could have made it clearer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 26 January 2008 (EST)

== Breach of commandments? ==

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't know how any of the article as is follows this rule. The most flagrant violation being

"God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin."

How is this even remotely verifiable?[[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:23, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
: By reference to a very reliable document: The Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:04, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::So then the bible counts as absolute truth? And "verification" means "looking at the bible"? [[User:Qc|Qc]] 08:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Why did you just move the goalposts from "verifiable" to "absolute truth"? Is that a tacit admission that your original criticism didn't stand up to scrutiny? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:23, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Since the references to the bible that deal with this article are impossible to verify objectively, (ie, god punishes the wicked in hell) the only conclusion is that CP (or at least you as an editor) treat the bible as absolute truth. Not that this is wrong in itself, but it seems to violate the "verifiable" commandment or at least represent a lack of understanding of the word. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 11:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: If someone posts a claim on Wikipedia, it has to be cited from a "reliable source". They say nothing about being able to verify that the "reliable source" is correct. Similar applies here. The claim can be verified from a source that has proven reliability. There's no requirement to independently check every claim made by that source. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I think the problem is here a lack of clarity in the first commandment, specifically what is meant by "verifiable" They really should elaborate considerably, especially since this is such a controversial arena. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

*Add to the start of the article:

::''This article is about the God of the Bible. For the use of the term to refer to any deity, see [[Other gods]].''

:My usual disclaimers apply. Feel free to ignore this if you want. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 19:53, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
:: There's already a link to [[Other gods]]. I nearly did add a line similar to your suggestion, but then decided that it really wasn't necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==
Why is God usually referred to as a 'he'? Wouldn't God be more properly termed an 'it', being what God is? That's just a small section of Christianity that I was curious about. --[[User:GeorgeO|GeorgeO]] 16:06, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
: My opinion is that "he" is not primarily a ''masculine'' term, but a term used for a ''person'', i.e. a gender-neutral term, as is the term "man" (which is not to deny that both terms ''also'' have gender-specific uses). In Genesis, it says that God created "man" both male and female. "Man" can be used as synonymous with "mankind" or "human", and I believe that "he" and similar terms are similarly used in a gender-neutral way. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Profanity

2008-08-06T00:54:54Z

Jhan: Less awkward word choice

'''Profanity''', also known as '''bad language''', '''swearing''' or '''cursing''' (or ''cussing'') is the usage of [[word]]s which are considered to be offensive or abusive. Its use is taboo in polite or formal environments, and more commonly accepted in informal contexts. Profanity is particularly common in traditionally masculine settings. This has led to the introduction of phrases such as "to curse like a sailor".

Profane words tend to involve certain near-universal subjects: filth, particularly human waste; forbidden sexual practices; and [[blasphemy|blasphemous]] treatment of the sacred. However, it is the words themselves, and not the concepts they represent, which cause offense, as there are numerous words to signify any taboo subject, with varying levels of acceptability. Among profane words, there exist at least two levels of offensiveness. There are also, in many languages including English, euphemisms such as ''darn'', ''drat'', ''gosh'', ''frap'' and so on.

Over time, the perceived offensiveness of some expressions can change. One example is the expression ''by Jove'', an archaic contraction of ''by Jehovah'', which sounds delicately quaint to modern listeners, but which was once among the most profane phrases in the [[English|English language]].

[[Category:Sin]]

The Da Vinci Code

2008-08-06T00:51:06Z

Jhan: If it's alternate history, then isn't it a given that it will change the record? It's redundant. Religious experience line is awkward and uses slightly loaded word choice.

==='''Introduction'''===
----
The Da Vinci Code is a bestselling novel by author [[Dan Brown]]. It has sold over 40 million copies worldwide, and has been translated into over 40 languages. (ParisInfo.com) It has been on the top of the [[NY Times]] Bestseller List since its release in 2003, often holding the coveted #1 spot for weeks on end. (Catholic.com) The book’s exciting storyline and interesting characters have contributed to its record sales—as has its highly controversial content.

[[Image: davincicode.jpg|thumb|right|120px|''The Da Vinci Code'' book cover (UK 1st edition)]]

The Da Vinci Code creates an alternate history of Christianity, leading to protests that the book is attacking the church. Although only a novel, Dan Brown feeds the impression throughout The Da Vinci Code of having meticulously researched the history of Christianity, although many assertions have been pointed out as spurious, including the existence of the Priory of Sion, an organization created in 1099 in the book, while in truth it was a hoax created in 1956. He includes a fact page in the beginning of the book and makes references to numerous historical sources, historians and scholars throughout to give an appearance of scholarly research.

In an interview on [[Good Morning America]], Dan Brown stated with conviction that if he had been asked to write a non-fiction version of The Da Vinci Code he would change none of the historical material he included in the novel. (Bock 3) On the same interview he described an apparent religious experience while conducting research for the book. Brown told an audience of over 15 million viewers that although he started out a “skeptic”, by the end of the book-writing he had became a “believer”. "Almost sounding like an evangelist’s invitation, his confession asked us to ponder whether these things are so and why they might matter.” (Bock 4) Brown contends that the Da Vinci Code is often thought of as more than a typical work of fiction.

==='''Plot Summary'''===
----

The book is a thriller. Robert Langdon, a [Harverd] “symbologist” (a fictitious field of study), is summoned to help solve a murder committed at the [Louvre] . (.) Langdon and Sophie Neveu, a cryptographer with the French police, are left with a trail of clues to unravel, and with the help of resident scholar Sir Leigh Teabing, crack the codes to uncover groundbreaking secrets.

The first astounding thing Langdon discovers is "the truth" about the biblical figure [[Mary Magdalene]]. According to Brown, Mary Magdalene was a Jewish woman from the tribe of Benjamin and [[Jesus]]’ single most important disciple—in fact she was more than his disciple, she was his lover and wife, and the mother of their child, Sarah. She was Jesus’ female counterpart, if not entirely “equal” to him, she was pretty close, and meant to be worshipped as a goddess.

Furthermore, Brown reports, Mary was actually intended to be the leader of the church after Jesus’ death (instead of Peter), but was demonized and diminished by Peter and his followers—the chauvinistic “winners"—until history saw her as nothing more than a prostitute. Although every historical document recording these so-called facts about Mary were destroyed by the “winners”, some groups of people throughout history knew and preserved the secret. Specifically, these organizations were the [[Knight’s Templar]] and the [[Priory of Scion]]—both real organizations, according to Brown, who were dedicated to preserving the truth of who Mary Magdalene was. One way of doing this was through the legend of the [[Holy Grail]], which Brown states was in fact Mary Magdalene’s womb—the sacred vessel which bore the supposed blood line of Christ. Both organizations worshipped Mary Magdalene as a goddess.
[[Image: monalisa2.jpg|thumb|left|200px|''The Mona Lisa'']]
Jesus’ divinity, however, is another issue altogether. It wasn’t until 300 years after his death, Brown asserts, that his divinity was “invented” by [[Constantine]] at the [[Council of Nicaea]]. His disciples did not view him as God in the flesh, but instead as a mere mortal prophet. As for the Biblical gospels, well they were four of “over eighty” which were selected at the Council of Nicaea—the four gospels that emphasized Jesus’ divinity and demonized women the most.

The rest were destroyed, and the canon as we know it today is not the inspired Word of God, but instead a power-hungry Constantine’s deceptive compilation—and somewhere, Brown suggests, lying in ashes beneath the earth, is the truth about who Jesus was, who Mary Magdalene was, and what Christianity is all about. The allure of the Da Vinci Code lies in its promise to reveal some great, hidden, conspiracy.

==='''Part I: Mary Magdalene, Wife of the Messiah?'''===
----
Mary Magdalene is a good place to start, because she and her supposed marriage to Jesus are the cornerstones upon which Brown’s claims rest. In The Da Vinci Code, Brown states that Mary Magdalene is a “royal” Jewish woman from the tribe of Benjamin and Jesus’ single most important disciple. She is not a prostitute—in fact this was a lie invented by the Catholic Church to demonize her. She is also his lover, wife, and the mother of their daughter, Sarah. She was supposed to be the leader of the church after Jesus’ death, but was forced by “Peter’s Party” aka “the winners” to escape to Provence, France with her daughter. Her womb is the “Holy Grail”, her bones are buried under the glass pyramid at the [[Louvre]], the Priory of Scion and Knight’s Templar were dedicated to preserving her story and worshipped her as a goddess, she was the “Divine Mother” and represented the real purpose of Jesus’ life and teaching—to reintegrate the “Sacred Feminine” into society. However, Mary Magdalene is mentioned only a few times in the gospels—and never once is a single one of Brown’s claims about Mary supported by the Biblical record. (Welborn 63)

Where did all of these ideas come from? According to The Da Vinci Code’s resident scholar, Teabing, “the royal bloodline has been chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians,” citing The Templar Revelation and [[Holy Blood, Holy Grail]] as sources. Interestingly, these books (which are also found in Dan Brown’s official bibliography) are dismissed by all serious historians, and described as being “schlock pseudo-history and conspiracy-theory.” (Welborn 63) Teabing also mentions ''[[The Woman with the Alabaster Jar]]'' and ''[[The Goddess in the Gospels]]'', both by [[Margaret Starbird]], who uses, among other things, [[numerology]] (the sum of the numbers in her name), to conclude that Mary Magdalene was worshipped as a goddess. Additional sources for Brown’s claims lie in the [[Gnostic gospels]] (Welborn 63)

[[Image: littlemermaid.jpg|thumb|right|200px|In TDVC, Brown gives credence to Margaret Starbird’s idea that Ariel, the ‘Little Mermaid’ in the Disney film, is not just a fictional fairy tale character, but a symbol representing Mary Magdalene. According to Brown, Walt Disney was a believer in the Sacred Feminine and purposefully filled the movie with hidden codes about Mary Magdalene, including Ariel’s red hair (supposedly MM’s was red as well) and the painting she finds at the bottom of the sea ([[Georges de la Tour]]’s [[Magdalene with the Smoking Flame]]). (Starbird) These claims seem to be disproven given that Walt Disney had been dead for over 20 years when The Little Mermaid was made in 1989.]]

Even with these incredulous sources to occasionally back him up, most of Brown’s claims about Mary Magdalene have no historical evidence behind them whatsoever. There is no record anywhere to even suggest that Mary Magdalene was of the tribe of Benjamin—and this would not have made her “royal”. (Ehrman 160) It is true that in the gospels there is no mention of Mary Magdalene as having been a prostitute. This idea first came into existence 500 years after the gospels were written, and became popular in the [[Middle Ages]] and [[the Renaissance]]. In 1969, the [[Catholic Church]] issued a formal statement clearing Mary’s reputation, and separating her from Mary from Bethany, the “sinful woman.” (Van Biema)

The idea continually perpetuated by Brown throughout The Da Vinci Code that the church demonized Mary Magdalene (and women in general) for centuries is also highly inconsistent with historical record. Incidentally, this idea is not an original one—in fact, it is quite popular among feminist scholars and professors. (Welborn 68) They teach that Christianity is about men being “the winners” and women being suppressed and diminished and “use a few Gnostic gospels (written over 100 years after Jesus’ death) to speculate [their] ideologically-motivated interpretation of Christianity.” (Welborn 69)

This is totally incompatible with historical evidence, however. During the time period that Mary was supposedly being subdued by Peter’s party, prominent church leaders such as [[Hippolytus]], [[St. Ambrose]], and [[St. Augustine]] were writing her praises in their literature, describing her as “the new Eve” and “the apostle to the apostles”. If the mainstream Christian church—the winners—were trying to eliminate Mary’s influence and reputation would they at the same time be extolling her virtues and cherishing the fact that she was the first to see Jesus after the Resurrection? (Welborn 69-70)

The single shred of evidence upon which the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married is found in a portion of the [[Gnostic gospel of Philip]], written a full 200 years after Jesus’ death, which states, “and the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene. […] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her […].” Brackets indicate where holes exist in the original manuscript, and clearly any interpretation of this passage requires much guesswork. Many assume [mouth] was the place where [Jesus] used to kiss Mary [often], however, it could just as likely have been forehead, cheek, arm, hand, or foot—we have no way of knowing if it was even speaking of Christ. (Bock 21)
Teabing apparently is of the belief that Jesus used to kiss Mary on the mouth, and reports this to Sophie and Langdon as a fact without any explanation. He then goes on to inform a spellbound Sophie and Langdon that “as any Aramaic scholar can tell you, the word ‘companion,’ in those days, literally meant spouse.” (Ehrman 142) Unfortunately for our scholar, this is simply not true. First of all, the word is not Aramaic—the gospel of Peter is written in Coptic, and the word used here for “companion” is actually a loan word—borrowed from Greek—koinόnos. In Greek the word for “spouse,” “wife” or “lover” would have been a form of gyn—koinόnos is a word used for friends and associates. (Ehrman 143)

There is no evidence anywhere that indicates that Jesus was married. (Bock 32) In the [[Bible]], women are often identified by the men whom they are associated with. (Mary the mother of Jesus, the mother of Mark, and the wives of several of the apostles are mentioned.) Mary was never tied to any male when she was named. Instead, she was identified by her hometown, Magdala. (Bock 41) While the Bible talks in great detail about Jesus’ other relationships—his mother, father, siblings, aunt, uncle, disciples’ parents, disciples’ wives, not once is Jesus’ wife mentioned. (Welborn 60)

Additionally, when Jesus was dying on the cross, he turned to John and instructed him to take care of his mother. He shows no concern whatsoever for Mary Magdalene in his last moments, which seems odd. After all, if she was his wife, pregnant with his child, his last hope for restoring the sacred feminine, the future leader of his church, etc. …wouldn’t he be slightly worried about her well being? Widowed women in those days had little hope of anything but a destitute future with no caretaker. Perhaps the reason why Jesus did not mention her is because, well, she wasn’t his wife. (Bock 44)
Further evidence that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not married is the fact that in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul cites reasons why men should marry. [[Darrell L. Bock]], P.H.D. writes about this evidence against Jesus’ marriage in the following excerpt:
<blockquote>
''First Corinthians 9:4–6 may be the most important text for this topic. It reads, “Do we not have the right to the company of a believing wife, like the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I lack the right not to work?” Paul noted in this aside that the apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas (Peter) had the right to a wife. In other words, they had every right to be married. It would have been simple for Paul to add that Jesus was married—had He been. Such a point would have sealed his argument, but he did not make that point…This 1 Corinthians 9 passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married—or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus if He had been married. In fact, had Jesus been married, there would have been no better place for Paul to say it than here. It would have clinched Paul’s case that he also had the right to be married. Paul did not mention it because Jesus had not been married.''</blockquote>
If it were true, Jesus’ marriage would have been a significant addition to Paul’s argument –but it is not mentioned. Perhaps this is because Jesus was not married.(Bock 42)

The Da Vinci Code assumes Jesus must be married “because Jesus was a Jew and the social decorum during that time virtually forbade a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned.” Actually, celibacy was not condemned, nor was it even looked down upon. (Bock 53) Several Jewish sects—most notably the Essenes—lived celibate lives dedicating their time wholly to their religion. Additionally, many Jewish prophets and teachers were unmarried and chose to remain celibate: Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and many scholars believe, Paul. It was a way of expressing total devotion to God, but those who did choose to marry were not viewed as any less. (Welborn 60) In an article, [[Archbishop George H. Niederauer]] points out that when Brown talks about Jesus’ marriage, he “stresses the importance of the social decorum at that time. If “social decorum” had been a high priority for Jesus he wouldn’t have healed people on the Sabbath, talked to the Samaritan woman at the well, knocked over the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple, or socialized often with public sinners.” (Niederauer 2)

Teabing states that Jesus’ marriage is “a matter of historical record,” and has been meticulously documented by “scores of historians” throughout history. OK, so where might these historical records be found? The answer is, nowhere… except in Dan Brown’s imagination, perhaps. Essentially, in every single early Christian writing combined there is not one single reference to Jesus’ marriage. This includes the canonical and non-canonical texts—the Constantine-approved, biased selection of scripture known as the Bible as well as the unaltered, censored Gnostic gospels. (Ehrman 153) In his book, Darrell L. Bock explains… in my office there are 38 volumes or early church documents, each several hundred pages, double columns, in small print. The fact that out of all this material only two texts can be brought forward as even ancient candidates for the theory shows how unlikely it is..

===Part II: “Peter’s Party” vs. “Mary’s Party”===

Dan Brown proves Mary Magdalene to be the true goddess, while at the same time he shows how the early church did not believe Jesus was divine, and in fact, definitively justifies how Jesus himself did not claim to be the Son of God. Jesus' divinity is a myth invented by the “winners”, beginning with Jesus’ chauvinistic disciple Peter. After Jesus’ death, Mary Magdalene was intended to be the leader of the church, but the men of the time refused to let this happen, they would not consider a woman as their leader and guide into salvation. Thus, Mary was forced to flee to France with her child. The church, although not formally created at the time yet, then proceeded to suppress the truth about who Mary was, the wife of Jesus and mother of his child.

This idea appears inconsistent with Biblical record because in fact the Bible and all records kept of it were written and decided upon by the chauvinistic male authorities of the time. In four of the chosen Biblical gospels Mary Magdalene is the first witness of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. One of the single most important events in the history of Christianity, the resurrection of Christ was first witnessed by Mary Magdalene. Some may argue that the early church fathers made no attempt whatsoever to hide this, and in fact they did not. Yes, the writers of the Bible the incredible honor of being the first to witness the resurrected Jesus is attributed to Mary Magdalene. Some may argue that this makes no sense at all; it is the only argument that they have. in reality it fit perfectly. Mary Magdalene was such and intricate, critical, important part of the life of Jesus that it was impossible to completely eradicated her from memory. The theory goes that if they included her in a positive light other that her true being they could always have a reasonable defense for their heinous immoral actions and lies, they could present them as their truth. There is also continuing criticism that the Bible had not been used while conducting research for The Da Vinci Code, however Dan Brown being a devout Christian himself is very fammilur with the Bible and its gospel and use the lost, abolished, forgotten and conveniently neglected byt the church, gospels of John and Mary herself!

This passage from gospel of Mary Magdalene (conveniently rejected in during the Nicene Creed - the writting of the Bible) Shows the view of Jesus toward Mary Magdalene and her true position within the Church.. (Welborn2)
<blockquote>
''And Peter said, 'did the savior really speak with a woman without our knowledge? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us? And Levi answered, 'Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like an adversary. If the savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us.''
</blockquote>

This gospel was written over a century after the events it speaks of because of the persecution and destruction of women within the church. (Welborn 69) While some may argue that this gospel, and other like it, are not traceable to a single person who knew Jesus so is true for all the gospels as the only real evidence linking them to Jesus is the writings themselves - a very convenient way to one's point (proof by simply stating you are telling the truth!). (Welborn 55) This therefore is just as credible a source as the Bible itself. In The Da Vinci Code, after hearing this passage, Sophie remarks, “I daresay Peter was something of a sexist,” and indeed he was. To refute this other gospels were written depicting Jesus wit the same chauvinistic tendencies as Peter, in some gospels the Gnostic Jesus did not have very different views on women thus vindicating Peter and proving his was a true gospel; review words from the Gnostic gospel of Thomas, and two scholars’ explanation of it.
<blockquote>
''"Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.’” (Gospel of Thomas 114)
“Jesus is not suggesting a sex-change operation, but is using 'male' and 'female' metaphorically to refer to the higher and lower aspects of human nature. Mary is thus to undergo a spiritual transformation from her earthly, material, passionate nature (she is a free thinking human which is ultimately a danger to power hungry men) to a heavenly, spiritual, intellectual nature (which the evangelist equates with the male, however males have historically proven time and time again that they are the least intellectual, more rash and violent sex).” ''(Funk and Hoover 532)
</blockquote>
In reality, Brown refutes this gospel with several others and is showing how the true position of man and women is that of equality in all aspect according to numerous other gospels. "Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of the church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene." -Sir Leigh Teabing TDVC 248)

===Part III: The Gnostics ===
[[category:literature|Da Vinci Code]]

==Film adaptation==
Director Ron Howard, producer Brian Grazer and actor Tom Hanks teamed up to make a film adaptation of the novel. It opened at the Cannes Festival and was conformed of an enseble cast. It failed to live up to box office expectations which called for a super blockbuster and was critically lambasted for its pacing and ridiculous sounding dialog.

The Catcher in the Rye

2008-08-05T23:56:32Z

Jhan: Undo revision 457292 by Deborah (Talk)

'''''The Catcher in the Rye''''' is a [[novel]] written by reclusive author [[J.D. Salinger]], which has frequently been required reading for [[high school]] students. The novel is a fictional account of Holden Caulfield, a depressed and alienated teenager, and a week he spends in New York.

Holden is a character study in teenage angst, with deep subtlety to his character increasingly revealed as the story continues. He derides everything as "phony," viewing the world around him as being filled with cynical falsehoods, but fails to realize that he himself is bitter and cynical. There are strong hints that he changed significantly after the death of his little brother, Allie, which occurs before the events of the novel.

The novel is written in a colloquial style, using the modern argot of teenagers in [[America]], and narrated in the first person. This is intended to pull the reader into the story more thoroughly, without resorting to the highly-complex linguistics quirks of a book such as [[A Clockwork Orange]].

[[category:literature]]
[[Category:Novels]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Catcher in the Rye, The}}

The Catcher in the Rye

2008-08-05T23:56:12Z

Jhan: Undo revision 495647 by Jhan (Talk)

'''''The Catcher in the Rye''''' is a [[novel]] written by reclusive author [[J.D. Salinger]], which has frequently been required reading for [[high school]] students. It is a depressing, profanity-filled story about teenage angst.

The novel is a fictional account of Holden Caulfield, a depressed teenager, and a week he spent in New York.

[[category:literature]]
[[Category:Novels]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Catcher in the Rye, The}}

The Catcher in the Rye

2008-08-05T01:11:34Z

Jhan: Argumentative, biased, short

'''''The Catcher in the Rye''''' is a [[novel]] written by reclusive author [[J.D. Salinger]], which has frequently been required reading for [[high school]] students. While criticized for its profane language and constant references to sex, the main character has become a symbol of defiance.

The novel is a fictional account told from the perspective of Holden Caulfield, a teenager that has been expelled from a college preparatory school, and deals with the subjects of growing up, innocence of childhood, and "phoniness," Holden's name for things that are superficial, becoming a label for all things he believes is wrong in the world. He tells his idea of being the "catcher in the rye," a person who stops children playing in a field from falling over a cliff, a symbol of saving the innocence of youth and preventing exposure to things that would ruin their childhood, such as sex. This, ironically, is a mistake of Robert Frost's poem about recreational sex, something Holden intends to keep away from children.

[[category:literature]]
[[Category:Novels]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Catcher in the Rye, The}}

The Da Vinci Code

2008-08-05T00:24:27Z

Jhan: Redundancy, no evidence of intentional attack, quotes around "novel" unneeded and confusing.

==='''Introduction'''===
----
The Da Vinci Code is a bestselling novel by author [[Dan Brown]]. It has sold over 40 million copies worldwide, and has been translated into over 40 languages. (ParisInfo.com) It has been on the top of the [[NY Times]] Bestseller List since its release in 2003, often holding the coveted #1 spot for weeks on end. (Catholic.com) The book’s exciting storyline and interesting characters have contributed to its record sales—as has its highly controversial content.

[[Image: davincicode.jpg|thumb|right|120px|''The Da Vinci Code'' book cover (UK 1st edition)]]

The Da Vinci Code creates an alternate history of Christianity, leading to protests that the book is attacking the church. Although only a novel, Dan Brown feeds the impression throughout The Da Vinci Code of having meticulously researched the history of Christianity, although many assertions have been pointed out as spurious, including the existence of the Priory of Sion, an organization created in 1099 in the book, while in truth it was a hoax created in 1956. He includes a fact page in the beginning of the book and makes references to numerous historical sources, historians and scholars throughout to give an appearance of scholarly research.

In an interview on [[Good Morning America]], Dan Brown stated with conviction that if he had been asked to write a non-fiction version of The Da Vinci Code he would change none of the historical material he included in the novel. (Bock 3) This statement shows that Dan Brown takes the content of his novel very seriously, and on the same interview he described a religious experience while conducting research for the book. Brown told an audience of over 15 million viewers that although he started out a “skeptic”, by the end of the book-writing he had became a “believer”. "Almost sounding like an evangelist’s invitation, his confession asked us to ponder whether these things are so and why they might matter.” (Bock 4) By its own author’s admission, The Da Vinci Code is often thought of as more than a typical work of fiction.

==='''Plot Summary'''===
----

The book is a thriller. Robert Langdon, a [Harverd] “symbologist” (a fictitious field of study), is summoned to help solve a murder committed at the [Louvre] . (.) Langdon and Sophie Neveu, a cryptographer with the French police, are left with a trail of clues to unravel, and with the help of resident scholar Sir Leigh Teabing, crack the codes to uncover groundbreaking secrets.

The first astounding thing Langdon discovers is "the truth" about the biblical figure [[Mary Magdalene]]. According to Brown, Mary Magdalene was a Jewish woman from the tribe of Benjamin and [[Jesus]]’ single most important disciple—in fact she was more than his disciple, she was his lover and wife, and the mother of their child, Sarah. She was Jesus’ female counterpart, if not entirely “equal” to him, she was pretty close, and meant to be worshipped as a goddess.

Furthermore, Brown reports, Mary was actually intended to be the leader of the church after Jesus’ death (instead of Peter), but was demonized and diminished by Peter and his followers—the chauvinistic “winners"—until history saw her as nothing more than a prostitute. Although every historical document recording these so-called facts about Mary were destroyed by the “winners”, some groups of people throughout history knew and preserved the secret. Specifically, these organizations were the [[Knight’s Templar]] and the [[Priory of Scion]]—both real organizations, according to Brown, who were dedicated to preserving the truth of who Mary Magdalene was. One way of doing this was through the legend of the [[Holy Grail]], which Brown states was in fact Mary Magdalene’s womb—the sacred vessel which bore the supposed blood line of Christ. Both organizations worshipped Mary Magdalene as a goddess.
[[Image: monalisa2.jpg|thumb|left|200px|''The Mona Lisa'']]
Jesus’ divinity, however, is another issue altogether. It wasn’t until 300 years after his death, Brown asserts, that his divinity was “invented” by [[Constantine]] at the [[Council of Nicaea]]. His disciples did not view him as God in the flesh, but instead as a mere mortal prophet. As for the Biblical gospels, well they were four of “over eighty” which were selected at the Council of Nicaea—the four gospels that emphasized Jesus’ divinity and demonized women the most.

The rest were destroyed, and the canon as we know it today is not the inspired Word of God, but instead a power-hungry Constantine’s deceptive compilation—and somewhere, Brown suggests, lying in ashes beneath the earth, is the truth about who Jesus was, who Mary Magdalene was, and what Christianity is all about. The allure of the Da Vinci Code lies in its promise to reveal some great, hidden, conspiracy.

==='''Part I: Mary Magdalene, Wife of the Messiah?'''===
----
Mary Magdalene is a good place to start, because she and her supposed marriage to Jesus are the cornerstones upon which Brown’s claims rest. In The Da Vinci Code, Brown states that Mary Magdalene is a “royal” Jewish woman from the tribe of Benjamin and Jesus’ single most important disciple. She is not a prostitute—in fact this was a lie invented by the Catholic Church to demonize her. She is also his lover, wife, and the mother of their daughter, Sarah. She was supposed to be the leader of the church after Jesus’ death, but was forced by “Peter’s Party” aka “the winners” to escape to Provence, France with her daughter. Her womb is the “Holy Grail”, her bones are buried under the glass pyramid at the [[Louvre]], the Priory of Scion and Knight’s Templar were dedicated to preserving her story and worshipped her as a goddess, she was the “Divine Mother” and represented the real purpose of Jesus’ life and teaching—to reintegrate the “Sacred Feminine” into society. However, Mary Magdalene is mentioned only a few times in the gospels—and never once is a single one of Brown’s claims about Mary supported by the Biblical record. (Welborn 63)

Where did all of these ideas come from? According to The Da Vinci Code’s resident scholar, Teabing, “the royal bloodline has been chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians,” citing The Templar Revelation and [[Holy Blood, Holy Grail]] as sources. Interestingly, these books (which are also found in Dan Brown’s official bibliography) are dismissed by all serious historians, and described as being “schlock pseudo-history and conspiracy-theory.” (Welborn 63) Teabing also mentions ''[[The Woman with the Alabaster Jar]]'' and ''[[The Goddess in the Gospels]]'', both by [[Margaret Starbird]], who uses, among other things, [[numerology]] (the sum of the numbers in her name), to conclude that Mary Magdalene was worshipped as a goddess. Additional sources for Brown’s claims lie in the [[Gnostic gospels]] (Welborn 63)

[[Image: littlemermaid.jpg|thumb|right|200px|In TDVC, Brown gives credence to Margaret Starbird’s idea that Ariel, the ‘Little Mermaid’ in the Disney film, is not just a fictional fairy tale character, but a symbol representing Mary Magdalene. According to Brown, Walt Disney was a believer in the Sacred Feminine and purposefully filled the movie with hidden codes about Mary Magdalene, including Ariel’s red hair (supposedly MM’s was red as well) and the painting she finds at the bottom of the sea ([[Georges de la Tour]]’s [[Magdalene with the Smoking Flame]]). (Starbird) These claims seem to be disproven given that Walt Disney had been dead for over 20 years when The Little Mermaid was made in 1989.]]

Even with these incredulous sources to occasionally back him up, most of Brown’s claims about Mary Magdalene have no historical evidence behind them whatsoever. There is no record anywhere to even suggest that Mary Magdalene was of the tribe of Benjamin—and this would not have made her “royal”. (Ehrman 160) It is true that in the gospels there is no mention of Mary Magdalene as having been a prostitute. This idea first came into existence 500 years after the gospels were written, and became popular in the [[Middle Ages]] and [[the Renaissance]]. In 1969, the [[Catholic Church]] issued a formal statement clearing Mary’s reputation, and separating her from Mary from Bethany, the “sinful woman.” (Van Biema)

The idea continually perpetuated by Brown throughout The Da Vinci Code that the church demonized Mary Magdalene (and women in general) for centuries is also highly inconsistent with historical record. Incidentally, this idea is not an original one—in fact, it is quite popular among feminist scholars and professors. (Welborn 68) They teach that Christianity is about men being “the winners” and women being suppressed and diminished and “use a few Gnostic gospels (written over 100 years after Jesus’ death) to speculate [their] ideologically-motivated interpretation of Christianity.” (Welborn 69)

This is totally incompatible with historical evidence, however. During the time period that Mary was supposedly being subdued by Peter’s party, prominent church leaders such as [[Hippolytus]], [[St. Ambrose]], and [[St. Augustine]] were writing her praises in their literature, describing her as “the new Eve” and “the apostle to the apostles”. If the mainstream Christian church—the winners—were trying to eliminate Mary’s influence and reputation would they at the same time be extolling her virtues and cherishing the fact that she was the first to see Jesus after the Resurrection? (Welborn 69-70)

The single shred of evidence upon which the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married is found in a portion of the [[Gnostic gospel of Philip]], written a full 200 years after Jesus’ death, which states, “and the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene. […] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her […].” Brackets indicate where holes exist in the original manuscript, and clearly any interpretation of this passage requires much guesswork. Many assume [mouth] was the place where [Jesus] used to kiss Mary [often], however, it could just as likely have been forehead, cheek, arm, hand, or foot—we have no way of knowing if it was even speaking of Christ. (Bock 21)
Teabing apparently is of the belief that Jesus used to kiss Mary on the mouth, and reports this to Sophie and Langdon as a fact without any explanation. He then goes on to inform a spellbound Sophie and Langdon that “as any Aramaic scholar can tell you, the word ‘companion,’ in those days, literally meant spouse.” (Ehrman 142) Unfortunately for our scholar, this is simply not true. First of all, the word is not Aramaic—the gospel of Peter is written in Coptic, and the word used here for “companion” is actually a loan word—borrowed from Greek—koinόnos. In Greek the word for “spouse,” “wife” or “lover” would have been a form of gyn—koinόnos is a word used for friends and associates. (Ehrman 143)

There is no evidence anywhere that indicates that Jesus was married. (Bock 32) In the [[Bible]], women are often identified by the men whom they are associated with. (Mary the mother of Jesus, the mother of Mark, and the wives of several of the apostles are mentioned.) Mary was never tied to any male when she was named. Instead, she was identified by her hometown, Magdala. (Bock 41) While the Bible talks in great detail about Jesus’ other relationships—his mother, father, siblings, aunt, uncle, disciples’ parents, disciples’ wives, not once is Jesus’ wife mentioned. (Welborn 60)

Additionally, when Jesus was dying on the cross, he turned to John and instructed him to take care of his mother. He shows no concern whatsoever for Mary Magdalene in his last moments, which seems odd. After all, if she was his wife, pregnant with his child, his last hope for restoring the sacred feminine, the future leader of his church, etc. …wouldn’t he be slightly worried about her well being? Widowed women in those days had little hope of anything but a destitute future with no caretaker. Perhaps the reason why Jesus did not mention her is because, well, she wasn’t his wife. (Bock 44)
Further evidence that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not married is the fact that in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul cites reasons why men should marry. [[Darrell L. Bock]], P.H.D. writes about this evidence against Jesus’ marriage in the following excerpt:
<blockquote>
''First Corinthians 9:4–6 may be the most important text for this topic. It reads, “Do we not have the right to the company of a believing wife, like the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I lack the right not to work?” Paul noted in this aside that the apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas (Peter) had the right to a wife. In other words, they had every right to be married. It would have been simple for Paul to add that Jesus was married—had He been. Such a point would have sealed his argument, but he did not make that point…This 1 Corinthians 9 passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married—or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus if He had been married. In fact, had Jesus been married, there would have been no better place for Paul to say it than here. It would have clinched Paul’s case that he also had the right to be married. Paul did not mention it because Jesus had not been married.''</blockquote>
If it were true, Jesus’ marriage would have been a significant addition to Paul’s argument –but it is not mentioned. Perhaps this is because Jesus was not married.(Bock 42)

The Da Vinci Code assumes Jesus must be married “because Jesus was a Jew and the social decorum during that time virtually forbade a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned.” Actually, celibacy was not condemned, nor was it even looked down upon. (Bock 53) Several Jewish sects—most notably the Essenes—lived celibate lives dedicating their time wholly to their religion. Additionally, many Jewish prophets and teachers were unmarried and chose to remain celibate: Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and many scholars believe, Paul. It was a way of expressing total devotion to God, but those who did choose to marry were not viewed as any less. (Welborn 60) In an article, [[Archbishop George H. Niederauer]] points out that when Brown talks about Jesus’ marriage, he “stresses the importance of the social decorum at that time. If “social decorum” had been a high priority for Jesus he wouldn’t have healed people on the Sabbath, talked to the Samaritan woman at the well, knocked over the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple, or socialized often with public sinners.” (Niederauer 2)

Teabing states that Jesus’ marriage is “a matter of historical record,” and has been meticulously documented by “scores of historians” throughout history. OK, so where might these historical records be found? The answer is, nowhere… except in Dan Brown’s imagination, perhaps. Essentially, in every single early Christian writing combined there is not one single reference to Jesus’ marriage. This includes the canonical and non-canonical texts—the Constantine-approved, biased selection of scripture known as the Bible as well as the unaltered, censored Gnostic gospels. (Ehrman 153) In his book, Darrell L. Bock explains… in my office there are 38 volumes or early church documents, each several hundred pages, double columns, in small print. The fact that out of all this material only two texts can be brought forward as even ancient candidates for the theory shows how unlikely it is..

===Part II: “Peter’s Party” vs. “Mary’s Party”===

Dan Brown proves Mary Magdalene to be the true goddess, while at the same time he shows how the early church did not believe Jesus was divine, and in fact, definitively justifies how Jesus himself did not claim to be the Son of God. Jesus' divinity is a myth invented by the “winners”, beginning with Jesus’ chauvinistic disciple Peter. After Jesus’ death, Mary Magdalene was intended to be the leader of the church, but the men of the time refused to let this happen, they would not consider a woman as their leader and guide into salvation. Thus, Mary was forced to flee to France with her child. The church, although not formally created at the time yet, then proceeded to suppress the truth about who Mary was, the wife of Jesus and mother of his child.

This idea appears inconsistent with Biblical record because in fact the Bible and all records kept of it were written and decided upon by the chauvinistic male authorities of the time. In four of the chosen Biblical gospels Mary Magdalene is the first witness of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. One of the single most important events in the history of Christianity, the resurrection of Christ was first witnessed by Mary Magdalene. Some may argue that the early church fathers made no attempt whatsoever to hide this, and in fact they did not. Yes, the writers of the Bible the incredible honor of being the first to witness the resurrected Jesus is attributed to Mary Magdalene. Some may argue that this makes no sense at all; it is the only argument that they have. in reality it fit perfectly. Mary Magdalene was such and intricate, critical, important part of the life of Jesus that it was impossible to completely eradicated her from memory. The theory goes that if they included her in a positive light other that her true being they could always have a reasonable defense for their heinous immoral actions and lies, they could present them as their truth. There is also continuing criticism that the Bible had not been used while conducting research for The Da Vinci Code, however Dan Brown being a devout Christian himself is very fammilur with the Bible and its gospel and use the lost, abolished, forgotten and conveniently neglected byt the church, gospels of John and Mary herself!

This passage from gospel of Mary Magdalene (conveniently rejected in during the Nicene Creed - the writting of the Bible) Shows the view of Jesus toward Mary Magdalene and her true position within the Church.. (Welborn2)
<blockquote>
''And Peter said, 'did the savior really speak with a woman without our knowledge? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us? And Levi answered, 'Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like an adversary. If the savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us.''
</blockquote>

This gospel was written over a century after the events it speaks of because of the persecution and destruction of women within the church. (Welborn 69) While some may argue that this gospel, and other like it, are not traceable to a single person who knew Jesus so is true for all the gospels as the only real evidence linking them to Jesus is the writings themselves - a very convenient way to one's point (proof by simply stating you are telling the truth!). (Welborn 55) This therefore is just as credible a source as the Bible itself. In The Da Vinci Code, after hearing this passage, Sophie remarks, “I daresay Peter was something of a sexist,” and indeed he was. To refute this other gospels were written depicting Jesus wit the same chauvinistic tendencies as Peter, in some gospels the Gnostic Jesus did not have very different views on women thus vindicating Peter and proving his was a true gospel; review words from the Gnostic gospel of Thomas, and two scholars’ explanation of it.
<blockquote>
''"Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.’” (Gospel of Thomas 114)
“Jesus is not suggesting a sex-change operation, but is using 'male' and 'female' metaphorically to refer to the higher and lower aspects of human nature. Mary is thus to undergo a spiritual transformation from her earthly, material, passionate nature (she is a free thinking human which is ultimately a danger to power hungry men) to a heavenly, spiritual, intellectual nature (which the evangelist equates with the male, however males have historically proven time and time again that they are the least intellectual, more rash and violent sex).” ''(Funk and Hoover 532)
</blockquote>
In reality, Brown refutes this gospel with several others and is showing how the true position of man and women is that of equality in all aspect according to numerous other gospels. "Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of the church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene." -Sir Leigh Teabing TDVC 248)

===Part III: The Gnostics ===
[[category:literature|Da Vinci Code]]

==Film adaptation==
Director Ron Howard, producer Brian Grazer and actor Tom Hanks teamed up to make a film adaptation of the novel. It opened at the Cannes Festival and was conformed of an enseble cast. It failed to live up to box office expectations which called for a super blockbuster and was critically lambasted for its pacing and ridiculous sounding dialog.

The Da Vinci Code

2008-08-03T17:58:39Z

Jhan: Argumentative, rewrote lines about historical accuracy to be more neutral.

==='''Introduction'''===
----
The Da Vinci Code is a bestselling novel by author [[Dan Brown]]. It has sold over 40 million copies worldwide, and has been translated into over 40 languages. (ParisInfo.com) It has been on the top of the [[NY Times]] Bestseller List since its release in 2003, often holding the coveted #1 spot for weeks on end. (Catholic.com) The book’s exciting storyline and interesting characters have contributed to its record sales—as has its highly controversial content.

[[Image: davincicode.jpg|thumb|right|120px|''The Da Vinci Code'' book cover (UK 1st edition)]]

The Da Vinci Code presents an alternate history of Christianity, drawing criticisms that it is an attack on the church. Although only a novel, Dan Brown creates the impression throughout The Da Vinci Code of having meticulously researched the history of Christianity, though some assertions are disputed by many scholars, including the existence of the Priory of Sion, an organization created in 1099, while it was a hoax created in 1956. He includes a fact page in the beginning of the book and makes references to numerous historical sources, historians and scholars throughout.

In an interview on [[Good Morning America]], Dan Brown stated with conviction that if he had been asked to write a non-fiction version of The Da Vinci Code he would change none of the historical material he included in the novel. (Bock 3) This statement suggests that Dan Brown takes the content of his “novel” very seriously, and on the same interview he described a religious experience he had while conducting research for the book. Brown told an audience of over 15 million viewers that although he started out a “skeptic”, by the end of the book-writing he had became a “believer”. “Almost sounding like an evangelist’s invitation, his confession asked us to ponder whether these things are so and why they might matter.” (Bock 4) By its own author’s admission, The Da Vinci Code is often though of as more than a mere work of fiction.

==='''Plot Summary'''===
----

The book is a thriller. Robert Langdon, a [Harverd] “symbologist” (a fictitious field of study), is summoned to help solve a murder committed at the [Louvre] . (.) Langdon and Sophie Neveu, a cryptographer with the French police, are left with a trail of clues to unravel, and with the help of resident scholar Sir Leigh Teabing, crack the codes to uncover groundbreaking secrets.

The first astounding thing Langdon discovers is "the truth" about the biblical figure [[Mary Magdalene]]. According to Brown, Mary Magdalene was a Jewish woman from the tribe of Benjamin and [[Jesus]]’ single most important disciple—in fact she was more than his disciple, she was his lover and wife, and the mother of their child, Sarah. She was Jesus’ female counterpart, if not entirely “equal” to him, she was pretty close, and meant to be worshipped as a goddess.

Furthermore, Brown reports, Mary was actually intended to be the leader of the church after Jesus’ death (instead of Peter), but was demonized and diminished by Peter and his followers—the chauvinistic “winners"—until history saw her as nothing more than a prostitute. Although every historical document recording these so-called facts about Mary were destroyed by the “winners”, some groups of people throughout history knew and preserved the secret. Specifically, these organizations were the [[Knight’s Templar]] and the [[Priory of Scion]]—both real organizations, according to Brown, who were dedicated to preserving the truth of who Mary Magdalene was. One way of doing this was through the legend of the [[Holy Grail]], which Brown states was in fact Mary Magdalene’s womb—the sacred vessel which bore the supposed blood line of Christ. Both organizations worshipped Mary Magdalene as a goddess.
[[Image: monalisa2.jpg|thumb|left|200px|''The Mona Lisa'']]
Jesus’ divinity, however, is another issue altogether. It wasn’t until 300 years after his death, Brown asserts, that his divinity was “invented” by [[Constantine]] at the [[Council of Nicaea]]. His disciples did not view him as God in the flesh, but instead as a mere mortal prophet. As for the Biblical gospels, well they were four of “over eighty” which were selected at the Council of Nicaea—the four gospels that emphasized Jesus’ divinity and demonized women the most.

The rest were destroyed, and the canon as we know it today is not the inspired Word of God, but instead a power-hungry Constantine’s deceptive compilation—and somewhere, Brown suggests, lying in ashes beneath the earth, is the truth about who Jesus was, who Mary Magdalene was, and what Christianity is all about. The allure of the Da Vinci Code lies in its promise to reveal some great, hidden, conspiracy.

==='''Part I: Mary Magdalene, Wife of the Messiah?'''===
----
Mary Magdalene is a good place to start, because she and her supposed marriage to Jesus are the cornerstones upon which Brown’s claims rest. In The Da Vinci Code, Brown states that Mary Magdalene is a “royal” Jewish woman from the tribe of Benjamin and Jesus’ single most important disciple. She is not a prostitute—in fact this was a lie invented by the Catholic Church to demonize her. She is also his lover, wife, and the mother of their daughter, Sarah. She was supposed to be the leader of the church after Jesus’ death, but was forced by “Peter’s Party” aka “the winners” to escape to Provence, France with her daughter. Her womb is the “Holy Grail”, her bones are buried under the glass pyramid at the [[Louvre]], the Priory of Scion and Knight’s Templar were dedicated to preserving her story and worshipped her as a goddess, she was the “Divine Mother” and represented the real purpose of Jesus’ life and teaching—to reintegrate the “Sacred Feminine” into society. However, Mary Magdalene is mentioned only a few times in the gospels—and never once is a single one of Brown’s claims about Mary supported by the Biblical record. (Welborn 63)

Where did all of these ideas come from? According to The Da Vinci Code’s resident scholar, Teabing, “the royal bloodline has been chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians,” citing The Templar Revelation and [[Holy Blood, Holy Grail]] as sources. Interestingly, these books (which are also found in Dan Brown’s official bibliography) are dismissed by all serious historians, and described as being “schlock pseudo-history and conspiracy-theory.” (Welborn 63) Teabing also mentions ''[[The Woman with the Alabaster Jar]]'' and ''[[The Goddess in the Gospels]]'', both by [[Margaret Starbird]], who uses, among other things, [[numerology]] (the sum of the numbers in her name), to conclude that Mary Magdalene was worshipped as a goddess. Additional sources for Brown’s claims lie in the [[Gnostic gospels]] (Welborn 63)

[[Image: littlemermaid.jpg|thumb|right|200px|In TDVC, Brown gives credence to Margaret Starbird’s idea that Ariel, the ‘Little Mermaid’ in the Disney film, is not just a fictional fairy tale character, but a symbol representing Mary Magdalene. According to Brown, Walt Disney was a believer in the Sacred Feminine and purposefully filled the movie with hidden codes about Mary Magdalene, including Ariel’s red hair (supposedly MM’s was red as well) and the painting she finds at the bottom of the sea ([[Georges de la Tour]]’s [[Magdalene with the Smoking Flame]]). (Starbird) These claims seem to be disproven given that Walt Disney had been dead for over 20 years when The Little Mermaid was made in 1989.]]

Even with these incredulous sources to occasionally back him up, most of Brown’s claims about Mary Magdalene have no historical evidence behind them whatsoever. There is no record anywhere to even suggest that Mary Magdalene was of the tribe of Benjamin—and this would not have made her “royal”. (Ehrman 160) It is true that in the gospels there is no mention of Mary Magdalene as having been a prostitute. This idea first came into existence 500 years after the gospels were written, and became popular in the [[Middle Ages]] and [[the Renaissance]]. In 1969, the [[Catholic Church]] issued a formal statement clearing Mary’s reputation, and separating her from Mary from Bethany, the “sinful woman.” (Van Biema)

The idea continually perpetuated by Brown throughout The Da Vinci Code that the church demonized Mary Magdalene (and women in general) for centuries is also highly inconsistent with historical record. Incidentally, this idea is not an original one—in fact, it is quite popular among feminist scholars and professors. (Welborn 68) They teach that Christianity is about men being “the winners” and women being suppressed and diminished and “use a few Gnostic gospels (written over 100 years after Jesus’ death) to speculate [their] ideologically-motivated interpretation of Christianity.” (Welborn 69)

This is totally incompatible with historical evidence, however. During the time period that Mary was supposedly being subdued by Peter’s party, prominent church leaders such as [[Hippolytus]], [[St. Ambrose]], and [[St. Augustine]] were writing her praises in their literature, describing her as “the new Eve” and “the apostle to the apostles”. If the mainstream Christian church—the winners—were trying to eliminate Mary’s influence and reputation would they at the same time be extolling her virtues and cherishing the fact that she was the first to see Jesus after the Resurrection? (Welborn 69-70)

The single shred of evidence upon which the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married is found in a portion of the [[Gnostic gospel of Philip]], written a full 200 years after Jesus’ death, which states, “and the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene. […] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her […].” Brackets indicate where holes exist in the original manuscript, and clearly any interpretation of this passage requires much guesswork. Many assume [mouth] was the place where [Jesus] used to kiss Mary [often], however, it could just as likely have been forehead, cheek, arm, hand, or foot—we have no way of knowing if it was even speaking of Christ. (Bock 21)
Teabing apparently is of the belief that Jesus used to kiss Mary on the mouth, and reports this to Sophie and Langdon as a fact without any explanation. He then goes on to inform a spellbound Sophie and Langdon that “as any Aramaic scholar can tell you, the word ‘companion,’ in those days, literally meant spouse.” (Ehrman 142) Unfortunately for our scholar, this is simply not true. First of all, the word is not Aramaic—the gospel of Peter is written in Coptic, and the word used here for “companion” is actually a loan word—borrowed from Greek—koinόnos. In Greek the word for “spouse,” “wife” or “lover” would have been a form of gyn—koinόnos is a word used for friends and associates. (Ehrman 143)

There is no evidence anywhere that indicates that Jesus was married. (Bock 32) In the [[Bible]], women are often identified by the men whom they are associated with. (Mary the mother of Jesus, the mother of Mark, and the wives of several of the apostles are mentioned.) Mary was never tied to any male when she was named. Instead, she was identified by her hometown, Magdala. (Bock 41) While the Bible talks in great detail about Jesus’ other relationships—his mother, father, siblings, aunt, uncle, disciples’ parents, disciples’ wives, not once is Jesus’ wife mentioned. (Welborn 60)

Additionally, when Jesus was dying on the cross, he turned to John and instructed him to take care of his mother. He shows no concern whatsoever for Mary Magdalene in his last moments, which seems odd. After all, if she was his wife, pregnant with his child, his last hope for restoring the sacred feminine, the future leader of his church, etc. …wouldn’t he be slightly worried about her well being? Widowed women in those days had little hope of anything but a destitute future with no caretaker. Perhaps the reason why Jesus did not mention her is because, well, she wasn’t his wife. (Bock 44)
Further evidence that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not married is the fact that in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul cites reasons why men should marry. [[Darrell L. Bock]], P.H.D. writes about this evidence against Jesus’ marriage in the following excerpt:
<blockquote>
''First Corinthians 9:4–6 may be the most important text for this topic. It reads, “Do we not have the right to the company of a believing wife, like the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I lack the right not to work?” Paul noted in this aside that the apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas (Peter) had the right to a wife. In other words, they had every right to be married. It would have been simple for Paul to add that Jesus was married—had He been. Such a point would have sealed his argument, but he did not make that point…This 1 Corinthians 9 passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married—or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus if He had been married. In fact, had Jesus been married, there would have been no better place for Paul to say it than here. It would have clinched Paul’s case that he also had the right to be married. Paul did not mention it because Jesus had not been married.''</blockquote>
If it were true, Jesus’ marriage would have been a significant addition to Paul’s argument –but it is not mentioned. Perhaps this is because Jesus was not married.(Bock 42)

The Da Vinci Code assumes Jesus must be married “because Jesus was a Jew and the social decorum during that time virtually forbade a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned.” Actually, celibacy was not condemned, nor was it even looked down upon. (Bock 53) Several Jewish sects—most notably the Essenes—lived celibate lives dedicating their time wholly to their religion. Additionally, many Jewish prophets and teachers were unmarried and chose to remain celibate: Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and many scholars believe, Paul. It was a way of expressing total devotion to God, but those who did choose to marry were not viewed as any less. (Welborn 60) In an article, [[Archbishop George H. Niederauer]] points out that when Brown talks about Jesus’ marriage, he “stresses the importance of the social decorum at that time. If “social decorum” had been a high priority for Jesus he wouldn’t have healed people on the Sabbath, talked to the Samaritan woman at the well, knocked over the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple, or socialized often with public sinners.” (Niederauer 2)

Teabing states that Jesus’ marriage is “a matter of historical record,” and has been meticulously documented by “scores of historians” throughout history. OK, so where might these historical records be found? The answer is, nowhere… except in Dan Brown’s imagination, perhaps. Essentially, in every single early Christian writing combined there is not one single reference to Jesus’ marriage. This includes the canonical and non-canonical texts—the Constantine-approved, biased selection of scripture known as the Bible as well as the unaltered, censored Gnostic gospels. (Ehrman 153) In his book, Darrell L. Bock explains… in my office there are 38 volumes or early church documents, each several hundred pages, double columns, in small print. The fact that out of all this material only two texts can be brought forward as even ancient candidates for the theory shows how unlikely it is..

===Part II: “Peter’s Party” vs. “Mary’s Party”===

Dan Brown proves Mary Magdalene to be the true goddess, while at the same time he shows how the early church did not believe Jesus was divine, and in fact, definitively justifies how Jesus himself did not claim to be the Son of God. Jesus' divinity is a myth invented by the “winners”, beginning with Jesus’ chauvinistic disciple Peter. After Jesus’ death, Mary Magdalene was intended to be the leader of the church, but the men of the time refused to let this happen, they would not consider a woman as their leader and guide into salvation. Thus, Mary was forced to flee to France with her child. The church, although not formally created at the time yet, then proceeded to suppress the truth about who Mary was, the wife of Jesus and mother of his child.

This idea appears inconsistent with Biblical record because in fact the Bible and all records kept of it were written and decided upon by the chauvinistic male authorities of the time. In four of the chosen Biblical gospels Mary Magdalene is the first witness of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. One of the single most important events in the history of Christianity, the resurrection of Christ was first witnessed by Mary Magdalene. Some may argue that the early church fathers made no attempt whatsoever to hide this, and in fact they did not. Yes, the writers of the Bible the incredible honor of being the first to witness the resurrected Jesus is attributed to Mary Magdalene. Some may argue that this makes no sense at all; it is the only argument that they have. in reality it fit perfectly. Mary Magdalene was such and intricate, critical, important part of the life of Jesus that it was impossible to completely eradicated her from memory. The theory goes that if they included her in a positive light other that her true being they could always have a reasonable defense for their heinous immoral actions and lies, they could present them as their truth. There is also continuing criticism that the Bible had not been used while conducting research for The Da Vinci Code, however Dan Brown being a devout Christian himself is very fammilur with the Bible and its gospel and use the lost, abolished, forgotten and conveniently neglected byt the church, gospels of John and Mary herself!

This passage from gospel of Mary Magdalene (conveniently rejected in during the Nicene Creed - the writting of the Bible) Shows the view of Jesus toward Mary Magdalene and her true position within the Church.. (Welborn2)
<blockquote>
''And Peter said, 'did the savior really speak with a woman without our knowledge? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us? And Levi answered, 'Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like an adversary. If the savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us.''
</blockquote>

This gospel was written over a century after the events it speaks of because of the persecution and destruction of women within the church. (Welborn 69) While some may argue that this gospel, and other like it, are not traceable to a single person who knew Jesus so is true for all the gospels as the only real evidence linking them to Jesus is the writings themselves - a very convenient way to one's point (proof by simply stating you are telling the truth!). (Welborn 55) This therefore is just as credible a source as the Bible itself. In The Da Vinci Code, after hearing this passage, Sophie remarks, “I daresay Peter was something of a sexist,” and indeed he was. To refute this other gospels were written depicting Jesus wit the same chauvinistic tendencies as Peter, in some gospels the Gnostic Jesus did not have very different views on women thus vindicating Peter and proving his was a true gospel; review words from the Gnostic gospel of Thomas, and two scholars’ explanation of it.
<blockquote>
''"Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.’” (Gospel of Thomas 114)
“Jesus is not suggesting a sex-change operation, but is using 'male' and 'female' metaphorically to refer to the higher and lower aspects of human nature. Mary is thus to undergo a spiritual transformation from her earthly, material, passionate nature (she is a free thinking human which is ultimately a danger to power hungry men) to a heavenly, spiritual, intellectual nature (which the evangelist equates with the male, however males have historically proven time and time again that they are the least intellectual, more rash and violent sex).” ''(Funk and Hoover 532)
</blockquote>
In reality, Brown refutes this gospel with several others and is showing how the true position of man and women is that of equality in all aspect according to numerous other gospels. "Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of the church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene." -Sir Leigh Teabing TDVC 248)

===Part III: The Gnostics ===
[[category:literature|Da Vinci Code]]

==Film adaptation==
Director Ron Howard, producer Brian Grazer and actor Tom Hanks teamed up to make a film adaptation of the novel. It opened at the Cannes Festival and was conformed of an enseble cast. It failed to live up to box office expectations which called for a super blockbuster and was critically lambasted for its pacing and ridiculous sounding dialog.