What is Digg?249 Comments
- fani, on 10/12/2007, -7/+71Ridiculous. This'll ensure the movie is a blockbuster hit a la Passion of the Christ.
Controversy/Shock value always causes more free advertising = more movie-goers sometimes. - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -7/+46Has Dan Brown _ever_ claimed the Davinci Code to be a work of nonfiction? Of course not; people just want it to be.
- muleking, on 10/12/2007, -14/+46The Vatican also believes in boycotting condoms, thats working out really well in Africa...
- bastion_xx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35The Vatican didn't take a position on Passion of the Christ, although local dioceses and parishes recommended it. The Vatican didn't haven't anything good to say about The Last Temptation of Christ. But agreed, anything that is stated as "don't go see this" will increase sales.
As a Catholic, I found the book, well Audible audiobook, to be an entertaining work of fiction. Much better than Digital Fortress. I'm looking forward to seeing the movie as an adaptation to the book. - millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -14/+44The Da Vinci Code or the Bible ?
- Nyghtewynd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31The *movie* is not the problem. The people who think that this is anything more than a very elaborate piece of fiction are the problem.
- Killerah, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30It's really stupid how this thing is getting so much attention. Also, if you think that The Da Vinci Code is rooted in fact and backed by a bunch of historians you should probably read this: http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm Even if you don't believe that the Bible is fact, PLEASE don't believe The Da Vinci Code is, because it's nothing more than a work of fiction despite what it claims to be.
- LR2_, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26[He added: "I hope that you all will boycott the film."]
This isn't that ridiculous. It's just a recommendation. Also, they should just come out and say the truth. That they do not want people seeing the movie because too many Christians that do not really know a lot about theological teachings and historical events as opposed to a clergical figure. Many people may not be strong enough in faith to take the movie as a fictionous production. Just my opinon though. - Killerah, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22@bieber
Dan Brown doesn't claim it's non fiction, but he does claim that it's rooted in fact. It says in the book:
FACT
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.
Which they aren't. I also find it funny that he claims to actually believe this, and refuses to answer anyone who shows his claims to be complete BS. - adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -18/+32So mr vatican, you want to play that way?
Lets boycott the Vatican! :-P
Anyway, this could be used to give a positive spin. The filmmakers could argue that the Vatican wants to censor the movie because it is revealing "secret truths" ;-) - p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Not sure why this is on Digg, but whatever.
This the Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction is clear (and a good literary work at that). But I believe that the Vatican rightly reasons that many will not view this just as a work of fiction. Hence their unusual protest.
From an organizational perspective, they are attempting to protect the FAITH of their members from being adversely affected by a work that fictionally constitutes a frontal assault on core Christian beliefs. Where someone stands on those core Christian beliefs is another matter altogether.
One would think that everyone is eminently capable of differentiating between fiction and reality. Many people are. But many are not. In the very least, fiction can subtly affect attitudes and perspectives.
Faith, like intellect, comes in varying degrees of potency. People of weak faith will be affected by this film. From that perspective, I understand the Vatican's concern.
Their choice of response, however, appears to be ill conceived and counter-productive. Boycotting a controversial film rarely works. I would have preferred a response that engages the central issues instead. - jdunlap, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18@ jdog1016
I think you are confusing *facts* with *laws*. There are lots of facts in science. The speed of light is tested to be 186,000 miles per second, gravity is a force that attracts, the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation we perceive as the color blue is about 475 nm, the green color we see in vegetation all around us is from the chemicals the plants use to turn the electromagnetic radiation from the sun into usable energy.... etc. etc. etc.
Also, there are lots of theories that are not well tested, but if they are in the realm of science, they are testable. Very much not the same as faith based religion. The theory of evolution is based on many *facts* and observations of the natural world around us. I suppose what you mean by it being un-testable is that there are parts of it that are very difficult to test and the timescales needed for some of the tests are very long. That does not mean that most of the theory isn’t un-testable or hasn’t been tested. This comment is already getting very long, but I suggest picking up any book by Richard Dawkins to find out more about how much evolution has been tested. Very different from religion which is based purely on handed down dogma with ones own personal bias or filters added in to make it jive with the individual. I do not agree with your statement that half of the world’s population agrees that the bible is a work of non-fiction. Christianity only encompasses 1/3 of the world’s population and I highly doubt the vast majority of that population interprets the bible to be the literal truth. - jdog1016, on 10/12/2007, -40/+52@Trigrhapy
It isn't entirely correct to categorize the Bible as "fiction" regardless of your own personal beliefs. The Bible is a religious and historical text, interpreted by about half the world's population to be true. The Da Vinci Code, on the other hand, is a NOVEL, a fictional story. Yes, it is true, that some of Brown's descriptions of artwork and the like are true, but many of them are not, and his interpretations are laughable.
Secondly, there are very few, if any, *facts* in science. The theory of evolution is not one--it is a theory, and as such is, in most of its claims, extremely well tested and supported, yet in its larger claims, which are godless, is entirely untestable, and is, in this respect, in the same category as faith. - 4771cu5, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24The Vatican also boycotts fornication. So, if someone is going to fornicate, he should have some sense and use a condom.
- GuyHitByTruck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15The problem with America these days is that almost everybody's faith needs to be reevaluated. The majority of America is the Sunday-morning-only crowd of the churches today. The problem with the book and movie is that it takes a very few number of facts and uses "artistic license" to interpolate everything else, thus drawing false conclusions that will ultimately confuse most of the world!
- bryantee, on 10/12/2007, -49/+60The Passion more factual? Well, let's see. The Passion is based on a book written in parts almost 2000 years ago. The same book that mandated the theory (well they didn't claim it to be a theory, they used a more persuasive method, dogmatic rhetoric) of geocentrism as being true. The Code, instead was written after research and consultancy backed by historians from around the world. Perhaps we should give modern views more credit than we have been getting over the last millennium, they often prove to be correct.
- GuyHitByTruck, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17"I'm sure though that most people who see it will realise that this is a work of fiction."
From my experience, the case is quite the opposite. Take the average non-believer: they're going to read more of The Da Vinci Code than the Bible, and then they're going to draw their conclusions about Christianity from The Da Vinci Code rather than the Bible. I say "going to," but the fact is they already are!
Having read the book, my opinion is that the book is *maybe* 5% factual. The rest is just a bunch of lies, wrapped around really bad writing! - Gryfft, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Right on. Most of the so-called 'Catholics' that have posted so far obviously have no idea what they're talking about. Sadly enough, very few Catholics today really understand their faith or the tenets of their faith. Among these tenets are that everything in the Bible is true as translated by the one authority really qualified to do so--the Church Jesus Christ himself established. Also, the Bible is not the one source of truth. Look at philosophy; many things philosophy has found through the power of the human mind is obviously true. Hence, there is a TRADITION that has been handed down in the Catholic Church regarding truths both in and outside the Bible.
The Da Vinci Code does admit to be fiction... in the matter of the specific plot, not the organizations and traditions which Mr. Brown has claimed to have 'investigated.' For instance, MOST of what he says about Opus Dei is false. There is no such thing as an Opus Dei monk, for example. Opus Dei is made up of 80% lay members and 20% priests. Opus Dei is decentralized, not one large secretive organization. I know because my girlfriend's entire family are members of Opus Dei. Trust me, it's not one hundreth as spooky as any articles, reports, or books have been portraying it. It's just a call to prayer through physical labor and works of charity. That's basically it. I've read the works of Josemaria Escriva... trust me. It's just one more set of Catholic prayers and meditations.
The Da Vinci code claims that everything it says about Opus Dei and the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ is true. It claims the Catholic Church lies, blatantly, and that it has condoned violence and sinful behavior in the pursuit of keeping these lies secret. Why are you flaming the Catholic Church for asking people not to see a movie that quite clealry and quite obviously has it out for the Catholic Church?I KNOW it's "just a work of fiction"... but the fact remains that people ARE getting mistaken ideas from it, that people don't understand these things in the first place, and that this is the absolute worst place someone could look to learn about the Catholic Church or Opus Dei.
and, @muleking... the Church does believe that the use of condoms is wrong, but it also advocates MONOGAMY. So what's the real problem in Africa... that nobody uses condoms or that the vast majority of the population is sexually promiscuous? I don't mean promiscuous just in the sense "they have sex outside of marriage zomgz im a catholic so thats bad omfgz." I mean promiscuous as in, virtually no one behaves in a manner that we would describe as 'monogamous.' THAT's why AIDS is spreading so fast over there. So, what's easier... getting everyone to stop having sex or just making billions more condoms? Condoms made of latex... think oil... think the population of Africa... yep, neither idea is feasible. So how about a sane alternative? A combination of both? The idea 'okay, just so long as you're going to have sex with multiple partners, use condoms. But, if you can overcome that and learn monogamy, if you're going to be a Catholic and follow the Church's teaching, leave sex with your wife as a procreative and unitive activity to be open to the transmission of life, in accord with the Church's teaching and right morality as determined by the great philosophers and theologians of the centuries, and according to right reason."
I know it seems I'm off-topic, but flaming the Bible is just as off-topic. All I'm saying is that there is such a thing as sanity and that there are people who believe in the Church's teachings who are, in fact, sane. Thanks for reading this rant, I hope you understand what I'm trying to say and why. - dedpool7, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15OMFG people this book is FICTION!! Yes there are factual information and research used in the novel and cleverly noted in the forward designed to spur just this sort of controversy!! I''m not even Christian and i know that! If you boycott reading a book, buying a book, or watching a film based on your religious beliefs then you really DO NOT understand the fundamentals of religion. Bottom line is if your belief in christianity is so fragile that a fictitious book will confuse you, then maybe you need to reevalute your faith.
- Drahkar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14I just love how I'm getting negative diggs because I dislike Organized Religion. I suppose I could have been a little more tactful in my expressing my distaste for Organized Religion, but I wanted to get my point across.
I think Religion and Spirituality is important to the understanding of the universe. However Organized Religion isn't about personal belief or even the betterment of one's soul. Its about Power, and its about control.Science is similar. Science as it is doesn't cover everything. Its too young and many of the people in it suffer from the same problem many people in Organized religions suffer. They believe they are completely right and everyone else is completely wrong.
Ego my friends. Its a real problem. - chrislewis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13faith is believing in something without proof
- Scourge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12It's spelled abstinence.
- Drahkar, on 10/12/2007, -15/+23I have one thing to say to the people who are making a huge deal about this film and the book.
'BAAAA! BAAAA! BAAA!'
Someone get my some shears. The sheep need tending!
While I personally have no gripe against a person's right to believe what they want to believe I do have a problem with a organization like the Vatican who has actively supported the ignorance of it's followers to anything that it doesn't like through the assertions that it is evil and must be removed. It is a large reason I have come to dislike the Organizations behind Organized Religion. I think a person has a right to their faith. But Organized religion has reached a critical mass that you see in the Economy and Society in general. It often works for the betterment of the people in power and are less about the people who serve or follow it. And that to me is a tragedy.
Anything that would promote ignorance over understanding is a tragedy. - GrFxGrL, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Okay, several points here.
1 -_Da Vinci Code_ is a work of fiction that has been influenced and inspired by some things that happened in history, and some things that are theories. Dan Brown has not said "Da Vinci Code is factual and true", what he has said is that he wants people to think, to examine what they believe and why they believe it. If anything, I think the book has inspired people to think more about spirituality in general. Some of the points and themes that he raises are very valid (ie., not assuming what you are being told is the absolute truth, to understand that there is more than one perspective to nearly everything in existence, that history (and theology) is told by the "winning" margin of a populace based upon what they want you to know and what their perception of the outcome is, etc.). Also, even though the christian faith has millions (quite possibly billions) of followers around the world, the majority of those followers do not take the bible literally. Yes there are fanatical sects of Christians, but there are also fanatical sects of almost every religion.
2 - it is a KNOWN FACT that the bible in it's current version has been altered from the original version. Even the Vatican admits this. The original reason the Vatican Library was established was to gather all non-accepted religious texts and other "unholy" and/or esoteric/occult works (and tools) to "shield" the populace from influence. The Christian Church in the 4th Century actually set about choosing the books and gospels that would be accepted as the "true" bible, and all others were to be destroyed. The fact that some of the ancient gospels have been found after nearly 2 thousand years after this purge is astonishing, and a testament to how much the people at that time loved those texts. Just like many large corporations and governments today have a PR department, the Christian Church had theirs, and it's name was the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and the Edict of Milan (313 AD).
3 - Much of the literal text of the Bible (new and old testaments) have been disproven, but some have been validated, and should be given credence. Just because a person doesn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah or is God, doesn't mean that his existence or his teachings should be denied or put down. Same goes for Mohammad, and Buddha, and pretty much every other holy person.
I'm not a christian.. in fact, I'm a pagan, but that doesn't mean that I don't give Jesus a high five for being a pretty cool guy (especially in light of the ideas he brought forth at the time). And if the Church has a problem with the idea that Jesus might have gotten married and had children (which is one of the things the church wants every christian to do) then they have more to worry about than people going to see a movie. If anything I think the idea of Jesus being a married family man would make it easier for the average person to relate to. I'd rather have a god more like me.. but, I digress..
Let me summarize:
Da Vinci Code - fiction inspired by fact and theory (Not 100% accurate)
Bible - fact and fiction to inspire the masses (Not 100% accurate)
History - changes by the aspect of the teller (Not 100% accurate)
Research imo, is still the best policy. Look at history (as well as religion) from every aspect, not just one, and don't accept what anyone says (or writes) as the ultimate truth.
/steps down from the soapbox
- Continuum, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I disagree with you there. Education has nothing to do with whether or not someone has faith. By your argument, Albert Einstein was uneducated? Ghandi was uneducated? That is just a few.
Both of these men believed in a higher power that they could not understand and both were very educated.
Just because you are educated and do not believe in a God does not mean that you can judge others for beliving in God themselves.
As a so called educated person (lets assume a scientist of sorts as you read Digg) it would be ignorant of you to rule out *any* possibility of God as all good scientists keep their minds open to any posibility.
As a final note this is all coming from a Computer Scientist/Chemist who is not religious. Also this is just my 2 cents - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19When was the last time I followed anything the Vatican said?
- plnegative1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12This is a work of fiction. The author who wrote the book does not believe the things that the book claims, he wrote it as a point that people need to know what exactly it is they believe. I'm a Christian and I will see this movie and I do not care what the vatican has to say about it.
- rblinne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Nag Hammadi showed that the gnostics morphed other religions (Christianity, Judaism, and paganism) and thus are derivative of multiple religions and not merely Christian heresy. The gnostic Gospels were written in the Second Century well after the accepted dates for the canonical Gospels. The only one of the gnostic Gospels that has a chance of being First Century is the Gospel of Thomas. Brown protrays the gnostics as proto-feminists, yet in Thomas Jesus tells Peter that his mother Mary will be saved by becoming male! The gnostic controversy was over and done with in the Second Century well before Constantine shows up on the scene. Rather, the controversy in Constantine's day was the Arian controversy. For an example what Arians believed check out modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses.
- jamesbenet, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14The Church believes people cant tell the difference from a Tom Hanks movie and reality. The fact that they treat us like idiots means that they will loose in the end. The church is an invention based on the teachings of a great man which we dont have actual proof of anything. Its all based on faith. If we cant watcha movie about something that teaches differently, it means they believe we have no faith.
This will only make the movie an astronomical success. - chrislewis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11I can see both sides of this. The film is defaming the church, but it does raise valid points. What I found exciting in the book is the fact that there is the element of possiblity - this can be real. I'm sure though that most people who see it will realise that this is a work of fiction.
@ bastion: I know the jews didnt react kindly to how they were portrayed in passion of the christ. - MouseCircus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Er, the Da Vinci Code is in no way factual. And I don't know how much research the author did, but he didn't even accurately describe locations in the book. The History Channel had a whole documentary about it and how even though it's based on a well known conspiracy theory, it isn't very accurate.
Either way though, it's still a work of FICTION and should be taken as such. I don't see what the Catholics see wrong with this.
And just in case anyone is wondering, no, I haven't read the book. Too over hyped for my tastes. - gclements, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Free advertising. Thank you Vatican.
- macp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I think a lot of people do not understand how anti-Christian the views in book and movie are. The fact that they're fictional doesn't matter, because many don't know any better and are not educated. It is sad to say, Christian or not. Many people do not know what the Bible says, and they'll probably never read it, but they might read this "hot" book and get misled.
Even in the trailer, you can see hear the narrator say stuff like:
"We're in the middle of a war, to protect a secret so powerful, that if revealed, it would devastate the foundations of mankind... witness the biggest coverup in human history."
To summarize, the view of the book is that Christianity is a built on one giant lie, and the Church is trying to cover up this truth and its a big conspiracy to keep them in power.
I think its reasonable for a Christian and the church to see that as a bit offensive at the least. I mean, even if its fiction, its still being propagated into mainstream media. However, I definately agree with one digger, that if Christians were more educated on the Bible they wouldn't be as shaken when random works of fiction come along. But it also goes for non-Christians, just because it was written in some novel, doesn't make it true.
"Seek the truth." as the trailer says... Truth is that the Da Vinci Code is fiction but some people will just believe it to be true because do not want to believe the Bible is true. - inboxnews, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Christians believe that the bible is the living word of God, not just "historical text".
- grendelwraith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The absence of evidence,
is not the evidence of absence.
-Gin Rummy, Boondocks. - fooplex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I'm not Catholic, but I'll be boycotting this movie anyway. Not because of its offensive anti-religious content, but because of the offensive actions of the MPAA in Congress and in our court system. In fact I am boycotting all movies until the MPAA stands down.
- clouseau, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Hopefully one side effect of the movie will be for people to at least think about historical Christian theology and its implications. Note I'm not talking about people who have used the church for their own purposes, I'm talking about the theology itself. Good modern-day books on the subject would be How Now Shall We Live by Colson or The Case for Christ by Strobel.
Also interesting to contemplate how this movie would be received if it were Islam, and not Christianity, that is being lampooned. - obezyana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't remember the Jews reacting badly... at least not *after* the movie came out, before they were a little upset because they thought they would be shown as "the people who killed Jesus" or something like that. The film was pretty accurate to the Bible (which is to say it doesn't make the Jews look like a bunch of psychopaths).
@GuyHitByTruck: I can guarantee that some Christians will read more of "The DaVinci Code" than of the Bible.
Even some of those who didn't read "The DaVinci Code" have read more of that than of the Bible... after all, if they've read the titles of both, the Bible is already losing by two words.
I'm a Christian myself and the amount of people who supposedly believe the same thing as me, but clearly have never read what we *should* consider the most important book of our religion, astounds me. - duality, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I'm a Christian (not a Catholic), and I agree with both dedpool7 and GuyHitByTruck. People's beliefs these days are quite fragile, and a true Christian doesn't need someone else to censor what he/she sees and hears. A true Christian is intelligent enough to know what he/she believes without such outside intervention.
My faith is not blind. As a scientist, I believe in God and Jesus because they make sense to me on an intellectual level. I also take offense to grendelwraith's comment, because he clearly thinks that any type of religion just boils down to a mass of dogma.
I remember a sermon my church's minister gave several years ago. The question he started out with was "Do you control your religion, or does your religion control you?" The congregation started out mostly by saying their religion controlled them, and he went on to discuss why the exact opposite is what should be true. I control my religion, just like Diggers control this website. True religion exists to teach and to advise. Only false religion exists to control.
I will not be watching this movie. I could watch it and not have my faith harmed by it, but that's not the reason I'm ignoring it. Rather, it's supposed to be for entertainment purposes, and I cannot imagine myself being entertained by this.
Oh, and Catholics may think they're Christians, but real Christians know better. The Papacy and the rest of what's in the Vatican are an invention of man that has no basis in scripture whatsoever. In fact, I pity the Vatican for believing their own rhetoric. - navster15, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Maybe I'm being a little naive, but I believe that most people will go see the movie because it is based on a well-written mystery-thriller. For those that cannot detach their faith and enjoy what will undoubtedly be a good movie, just understand that this book is a work of fiction and nothing more.
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14"Take the average non-believer: they're going to read more of The Da Vinci Code than the Bible, ..."
Just my opinion but the average "non-believer" tends to have studied the Bible more carefully than the average believer. Most "non-believers" I know personally can tell you why they refuse to believe. The average believer ... well, they mostly seem to believe because their parents told them to. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@bryantee - Where did you get that the Bible preaches geocentrism? The closest it comes to that is a verse in Psalms (which are pure poetry) talking about God laying the unmovable foundations of the Earth, which is simply a poetic way of describing God as creator and is not intended to be an expression of astronomical fact. Some of the authors in the Bible may very well have believed that the Earth was the center of the universe; it was, after all, a very commonly held belief in that time period, but it's not part of Biblical teaching. The Catholic Church's resistance to Galileo came out of their own traditions, which they believe to be authoritative much like Scripture.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5As a catholic, i can say:
Christians and atheists who don't believe a thing as regards what Dan Brown wants to communicate can go and watch the film.
As long as u regard it as a work of fiction it is ok.
Actually i read The DaVinci Code and like the style of writing of Dan Brown and read other books.
But i know it is as much fiction as Star Wars - Haplo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"interpretations are laughable. "
That also holds for the bible, except when you say such a thing, people who believe just deny it instead of listening. The bible is full of mistakes, and is based for a part on old persian folk tales. If you take a serious look at the bible you either stop believing, or become blinded by a believe that in no way matches that so called holy bible, especially since a lot in that book isn't that holy at all. How could it be, it was written by humans. - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It's not, it's movie related. You may be surprised to find Digg has a music category too.
- rblinne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The problem is the "fact" section is just as much fiction as the rest of the book. Brown claims that the documents and rituals are accurate. For example, he gives real quotes from Da Vinci where the "historian" in which the story claims is about the Bible. Da Vinci's section heading, however, was "On Alchemists". Much of the rest of the "history" is just as bad, such as how and most especially when the books of the New Testament were accepted as canon. I read and enjoy historical fiction but the research Brown did was so poor it really spoiled the suspension of disbelief for me. The recent lawsuit showed this. According to the judge, one reason Brown prevailed was that Holy Blood, Holy Grail was just as much fiction as the Da Vinci Code.
I'll give a counter-example from the same genre, the campy movie National Treasure. Because the historical figures really were Masons the admitedly fantastical story worked. If you are going to use real people in your fiction they need to be close to what they really were in history.
As for what the Vatican is doing, this is just plain stupid. While the example given here is the Passion of the Christ a longer view and older examples are more on point. The best examples were The Last Temptation of Christ and Oh God! which came out roughly the same time. In both cases, the movies did better than if they were simply ignored.
DJMac317 says that he usually knows if something is true is it says "Based on a true story". Well then what about the movie Fargo? I treat Brown's statement on the same level as the statement by the Coen brothers. And herein lies the rub with the book. Most people have precisely the same reaction to a "fact" prologue of even a work of fiction. I can understand why members of Opus Dei and the Catholic Church (I am neither) believe they are being slandered. I simply disagree what the most effective response to the book and movie ought to be. - cyclotron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5No the pope isn't angry at all, ignoramus. The pope didnt even say boycott the film. The Vatican never officially said boycott the film. One person assigned to the Vatican did and this Digg title is completely inaccurate.
- zoziw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is a perfect example of why religion and politics shouldn't be discussed in polite company. :)
- dentz1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16a work of fiction about a work of fiction......
- deldigger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Well as a Catholic I found the book to be a second rate murder mystery.
I did at least read the book and I do find the idea that I suffer from "extreme cultural poverty" insulting esp since what has become of the Mass. What was once an important part of my faith as been turned into a joke with hand holding and winking
at your pals while returning from recieving communion.
ger -
Show 51 - 100 of 246 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is