1 Tell this Italian Cockbag (hey Filthy, nice word) to bring it on. WeÂ’ll send his ass to hell along with Tom Hanks.

2 Why is Tom going to hell?

3 Counter sue the commie and make him prove Jesus didn't exist.

4 He stars in the DaVinchi Code movie. ItÂ’s going to lead a lot of people in the wrong direction. I donÂ’t know where Tom will end up, but I would have walked away from this one. I think itÂ’s true that some people will sell their soul for fame. IÂ’ve enjoyed most of the movies by Ron Howard and Hanks. Apollo 13 is one of my all time favorites. I was disappointed to hear both were behind this load of crap.

5 Brad, did you ever read the DaVinci Code? I'm a Christian myself and enjoyed the book very much. I can't wait for the movie... On the topic at hand, however, this is kind of like life imitating art. I see a big courtroom drama a la "Miracle on 34th Street" happening. Heh. I guess "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't play well in Europeville.

6 Vonski, No I have not read the book. I have read and listened to a few knowledgeable Priests and Catholic apologists critique it. I do not believe Jesus had a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene. I donÂ’t think people who write books or make movies that portray this are going to fair well in the end.

7 Vonski I see a big courtroom drama a la "Miracle on 34th Street" happening. Heh. I guess "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't play well in Europeville. OK, all you boys and girls, let's get out the pen and paper and start writing letters to Jesus, ICO: the Vatican . Then make them prove the Italian Post Office isn't an official agency of Italy .

8 Ironic (to me at least) that not only Christians, obviously, believe Jesus existed but so do many Jews and Muslims, generally speaking. I also am a Christian but speaking strictly from a historical point of view, I thought it was pretty much common knowledge even among historians who are atheists, that Jesus did exist. They may disagree on His importance in the grand scheme of things but I'm not aware of many who deny the He existed. I doubt this guy is going after the clerics at the mosque. *** Spoiler Alert on the Da Vinci Code *** Vonski, I read the Da Vinci code and many are offended because Dan Brown is passing this off as being a fairly accurate historical account of the children of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and the secret organization that 'protects the bloodline'. It is obvious to most that Brown had his plot already decided and then took a bunch of unsubstantiated material on Da Vinci and drew lines to connect the pieces of the story he wanted to tell. Everywhere the story needs to make a serious leap of faith, it is explained away as 'well Da Vinci didn't have the freedom to say what he knew to be factual from being leader of this secret organization so he left us clues in his paintings.' Then he expects the reader to make other leaps of faith on presumed hidden meanings behind Da Vinci's 'The Last Supper' by referring to a specific part of the painting and saying 'this means ...'. On one TV show, he made reference to the letter 'V' that Jesus and the person to his right form in the painting and then expects you to believe his conclusion based on a made-up premise. Sorry, I can't remember the conclusion based on the 'V' or I would so so. I can't say I was offended by the book ascerting that Jesus had children but I was a bit offended as him passing it off as being historically accurate after making a series of leaps-of-faith that sound good when written in a fictional story. I am a Christian who understands the Bible was written by many different people over many years and has gone through many translations that could allow some detail to be lost but it seems to be a reach when no account (Matthew, Mark, Luke, ...) of Jesus' teachings and his adult life have mentioned a wife. Mary Magdalene is generally seen by scholars as another one of his closest disciples but probably not mentioned as such due to 'a woman's place' being subserviant. I have heard many priests who say they don't believe the story is true but that it's certainly not impossible. Sure, a lot of people are going to see it as 'the work of Satan' but most of us just have a problem with Brown because he's passing his story off as being based on truth when all of his 'proof' requires you to believe in the dots he has conveniently connected for us. Yes, it is a work of fiction but Brown has been on many television shows explaining why the book is based on events that are historically accurate. If he were to admit that he made it all up, there wouldn't be as much controversy and, therefore, fewer sales. It has definitely made him a very rich man.

9 I would like to believe the "V" stood for Vonski, but I doubt it. Surely anyone with a firm foundation in Christianity would recognize the work as a fiction. And, there is no denying that people do believe that Christ and Mary Magdalene bore children, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence to support this claim. I agree that Brown stretches things to the point of breaking, but I was able to take it with a grain of salt and see it as entertainment versus letting it challenge my faith. In regards to my initial response to Brad, I would hope that we would not wish to condemn someone to hell for reciting lines in front of a movie camera. That was a bit excessive. Rather, even in spite of the glaring discrepancies, I hope that some good comes of the picture. There might be some that come away convinced that they should research this Jesus fellow a bit more. I suggest starting with the Bible, New Testament, book of Matthew

10 Of course none of this would matter if Christitanity were really based on the teaching of Christ the teacher rather than a cult based on the alleged divinity of Christ as the Son-O-God. Neither Christ nor Buddha, (both appelations, not names, by the way), wanted to have a cult of personality founded on them, but rather wanted only to spread enlightenment throughtout the world. Both failed and succeeded to varying extents, but no matter what, islam takes the prize as the greatest ideological blight to ever befall humanity.

11 Another thing; modern Christianity is derived directly from the Council of Nicea, which was basically nothing more than an instument that allowed the emperor Constantine to unify all Christianity in one official church, under his control, of course, and thus consolidate power through his direct appointment and control of the various bishops. Any sects or teachings which did not contribute directly to such consolidation and control were deemed heretical, and the followers were marginalized and persecuted throughout the empire. In effect, the same people who murdered Jesus took control of the various religions established in his name, and put it to work for their own purposes. As I've said before, Christinity inc. has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, but everything to do with power, control, and money. To find the true Jesus, one must first abandon Christianity.

12 Ok Vonski, I can't condemn anyone to hell and really would not want to anyway. I was a little carried away. Shit Maximus, every time I think IÂ’m not being a good enough Christian I read one of your rants and damn if I donÂ’t think IÂ’m actually going to make it. You make me feel so holy. Vonski, I guess we disagree about the seriousness of Hanks making this movie. I would not do it for all the money in the world. Even if you say youÂ’re sorry; there it is for the entire world to see 20 years later. To me, itÂ’s a lot. Finally, IÂ’m going back through the posts and trying to find the thing that set poor young George off and made him snap. Can someone direct me to the thread? It has to be pretty good.

13 Does anyone else get the impression that IM was abused by a priest as an altar boy? Please do not confuse the 'pastors' on TBN and abortion clinic bombers as being ambassadors of the true Christian religion. Constantine's attempt to catholicize all of the sects failed if you haven't noticed (we call this failure "denominations" hehe). And, Jesus did not deny His godhood (and therefore the "good news" that He died for our sins, so no further sacrifice was necessary) in any respect so I don't know where you got that idea. But, that isn't really what this blog post is about. If we are merely talking about whether or not someone should have to go to court to prove that Jesus existed, there is ample historical evidence of this. I don't think the comments section is the appropriate place for a lengthy discussion as to veracity of the claims that Jesus is God and who is true followers are and what exactly they believe.

14 Frankly, I don't know of any passage in the bible that says thou shalt not say Jesus had a girlfriend. And if I were a Christian I would be more concerned about whether Hanks was "saved" than what role he might play in a ficticious story. Afterall, if he was a Christian wouldn't he already be forgiven for playing the role? What's most interesting about it is that I haven't heard any Christians threaten to kill anyone over it or blow up a bus.

15 IM, Agreeing with your basic premise of church + absolute power = corruption, I definitely have to disagree with your assertion that Christ's message was separate from himself. There is no way you can read the book of John and not walk away with the doctrine that Jesus is God. Even acknowledging him as the "Christ" is attributing character beyond that of any human. Christianity (not the religion, mind you) is still first and foremost about the salvation accomplished by Christ (literally, the Saviour). The cults can usually be easily identified on this one point alone.

16 True, Oyster, but I am going to give Tom Hanks a noogie next time I see him. I'll bet he will stop with the anti-Christian movies after he hears about this threat. Haha!

17 Vonski, it sounds like we are in agreement. Like I said (or at least meant), the religious statement wasn't my issue with the book because I did recognize it as a work of fiction. My only issue is the continual sermonizing by the author on every liberal media outlet to try and make people believe this a story based on fact. IM, I may not agree with the philosphical part of your argument but you're at least a man of strong conviction and it sounds like you know your history.

18 First to Brad: If you're feeling holy, then you're standing at the gates of hell, metaphorically speaking. There's no righteousness like self-righteousness. Next, to Vonski: No, I wasn't an altar boy, nor was I even Catholic, for which I am grateful, considering the odds, but it is telling that you resort immediately to personal slurs rather than attempt to engage in enlightened discourse. Unfortunately, this is not atypical behavior of most Christians with whom I debate. If you're afraid I'm too smart for you to take head on, then don't try a sneak attack, because I'm too smart for that too, and you'll get busted, like you just did. My kung fu is stronger than your kung fu. What happened to me was that I learned to think for myself, which put me forever in opposition to any and all dogma and doctrines that pretend to the truth, whether in the form of an ancient text or some televangelic fraud selling redemption and family vacations at Jesusland USA in one package for only twelve easy payments. Don't take this personally, but if you believe that any person can find the truth for you better than you can find it for yourself, then I've got a bridge I'm looking to sell... As for Jesus not denying his godhood, (we call it divinity, hehe), the Council of Nicea, along with deciding whether Christ was human, divine, or both, was also tasked to assemble the various gospels and other texts into the Bible, and Eusebius was a fairly thorough editor, changing, deleting, and adding as he saw fit, and even saying that falsehoods, if they served the cause, were perfectly acceptable. Even Pope Leo X said "it has served us well, this myth of Christ". The Bible exists in the form it does because Eusebius wanted it that way, and all other conflicting gospels he ordered burned, as was also threatened to the newly-denounced heretics, but many survived, though most are even more preposterous than the ones that were kept. And now, to Henry: Read the previous paragraph then continue. The word Christ doesn't mean savior, it means anointed, and may be etymologically related to the word for golden, chrysos.This is an academic argument and I have to take the dog for a walk, so it'll have to wait for another time, but I will be glad to continue at a later time. As to the word Christ, I use it not because I wish to acknowledge his divinity, but because if I called him Ye-sh-ua bin Yu-suf, (damned filter),nobody would know who I was talking about. The salvation that Jesus offered did not then, nor does it now, require membership, twelve easy payments, nor the abandonment of reality, but it does require letting go of all sin, along with the willingness to forgive yourself and others for being human, though not to the point of absurdity. And absurdity is something in which Christianity inc. is well practiced. Finally, to slug: Thanks, and you bet I know what I'm talking about, otherwise I'd keep my trap closed.

19 Pope Leo X never said that except in a satire by a British anti-Papist named John Bale. The work was titled, Pageant of the Popes. Show me where he said it in an encyclical and I will entertain the notion. Until then, the quote is non-existant as a historical matter.

20 Well Rob, it looks like you were right. I had never researched that quote on the internet, and now I know better. Thanks. See? I'm honest in my dealings, because the truth is all that matters to me, and I will readily lay aside anything other. Can the same be said for my antagonists?

21 That's the thing about IM. He's an atheist, but he's an honest atheist and he doesn't have an axe to grind. I can live with atheists like that. Our country is big enough for the both of us. Unlike the anti-christian Leftards who should all be packed into shipping crates and handed over to IM to dispose of as he sees fit.

22 JC, Maxie ain't got that much free time on his hands, even if he is semi-retired. Haha!

23 Oh I've got time on my hands if I want it, I just don't want to waste my time tilting at windmills. Besides, my differences with Christianity are generally philosophical and ethical in nature, i.e., purely academic, and what I want is not to see Christianity destroyed, but reformed once again and taken out of the gigantic, palatial temples of wealth where it's broadcast live on national television and sold in vacation packages for just twelve easy payments, and put back into the hearts of people. I'd rather the the Christianity the Jesus taught, not that which was given by the Pope's armies at the threat of fire and sword. Christians have always contributed to the greatness of America, and it wouldn't be half a nice a place to live if not for Christianity. Anyone who thinks different should live in a muslim or communist country for a while, or one of the post-Christian secular European hellholes where morality is about as fashionable as steam driven locomotives and sailing ships. This, however, does not excuse the excesses committed and excused by many in the name of Christianity, and everyone knows what I'm talking about, so I won't go on about pedophile priests or televangelical frauds. Anyway, I'm not against Christians or Christianity, but I am against hypocrisy, and well never, ever, let hypocrites get by without notice.

24 Which goes to show that there is a vast difference between being athiest and being anti-religion or anti-Christian.

25 >>>Which goes to show that there is a vast difference between being athiest and being anti-religion or anti-Christian. True dat.

26 That italian atheiist jackass needs to get a bolt of lightning in his rear just like the atheist jackass MICHEAL NEWDOW who is trying to force the who nation to abide by his wishes they both nned a bolt of lightning in their rear ends