http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.p...nt=yes&id=14732

The Da Vinci Code's Top 10 Errors

by Robert H. Knight
Posted May 11, 2006

Editor’s note: The full version of “The Top 10 Da Vinci Code Distortions” is available from Concerned Women for America. See also the accompanying HUMAN EVENTS Top 10 list.


Serious Christians will see through the many lies and historical fictions that Dan Brown plants throughout the best-selling book The Da Vinci Code, but millions will believe that this profoundly dishonest work contains at least some “truth” about Jesus and the church.

The film version is opening in theaters on May 19. Christians should avoid the movie and thus avoid rewarding Hollywood for blaspheming their Lord, but they also should be equipped with answers to the most dangerous misconceptions.

Dan Brown is peddling one of the oldest known and easily discredited heresies -- Gnosticism -- and his claims are refuted by the rich history of Christian writing, beginning with the Gospels themselves.

Several books expose the many factual errors and ludicrous assertions in The Da Vinci Code, and the brief list of problems with Brown’s book here is the tip of the iceberg.

1) CLAIM: Jesus was merely a man, not God. Brown says that the “pagan” Roman emperor Constantine, for the purpose of consolidating his power, created the “myth” that Jesus was resurrected after being crucified. (231-234).

ANSWER: Constantine, who converted to Christianity and ended Rome’s persecution of Christians, convened the Council of Nicea in 325, but only to sort out differences among church leaders, all of whom believed Jesus was divine. Early church historians referred routinely to Christ’s divinity, including Ignatius (105 A.D.) and Clement (150 A.D.).<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]-->

2) CLAIM: The Council of Nicea defined Jesus as God in “a close vote at that.” Constantine chose all the books for inclusion in the Bible as we know it (231).

ANSWER: The Council of Nicea, which took no votes, was convened by Constantine with Christian leaders across the empire mainly to dispense with the theories of Arius (father of Arianism), who claimed that Jesus, while divine, was a created being. Only two of 318 clerics at the Council did not sign the Nicene Creed. The early church had already adopted the Four Gospels and most of the rest of the New Testament as authoritative long before the Council of Nicea.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3) <!--[endif]-->CLAIM: The four New Testament Gospels (the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) comprise a false account. Numerous ancient writings tell a more truthful story.

ANSWER: Brown bases his view on 52 books collectively called the Gnostic Gospels, discovered in 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. All were written more than a century after the Biblical Gospels were written. None of these books has any tie to eyewitnesses in Christ’s time, unlike the Gospels themselves.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4) <!--[endif]-->CLAIM: The Da Vinci Code is based on fact.

Here’s the actual beginning of the book:

“FACT:

The Priory of Scion -- a European secret society founded in 1099 –is a real organization. In 1975 Paris’s Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous Members of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]-->

ANSWER: Pierre Plantard, a French anti-Semite fraud, created the “Priory of Sion” in 1956, not 1099, and the documents were found to be counterfeits. There is no evidence that the famous men he cites were involved in any secret society.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->5) <!--[endif]-->CLAIM: Jesus did not die on the cross but married Mary Magdalene and fathered children with her. Brown claims the church was led by Mary Magdalene, whose role was covered up by a ruthless Catholic Church.

ANSWER: Jesus’ crucifixion and reappearance after the resurrection are perhaps the best-documented theological events in history, with literally hundreds of eyewitnesses. The Roman pagan historian Flavius Josephus recorded the event this way:

He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]-->

The nonsense about Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene and having children with her came from the Plantard forgeries and the Gnostic gospels of Phillip and “Mary Magdala.”

<!--[if !supportLists]-->6) <!--[endif]-->CLAIM: Mary Magdalene is pictured in The Last Supper to the left of Jesus.

ANSWER: If that figure is Mary Magdalene, then Leonardo inexplicably left out the apostle John. The youngest disciple, John was often portrayed in a feminine manner to convey youth, as is seen in the stained glass of European cathedrals. No credible art historian has asserted that the John figure in The Last Supper is Mary Magdalene, nor is there is there any mention in Leonardo’s journals.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[4]<!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportLists]-->7) <!--[endif]-->CLAIM: The Catholic organization Opus Dei (The Work of God) has an inner network of zealous members who would do anything to keep people from discovering that Christianity’s central claims are false. The chief murderer in The Da Vinci Code is a self-flagellating Opus Dei “monk.”

ANSWER: Opus Dei, which Brown correctly notes was founded in 1928, has no monks, although it does have “numeraries” of both sexes who pledge celibacy and live in single-sex centers. Although Brown says on Page 428 that Opus Dei and the Vatican were “completely innocent” of the immediate crimes in the book, the overall historical impression remains of a dangerously secretive cult-like group. Opus Dei was created to energize lay Catholics into taking their faith more seriously, not to advance a false gospel.

8) CLAIM: The “sacred feminine” was at the heart of the early church, but was ruthlessly suppressed. “It was man, not God, who created the concept of ‘original sin,’ whereby Eve tasted of the apple and caused the downfall of the human race. Woman, once the sacred giver of life, was now the enemy” (238).

ANSWER: Once again (and throughout the book), Brown calls Scripture a colossal lie. Far from oppressing women, the church has proved to be a liberating force. Women have achieved unprecedented status in nations where Christianity has had an impact. Jesus honored women among His followers. Mary Magdalene was the first to discover the empty tomb, see the resurrected Christ, and to tell the other believers.

9) Claim: The Bible is an ever-changing living document. The Bible “has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book,” Brown writes (231).

ANSWER: No other book in antiquity has as many manuscripts that are consistently accurate, even after 2,000 years. The New Testament, of which 5,000 early copies exist,<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[5]<!--[endif]--> also has the shortest gap between time of authorship (55-95 A.D.) and the earliest copies (around 200 A.D.). Other ancient books have gaps of 1,000 years or more.

10) CLAIM: Even Walt Disney was a devotee of the Mary Magdalene cult.

ANSWER: “‘Once you open your eyes to [Mary Magdalene as] the Holy Grail,’ [fictional character Robert] Langdon said, ‘you see her everywhere.’

“Langdon held up his Mickey Mouse watch and told her that Walt Disney had made it his quiet life’s work to pass on the Grail story to future generations” (261).

Mark Pinsky, author of The Gospel According to Disney, told the Culture & Family Institute: “I’d give it no credence whatever.” The mention of Disney as a devotee of the Grail in The Da Vinci Code “is the first that I’d read about it.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[6]<!--[endif]-->

Conclusion

The Da Vinci Code is a clever and dangerous book suffused with lies, distortions, Satanic imagery and historical inaccuracies, all designed to cast doubt in readers’ minds about the deity of Jesus Christ. Brown is trying to resurrect the old sex-based pagan fertility cults that Judaism and Christianity replaced while advancing civilization.

By claiming that man, not God, inspired the Bible, Brown is appealing to the same pride that Satan did when he promised Eve in the Book of Genesis that “ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

The good news is that the truth will overcome lies.

Jesus promised: “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32 NKJV).

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]--> Jim Garlow and Peter Jones, Cracking Da Vinci’s Code (Colorado Springs: Victor, an imprint of Cook Communications, 2004), p. 94, and cited in D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcomb, The Da Vinci Myth Versus the Gospel Truth (Fort Lauderdale: Coral Ridge Ministries, 2006), p. 43.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--> Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday, 2003), p. 1.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]--> Flavius Josephus, translated by William Whiston, The Works of Josephus (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987), p. 480.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[4]<!--[endif]--> Amy Welborn, author, De-coding Mary Magdalene: Truth, Legend, and Lies (Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 2004), commenting in The Da Vinci Delusion (Fort Lauderdale: Coral Ridge Ministries, DVD, 2006).

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[5]<!--[endif]--> Kennedy and Newcomb, op. cit., p. 46.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[6]<!--[endif]--> Telephone interview with Robert Knight, May 4, 2006.

Has a lot going in my life for the moment, and still have to prove that Winston is a closet Cheney supporter, otherwise i would use some time to refute several of does claims that ¤%#¤ has made as to what parts of Dan Browns book is nonsens or not.
Hate it when so called informed personalities does not bother to do their own homework, or even worse is not interestet in doing it since it would be conterary to their ideology.

PS I have not had the time to read *Da Vinci..* yet. my stand is only based on the dribble that idiot (Sorry for the harsh words) uses as *Proof*^.
And yes i do know my bible. (Common history too.)

just can't leave a book to be simply a book, can you?

Because the uneducated and uninformed are swallowing this piece of sensationalistic fiction as "gospel" truth. So pathetic to see.

Also, it denigrates a whole group of people, Catholics.

If people want to say what they like about the book, like it's a pack of unsubstantiated, resurrected old anti-Catholic biases, why shouldn't they?

It's only a movie.

Did Jewish people complain about Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark?

(and those were done by Spielberg himself.)

Repeat after me---it's a M O V I E (and a BOOK)

Don't go see it.

If you like Hitchcock type thrillers or follow the clues I recommend it for a rainy spring-summer day.

As a Jew myself, wasn't Jesus just a man? (but that is another story.) We didn't need sequels. (JUST KIDDING)

Hi Graham, Thanks for your reply.

I won't go see it, but it's because I don't go to movies anymore anyway [I sometimes rent or see them on TV]. I know it's "just a movie" but I am amazed at how many people are taking it as fact. That is what amazes me, that people will accept a Hollywood movie over centuries of history. To me that is a little bit scary, and it shows me the power of the popular media over people in this country today. I think it is being used by those who have a thing against the Church, or authority. They want to jump on the bandwagon of accepting this story, just to irritate or to assert their "independent thinking". It also demonstrates just how many Christians don't have an understanding of the essence of their faith. They say "this is plausible." But Christ did not come to do miracles and healings, he came specifically to die on the cross, to put to death in Himself our sin nature, and to rise again in victory over spiritual/physical death. Marriage/children were not His mission.

Also, if the story were true, then where is this illustrious family of descendants of Christ? For all the hoopla, it seems their impact on world history has been practically nil.

And, being an Indy fan, how is that movie offensive to Jews? It seemed pretty anti-Nazi, but how was it against the Jewish people? Disrespecting the Ark of the Covenant special effects?

Cheers!

I haven't read the book and don't plan to. I've seen enough on the History Channel to debunk it. However, as a former Roman Catholic I no longer (for many years now) believe the Catholic Church nor the Pope speaks in any way for God. I must admit I don't believe in any religion any more so I don't want to just single out the Church.

Once I saw the murderous evidence of the Inquisition (particularly the pogrom against the Kathars in France in the 1300's) I reject the Church and it's pretentions.

The Church has its cloudy history, but it seems it's the "godless" that have a lot more to answer to: Stalin's purges, Mao's slaughters, Pol Pot's mass killings, Hitler's final solution, which included many priests and nuns who hid Jews or spoke out against him. These people committed far worse crimes.

At least the Pople JPII asked God's forgiveness for the Church's past sins. I don't see any of the communists doing any such thing.

First, I apologize for the stupid joke above. I should know better.

I don't buy that it is true, it's a novel, fiction. People like the author are doing publicity, as is the movie company and people associate with it.

I didn't read the book, nor any of the author's follow-ups.

As for Indy, Spielberg himself has said if he had to do it again, he would not make light of the Nazi's in those film, making them cartoon characters...of course he only said that after Schindler's list.

I think a more dangerous movie was the Flight93 movie and Bush's people (including a thread today on Morton Kondracke) are pushing that as to why we always have to be at war. I have no desire to see a recreation or image of what happened...

I compare it with Indy though because its the same type of treasure map...(so much so the writers of Raiders should sue for copyright theft in some places)...you expected Tom Hanks at some point to say Snakes, why does it have to be snakes.
Or Sean Connery to be in the Ian McKellan role.

It also seems that everytime protests make the newspapers, all it does is increase the box office...seems for all the protests, DaVinci was the 4th biggest opening
(not that that means anything.)

But I agree that it can blend fact and fiction in some people's minds, but those people let their minds be taken too easily...(sort of like the politics in America these days)...

But people complained about the Hitler movie last year "Downfall", that it made him human...I watched it, thought it was a great movie, and HItler was human...

But that's the great thing- you and I have a choice. We can see things, or we don't have to see it. No one forces us. And I can see the other side on all these movies from both sides.
Probably, if Tom Hanks and Ron Howard were not involved I would not have run out to see it. But I see everything else Ron has done, and enjoyed some of it (in his case maybe more than some)...
How many people grew up with Opie on the Andy Griffith show to Happy Days to Splash and Cocoon (my avitar Wilford's most fun movie, espeically when he dives into the pool), etc.(Or the evil little boy in that one episode "Its a good life" of the Twilight zone

And,Again, sorry for my stupid joke above.

The history of mankind is a tale of carnage, genocide and wars, religious and non-religious. Greed, Fear, and Hate are at the core and always have been. No religion is exempt either directly or indirectly from these base human characteristics. That they don't lead the way out from under that darkness but in fact actively participate and even encourage such darkness makes them part of the problem. You would think that if these religions were indeed revealed by God, they would include all "God's Children". But they don't. Religion can be benign even positive when practiced by decent people for sharing a devotion to a sense of the sacred. But the leaders of religion are into power and it has never been otherwise. It has always been couched from the begining of organization as exclusive of the non-believers. Only Buddhism tries to be inclusive, but it has shown it will allow genocide through insane passivity in the face of active evil.

I know there are truly good people in all religions. However, they are not in charge. I don't dislike religious people, nor do I want to try and debunk their religion. However, when they attempt to rule over me with their religion pushed in my face, I reject it and I always will. Just my two cents.

Hey graham! No need for an apology at all! I just didn't get the joke.

Burning question: Did you see the Passion of the Christ?

My good opinion of you will not alter no matter what your answer.

yes I did finally see it...too bloody, but IT'S JUST A MOVIE
Mel is allowed to make whatever he wants

(note-I am not a fan of Mel Gibson's from day one, including Mad Max and the ones with Joe PEsci)

I did not see Flight93 the story is fresh in my mind on that one

Hi The RestofUs!

Tell me how exactly religion is being pushed in your face, right now i.e. these days [not in your childhood].

Also, while all religions may have ungodly characteristics, I will stick up for my faith, and for the Judeo/Christian[sorry graham] tradition by saying that it brought about many good things to the world, specifically of course the development of Western Civilization, which as far as I can see, looking at the world, is the only one who has for one thing, respected women, and accepted them as people. Perhaps imperfectly, but far more than the Middle, East or Far Eastern religions have IN PRACTICE. I know Islam claims to respect women and that they jsut have a different role etc., and that Hinduism, and Buddhism are advanced in their spiritual perceptions of the world and self...however, in practice women in these cultures are not regarded with equality. That is one indicator to me that Christianity got it right. Jesus Himself honored and stood up for women on many occasions, to the shock and dismay of his disciples and the society in general.

I don't know what religious authorities are wielding any real power. We all have a right to say what we believe, whatever our belief system is. A believer has as much right to a voice as an "unbeliever" because that is our system. To say that one's viewpoint is acceptable because religion has been excised from it, while the religious person's viewpoint is automatically disqualified, is intolerant, preferential, and not constitutional. The non-religious person has a viewpoint; the religious person has a viewpoint. Both are valid, both have the right to expression.

ALso, the values we espouse as a democratic society have their roots in the Judeo/Christian tradition. The values such as: equality [racial/gender etc.], compassion for the weak or helpless, respect for life, respect for the individual etc.

Humanism has taken these principles, excised God from them, then claimed them for its own, and blamed the Church for being the enemy of the very principles it originated.

Ya, Flight 93 does smack of making commercial gain from a very recent wound. I have to say, Hollywood sucks. Sorry.

As for the violence in Passion: Well, that is supposed to be what really happened. I don't know. Very hard to watch. Couldn't do it again.

I wouldn't be able to watch Schindler's a second time, not that its the same thing.

In that movie, at the theater, I could not take the last few minutes, had to go to the bathroom...It was the scenes at the very end with the real people laying stones...somehow the rest was a movie, the real people were real and I lost it

And I could not talk about anything for a good hour afterward...

Our democratic Republic is being threatened currently by Fanactical Fundamentalists both from within and without in practice. They are receiving my taxpayer money to promote their sect within. They are currently attempting to control the most private aspects of women's lives in practice. From without, Muslim Fundamentalist Fanactics have attacked my country and killed 3000 of my fellow citizens, in practice. It is only through the principles expounded in our Constitution that we are not under the thumb of some Theocrat (whether a King George with his own State Religion or an Ayatolla). The rights of women or of non-believers of some particular religion were never secured by any religion. They were never secured by anything but the American Constitution. Our founding fathers were not Christians. They believed in a creator but they were largely FreeMasons. They could be called "theists", but they believed in a God of Nature, and of Love. Their enlightenment was to free us from the stranglehold of Kings and their "Divine Right" to rule us.

This is how they (the religious fanatics) are affecting me and my country. Everyone has the right to believe what they will or believe nothing at all. However, no one has the right to impose their beliefs on anyone else (according to our system of law) unless it is the law as properly enacted under our Constitution which demands a separation between Church and State. Again this very principle is under attack by Religious Fanatics.

The values expoused by Christ are not in the words, or actions of those professing to be Christians as represented by the Christian Leaders; (Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Moon, or Ratsinger).

None of these people ((Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Moon, or Ratsinger) have changed the Constitution or imposed any laws on you. They have exercised their right to self-expression, just as Michael Moore has, just as Louis Farrakhan has, just as any person can and has. It's up to the citizenry to decide. As for those opposing a woman's right to choose, they are defending the unborn child's right to life, the one being in this country who has no voice. These people have a right to express their opinion about something they perceive as grievously wrong.

If you cannot stand the give and take of public debate, with its various opinions, and you view everything as threatening because you do not agree with it, then you are not cut out for democracy but for totalitarianism, which tolerates nothing but itself.

My point about Christianity and women was that , it was the Christian viewpoint and Christian countries that have and had the greatest respect for women, so yes, Christianity did indirectly secure women's rights because it was the Christian set of values that brought about the set of laws that respected them. They have evolved through the years too. Islamic countries have not.

As for the Founding Fathers, well, they may not have been Christian in the strictest sense of the word, i.e. belonging to a specific Christian denomination, but their core set of beliefs sprang from the Christian principles.

Some quotes:

Jefferson: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?" That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever....Amen."

John Adams: I have been a church-going animal for seventy-six years, from the cradle" [Aug. 28, 1811]

about George Washington: "While Washington's church attendance for most of his life was usual ly in some Protestant sanctuary, most often of his own Episcopal denomination, he sometimes worshiped with Catholic congregations. " from "The Faiths of our Fathers by Alf J. Mapp, Jr. p. 75

Patrick Henry: "Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary characer, they will be miserable. Righteousness calone can exalt them as a nation."

about Alexander Hamilton: "In the spring of 1802, he proposed a national organization of Christian activists to work for a conservative political agenda. He suggested that it be named the Christian Constitutional society. ... Local societies in communities of the individual states would meet weekly to discuss Christian and constitutional aspects of current events. The chapters would work "in concert to promote the elction of fit men." They would also do charaible work, assist immigrants and operate schools." The Faiths of our Fathers by Alf. J. Mapp. Jr. p. 106

on his death bed to his wife: "Remember, my Eliza, you are a Christian."

there's more but I have to go now.

I don't want to fight with you over faith. But those self-proclaimed "Christian Leaders" are attempting to impose laws on me. They are also receiving taxpayer money in direct violation of the Constitution. Moon has declared himself variously as Christ returned, to Christ's emissary. He has stated publically that he aims to take over America and it's government. He owns the Washington Times, and hundreds of other businesses besides and is constantly buying more. I said at the begining that they are attempting to rule us, not that they have succeeded already. I resent your statement that I cannot stand them expressing their beliefs. I never said any such thing. I believe in live and let live. But I will not stand idly by while they work to replace our Constitution with their version of Theocracy. The only time I view anyone as threatening is when I hear someone threaten me. They may think that they are not threatening me. They may think that by declaring their aim to rule over me they are "saving my soul". I don't see it that way.

As for women's rights being indirectly secured by Christianity's respect for women. One of the reasons the Church murdered over 40,000 Kathar men women and children was because they dared to believe that women were equal to men spiritually and could be priests. They also believed that you needed no one to stand between you and Christ. For this the Church burned them alive.

The founding fathers were deists ( I believe I may have said theists before). They believed in a creator as I said before. They may indeed have gotten some of their values from the words of Christ, but they made sure there would be no combination of State and any Religion. So your quotes don't change anything I've said about them. Everything these particular "Christian Leaders" say signals that it is they who clamor for Totalitarianism. A Theocratic version.

Well, I would fear a theocracy just as much as you would, believe me. Just look at all the versions of Christianity there are -- which one would get to rule? Not mine I bet. Also, I didn't mean to offend you -- I meant to edit my post to say "one" instead of "you" because that is what I meant but I had to sign off in a hurry for an apptment. So, please forgive me, I didn't mean you.

I realize the Founding Fathers did not want a state-run religion etc. My point is more about how the general set of values they had were derived from Christianity, or Judeo/Christian values really. What I am trying to say is that our code of ethics, our laws, what we value are values handed down from our Christian heritage, whether we ourselves are Christian or not. The set of principles the Founding Fathers set down were based on this heritage too, taking it a step further into the place of separation of church/state, individual rights and liberties, etc.

I have no clue about the slaughter of people by the Church that you cite. I will look into it, but I would like to know when it happened because in certain times of history it was the norm to wipe out the enemy, or else be wiped out, whether it included women/children or not. All peoples did this, and all religions as a matter of survival. The Moors conquered most of Spain, but then were driven out after 800 years [the US isn't even that old yet!] because of the conflict of the faith, Islam vs. Christianity. The Crusades were initiated originally to take back the Holy Land from the Muslims who had taken it over. In other words, it was the norm to agress in the name of religion [or for your country] because the winner got to make the rules. The bitter struggle between the Catholics and Protestants in England is tragic. We cannot judge one institution because this happened in its history. This was how life was back then for everyone, as brutal as looks to us now.

Back to theocracy, please explain to me specifically who is replacing the Constitution with their theocracy and how? I hear fear of this happening but have yet to see concrete evidence.

Thanx!

Sorry I snapped at you. BTW the name of this group is spelled Cathar, and they were also called Albegensians from the town of Albi in France where their beliefs are said to have origionated. This link has some useful information on them and what happened to them.

http://www.languedoc-france.info/12_cathars.htm

Regarding those who wish to take over this country I offer this link. Though it is the Conspiracy Planet site it footnotes the public statements and history of the Rev. Moon. There is much more information out there on this dangerous lunatic.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cf...tid=1339&page=2

I agree with you that knowledge of Christ and Christianity in general is a net positive for the development of Western Civilization. However, we must be constantly on guard against Fanatics. I mean no offense either to any authentic Christian.

Hey my friend, no problem.

Mooney is definitely looney. Just the pic of him and his wife wearing royal vestments is a strong clue as to his mentality no? And his plans/designs are scary. Sobering to think he has so much money and influence, esp. over our Pres. However, I don't think he is the only one.

About the Cathars, or Albigensians, reading your site I now recollect this passage of history. Well, even the Catholic encyclopedia admits that the Church's reaction was regrettable. They were in anti-heresy mode about that time I guess.

Again I say, these events occurred in the 13th century. Things have changed! We cannot look at entities now and judge them by what they did 800 years ago. The "democracy" of ancient Greece included a substantial number of slaves in its population. Shall we turn agains Greece for this now? The Anglican Church in England persecuted Catholics mercilessly. Let's all hate the Anglican church now for this? I mean, we have to look at the realities of today, and see history as a good place to study and learn, and understand that actions that are abominable to us now were the "thing to do" in those harsh times.

I think we naturally have a higher expectation of an entity that is supposed to represent Christ on earth. Christ Himself said "ye shall know them by their fruits." But, this entity, like any other human entity, is composed of human beings influenced by their heritage and their circumstance.

A small example: In the 60's it was inconceivable to imagine a woman doctor, lawyer, police officer, president, even newscaster! Inconceivable for the mainstream population. And I speak of modern society, modern countries. Our mentality now cannot imagine not having women doing these things. People then couldn't help this belief that women couldn't do these things, it was ingrained in society. Change came about, but we have to understand our forebears and their idyosincracies and that they acted according to the understanding of their times.

As for Robertson and Falwell, I think they discredited themselves with their looney statements. Dobson: I know what has been alledged about him, but these allegations are proven false. As far as I can see he is only a person who speaks out in defense of his Christian family values. Pope Benedict XVII, aka Ratzinger, I don't think there is anything to fear from him. Have you read any of his books? He and JPII were good friends and in agreement on many things. He has a reputation of being a stickler for the law, but that is because that was his job.

I enjoy your posts.
Cheers!