The Da Vinci Code is "fiction" people!

[FallenAngel411]

Well gee, bipper. I see the wrongs of my ways, and apologize thoroughly for not being a perfect little Christian. And I see exactly where I am liable for stating an opinion on a public forum. I also see that Dan Brown has done a terrible thing by writing an entertaining and intelligent book that is causing some well-deserved ripples on the religious front, as well as making him sinfully rich. Dan Brown and I, we should owe God MONEY for having thoughts of our own, eh?

People who lose thier faith so easily after reading a book that contradicts the Bible...were never true Christians in the first place.

Couldn't have said it better. You have your beliefs, I'll have mine, and Dan Brown can have his. There is nothing wrong with sharing those beliefs. Or making a profit from them. Cool it with the hostility.

[fantasyjunkie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4937754.stm

Why is it when people read a book clearly labeled "Fiction" they immediately assume that it must be based in fact? I understand it's fun to think about the things that the book suggests, but people keep acting like Dan Brown's uncovered the Catholic Church's dark secrets or something. I can't count the number of times I've chatted with people and when something related to religion comes up they try to quote or use something from <i>The Da Vinci Code</i> like it's fact.

I agree 100%

[bipper]

Well gee, bipper. I see the wrongs of my ways, and apologize thoroughly for not being a perfect little Christian.

Did I ever scold you as such? eesh.

And I see exactly where I am liable for stating an opinion on a public forum. I also see that Dan Brown has done a terrible thing by writing an entertaining and intelligent book that is causing some well-deserved ripples on the religious front, as well as making him sinfully rich. Dan Brown and I, we should owe God MONEY for having thoughts of our own, eh?

You completley took my posts out of context, as I am going to assume you are blowing up at me. I never said that Dan Brown cannot write such filth, and make money??? I am completely lost as to where you are comming from. I DO scold the marketing companies for trying to pass the book off as fact, with the underlining principle that the book is actually fiction. Normally, I would not care - but this book seems to land in a grey area for the uninformed, and adding such campain slogans as "Mystery Solved"; and "History revield" splattered on several posters through out my work city, (Minneanapolis)

Couldn't have said it better. You have your beliefs, I'll have mine, and Dan Brown can have his. There is nothing wrong with sharing those beliefs. Or making a profit from them. Cool it with the hostility.

What hostility? You came out with a nice insult and then whipped at me with a beutiful tone of sarcasm for rolling my eyes at your escapade. I think the action you described is insulting, and highly juvinile. Hypocracy is a dirty game to play, and I feel that your imagry is what fuels this very hostility between theists and atheists, as well as secular religons. Such things as this book add to the insults, when people start quoting these books which are intentionally advertised to look at fact, though the small disclaimer says some of it is fictional. Quite sad.

Bipper

[profskett]

I agree with Bipper on this one. I know that Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code was never meant as anything more than fiction, but the way in which it claims certain very subjective statements as 'fact' at the beginning of the book (it's in the foreword in all the British editions of the book) is deliberately misleading I feel. But more than that I have something against DVC: it's utter rubbish.

[Lychon]

Well, I actually agree with FallenAngel411 on this, for reasons which will appear below.

Did I ever scold you as such? eesh.

Yes you did scold her as such, my good Bipper. Let's take a look back and examine one of your previous posts:

Well Fallenangel, It so happens to be the common beleif that one should be liable for thier actions. We would be opening a can of worms here, but I do not believe that freedom of speech without liability is a good thing. Insulting someone, or thier religon, is both unjust and wrong. That was the ilistration brought to my mind.

Through your above statement, you are stating as fact that 'insulting someone, or their religion, is both unjust and wrong.' Since your posts on this thread and previous threads show a consistency of compliance with 'good Christian values,' it is clear that your beliefs and morals are warping subjective notions into cold hard fact. Perhaps you are doing this intentionally, perhaps you are doing it subconciously. Regardless of the reason, it is most certainly not 'unjust' or 'wrong' to insult someone or their religion, especially when the religion in question is one with a history of torturous and murderous persecution that continues to violate the principles of a democratic society. You can believe that it is wrong to insult someone or their religion, but it is unwise to state such a belief as fact.

Therefore, we can conclude that through implication, you were in fact scolding FallenAngle411 for not expressing the same or similar views as you in regards to Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code.

You completley took my posts out of context, as I am going to assume you are blowing up at me. I never said that Dan Brown cannot write such filth, and make money??? I am completely lost as to where you are comming from. I DO scold the marketing companies for trying to pass the book off as fact, with the underlining principle that the book is actually fiction. Normally, I would not care - but this book seems to land in a grey area for the uninformed, and adding such campain slogans as "Mystery Solved"; and "History revield" splattered on several posters through out my work city, (Minneanapolis)

First off, she didn't take anything out of context. She was stating her belief that in today's day and age, freedom of expression about religion and other things is often stifled by threats, intimidation, or violence, even in the United States of America. You responded to that by saying that it was 'wrong and unjust' to insult people or their religion, which confirmed what she was saying about expression being stifled.

2nd, as a person who is extremely well informed in regards to the plot of Dan Brown's book, I can tell you that there is tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of more historical FACT to support books such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Templar Revelation or The Da Vinci Code than there is to support the Bible. The marketing for the film is to create a buzz for its release and reflects the numerous elements in the NOVEL that are established historical facts or that are based on historical facts.

And lastly, the Bible itself is more accurately described as a book of faith or a book of God rather than a history book. Yet, some people who believe it still choose to live their lives by it despite the absence of factual confirmation. So why are you so up in arms about the Da Vinci Code not being 'fact?' I'll tell you why: because it contradicts traditional beliefs, and whenever that happens, you get fanatics and zealots who will give their lives in order to protect their original beliefs, even if that means destroying the principles of freedom of speech, liberty, and life in order to accomplish their goals. Not only has the Da Vinci Code created a huge interest into Christianity by the general public, but it has opened the door to new ideas and some old ideas that were forgotten. If some people want to believe, then that is their choice. You don't have to believe anything about it, and by criticizing the Da Vinci Code, you are only delving into hypocricy by stating above that it is 'wrong and unjust' to insult other people's religions.

The Da Vinci Code is what some people believe, just like some Scientologists believe the science fiction writings of L. Ron Hubbard. There is nothing wrong with this: it is only freedom being excercised.

What hostility? You came out with a nice insult and then whipped at me with a beutiful tone of sarcasm for rolling my eyes at your escapade. I think the action you described is insulting, and highly juvinile. Hypocracy is a dirty game to play, and I feel that your imagry is what fuels this very hostility between theists and atheists, as well as secular religons. Such things as this book add to the insults, when people start quoting these books which are intentionally advertised to look at fact, though the small disclaimer says some of it is fictional. Quite sad.

Bipper

Are you forgetting your previous posts again? Here is what you posted on post # 29 (perhaps this will answer your question about "What hostility?" that you asked in the above quote):

Now the subject at hand is when people begin struting fictional ideas as fact; that is just blantant stupidity. Insulting or no, the person needs a right smack.

Well, if that's not hostility, then I don't know what is! I cannot believe that you have the audacity to say that FallenAngel411's post is what causes the antagonism between 'theists and atheists.' First off, we are discussing the Da Vinci Code, not theism or atheism. Secondly, if my history serves me right, I don't remember atheists ever murdering, torturing, enslaving, or forcing conversion on anyone. I don't remember atheists getting in a group of about 40 and having a nice little suicide party because they believed that they were about to enter "Heaven's Gate." I don't remember atheists jumping up and down every time a specific book, movie, or music CD came out which they did not approve of.

I live in the United States of America, and here people can believe whatever they want, whenever they want. Just because you are offended by someone else's beliefs or by someone else's ideas does not mean that those beliefs and ideas are going to go away or change. No one is forcing you to watch the Da Vinci Code, and if you do not want to see or hear anything about it, then go be a hermit. You live in a society with people who have strikingly different beliefs than the one's you have. If you do not wish to interact with these people or if you do not wish to be offended, then get up and get out. No one is forcing you to live in this society or in any city. The Da Vinci Code will do magnificently at theaters, and it will not only spark a debate, but a revolution.


-LYCHON

P.S. Mary Magdalene rocks dawgs!

[Stayin Dizzy]

I used to be a devout christian, and am still a believer in God but have always tried to stress that the bible was written by man. Theres a certain amount of falsehood in any story (Jonah living in a whale...cmon lets be real) just as Brown has a certain amount of fact around his tale. I honestly will say that the last supper portrays Mary Magdiline as the person next to Jesus. Does that make everything Dan Brown says correct? No. I also believe that Jesus is my lord and savior and died for my sins. Does that make everything else in the bible correct? No. The truth is always clouded by a certain amount of uncertainty, just as the game we played as children where one person says something to a line of 20 ppl, and by the end it's quite different. We can only take what is conceivable to us, and believe what we will.

[Shadowflare]

But more than that I have something against DVC: it's utter rubbish.

I despised it from beginning to end. Vastly overrated in my estimation.

know that Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code was never meant as anything more than fiction, but the way in which it claims certain very subjective statements as 'fact' at the beginning of the book (it's in the foreword in all the British editions of the book) is deliberately misleading I feel.

With that I don't think though he's trying to push the content of the book on people as fact though, but more trying to get the readers hooked on the first few pages to keep them reading, and anyone who takes the forward of a suspense novel as a credible source isn't too bright in the first place.

[Lychon]

I used to be a devout christian, and am still a believer in God but have always tried to stress that the bible was written by man. Theres a certain amount of falsehood in any story (Jonah living in a whale...cmon lets be real) just as Brown has a certain amount of fact around his tale. I honestly will say that the last supper portrays Mary Magdiline as the person next to Jesus. Does that make everything Dan Brown says correct? No. I also believe that Jesus is my lord and savior and died for my sins. Does that make everything else in the bible correct? No. The truth is always clouded by a certain amount of uncertainty, just as the game we played as children where one person says something to a line of 20 ppl, and by the end it's quite different. We can only take what is conceivable to us, and believe what we will.

Dude, even though I am not a Christian, I agree with you 100%. That's what this is all about: having the freedom to believe exactly what you want/need to believe. Well said.

P.S. Mary Magdalene rocks! In da hiz-house!!

-LYCHON

[dirkdirden]

They have no other resourse to quote from.

Let them quote what they want, because in the end it will come out to the same result "your opinion (a.k.a) Faith).

People are retarded there is nothing we can do about it. They will always use false facts to try and prove un-provable events, like God, Life on other galixys, alternet relms, all religons, Black Holes, Time travel, and so many more questions that will never have an answer.

[bipper]

Er, no Lycon - I did not scold Fallenangel411.

Did I ever scold you as such? eesh.

Yes you did scold her as such, my good Bipper. Let's take a look back and examine one of your previous posts:

Well Fallenangel, It so happens to be the common beleif that one should be liable for thier actions. We would be opening a can of worms here, but I do not believe that freedom of speech without liability is a good thing. Insulting someone, or thier religon, is both unjust and wrong. That was the ilistration brought to my mind.

Through your above statement, you are stating as fact that 'insulting someone, or their religion, is both unjust and wrong.' Since your posts on this thread and previous threads show a consistency of compliance with 'good Christian values,' it is clear that your beliefs and morals are warping subjective notions into cold hard fact. Perhaps you are doing this intentionally, perhaps you are doing it subconciously. Regardless of the reason, it is most certainly not 'unjust' or 'wrong' to insult someone or their religion, especially when the religion in question is one with a history of torturous and murderous persecution that continues to violate the principles of a democratic society. You can believe that it is wrong to insult someone or their religion, but it is unwise to state such a belief as fact.

What a great hypocrasy, thanks for your thoughts, but rest assured, your projected image of me is extremley off. I am more of a liability junkie. I see people as being free, thus liable for actions. My idea of right and wrong may differ from yours, but I tend to be logistical in looking at these areas. If you antagonise someone, you are in the wrong, and liable for a reaction within discression. Simple. THIS is the logistical charge to democracy. Freedom with liability. It is glorious.

Now your wordy and slanderously-left-hand-based portrail is completely off, and I am sure is based off our frictionous past. That is my charge to you. I understand that our views on liability factoring with freedom is different, but it is illogical and unproductive to have freedom with no liability - therefore I fail to see where your comming from. Wait - I can see a bit of contextual rapage, but I assure you, when I say these things, it is against those whom directly antagonise, not express belief. They are as different as a structured debate is to a second grader play ground argument.

Therefore, we can conclude that through implication, you were in fact scolding FallenAngle411 for not expressing the same or similar views as you in regards to Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code.

Yes, I would reccomend a good read through of otheer post between us, as I do not feel I should recap for you. Simply stated, FA said I can't wait to go in the street (obviously Public Domain) and yell at the the top of my lungs "[Some insult to christian integrity.]" Now that is wrong. Even if your bias, you must realise this is a clear insult. I could not run into the street and scream out some racial slur and expect protection from my liabilities.

The argument has NOTHING to do with DVA, but the methodologies of creating such unherolded friction between the theist and anti[religion] touters. Then again, you could read other posts and grasp the conversation, instead of jumping in with a few out of context quotes.

First off, she didn't take anything out of context. She was stating her belief that in today's day and age, freedom of expression about religion and other things is often stifled by threats, intimidation, or violence, even in the United States of America. You responded to that by saying that it was 'wrong and unjust' to insult people or their religion, which confirmed what she was saying about expression being stifled.

Wow, theres a shocker :rolleyes2 Let me throw this into the context for you [Reading comprehension ftw] I never scolded her for not being a good little christian. Way to arm yourself with a sloppy dead herring agian.

2nd, as a person who is extremely well informed in regards to the plot of Dan Brown's book, I can tell you that there is tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of more historical FACT to support books such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Templar Revelation or The Da Vinci Code than there is to support the Bible. The marketing for the film is to create a buzz for its release and reflects the numerous elements in the NOVEL that are established historical facts or that are based on historical facts.

The book was a good peice of fiction, and its facts are facts, and its fiction is fiction. The holy blood therom is intriguing, but my HATE for this DVA is dirived from the author and publishor(s) trying to blur the lines and pass the book off as fact. To me it is a hate comparable to Michael Moore's work.

And lastly, the Bible itself is more accurately described as a book of faith or a book of God rather than a history book. Yet, some people who believe it still choose to live their lives by it despite the absence of factual confirmation.

Because you say so... yeah. There has been millions of debates, and there is a plethora of evidence out there. I already have you pinned as extremley biased, and do not ever expect you to look into it yourself. I can push the religion all I want, but that does not do much (as per my own teachings). You will be your own best teacher. Read and Research truths from the bible. the key word Apologetics will crop up some good pointers from the nets. Good luck!

So why are you so up in arms about the Da Vinci Code not being 'fact?' I'll tell you why: because it contradicts traditional beliefs, and whenever that happens, you get fanatics and zealots who will give their lives in order to protect their original beliefs, even if that means destroying the principles of freedom of speech, liberty, and life in order to accomplish their goals.

Dramatic:rolleyes2 My goal is not to oppress any of these freedoms, but to tie in liability for peoples actions. Sure, I will admit the fanatics exist, but your insultful typecasting does not make me one, nor do my justifiable views. Freedom is dick with out liability.

Not only has the Da Vinci Code created a huge interest into Christianity by the general public, but it has opened the door to new ideas and some old ideas that were forgotten. If some people want to believe, then that is their choice. You don't have to believe anything about it, and by criticizing the Da Vinci Code, you are only delving into hypocricy by stating above that it is 'wrong and unjust' to insult other people's religions.

Quite directing your <img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif">head statements at me. They are unbased and wrong. I have stated a million times why I HATE the DVC, and you are trying to shove your obscured and retarded preception of my views as bing what I truley belief.

The Da Vinci Code is what some people believe, just like some Scientologists believe the science fiction writings of L. Ron Hubbard. There is nothing wrong with this: it is only freedom being excercised.

On that premise it is fine, which is what the thread is about.

[quote]
Are you forgetting your previous posts again? Here is what you posted on post # 29 (perhaps this will answer your question about "What hostility?" that you asked in the above quote):

Now the subject at hand is when people begin struting fictional ideas as fact; that is just blantant stupidity. Insulting or no, the person needs a right smack.

Raped again. That was not even said towards me, and at least FA has a sence of comprehension to see what I was really saying there (i assume). That was followed skarr's post (from simple flow comprehension). Now, get off my case. Are you fueld by spite, ignorance, or what have you? Your attacks and constant insultfull allogations are ulimatley unbacked and assumptuous.

Well, if that's not hostility, then I don't know what is! I cannot believe that you have the audacity to say that FallenAngel411's post is what causes the antagonism between 'theists and atheists.' First off, we are discussing the Da Vinci Code, not theism or atheism. Secondly, if my history serves me right, I don't remember atheists ever murdering, torturing, enslaving, or forcing conversion on anyone. I don't remember atheists getting in a group of about 40 and having a nice little suicide party because they believed that they were about to enter "Heaven's Gate." I don't remember atheists jumping up and down every time a specific book, movie, or music CD came out which they did not approve of.

No, it is not hostility. It was said in a lighthearted tone and context. Anyways, FallenAngel411's shouted insult would be antagonistic - and that is what the thiest vs athiest spark comment was based on. Thanks for your pointless plethora of <img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif">hooked liabilities to the christian religion. I can name a million more deaths caused by Science and the results of scientific zealots, yet I am not naive enough to potray those occurances as being the goal of Science.

I live in the United States of America, and here people can believe whatever they want, whenever they want. Just because you are offended by someone else's beliefs or by someone else's ideas does not mean that those beliefs and ideas are going to go away or change. No one is forcing you to watch the Da Vinci Code, and if you do not want to see or hear anything about it, then go be a hermit. You live in a society with people who have strikingly different beliefs than the one's you have. If you do not wish to interact with these people or if you do not wish to be offended, then get up and get out. No one is forcing you to live in this society or in any city. The Da Vinci Code will do magnificently at theaters, and it will not only spark a debate, but a revolution.

hypocracy to your very beliefs. Beutiful revelation. You say you want freedom, and people to believe what they want etc. You direcly tell me that if i do [this], I should go live as a hermit. And to think, your the one whom screams circular reasoning. Libality is the 90 degree angle in the circle of freedom. This may seem off topic, but it completely pertains to the subject, as freedom seemingly outweighs the liability of the situation.

Bipper

[Shoden]

As usual I cannot be arsed to read the other posts and make a huge pointless post.

It's a fiction book, yeah, but it's based off actual theories and possibilities, the actual myth of the holy grail is true and there are things leading to possibility that some things in the book are true. It's still a fiction novel though, it aint completely true but it aint complete bull<img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"> either, but when people go round demanding it's true then they're mad as a lunatic asylum.

[FallenAngel411]

Oh my God. Forgive me for being WAY too lazy to respond with a ten page post of my own. Yes, I clearly stated that I wanted to walk down a street and scream the Bible is a load of propoganda or something like that, and not get hit by a brick. TRANSLATION (that is, if you could use some of those awesome reading comprehension skills of your own, bipper): I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK MY VIEWS ON RELIGION WITHOUT GETTING BURIED ALIVE BY A BUNCH OF CHRISTIAN ZEALOTS. Since you are only one zealot, and not a bunch, I guess I should be grateful that I got my wish--at least online.

Now you're going to lash out at me about how you're not a zealot and I should be completely liable for having the freedom to make such an atrocious statement about the Bible and blah blah blah. Save your breath, please, because it pisses me off when people talk down to me about my opinions. If I stood on the roof of a church and screamed expletives about Christianity, yes, I would be liable for something. However, if I post an opinion I have in a place meant for people to freely express their opinions, I'm not liable for <img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif">. That is the true beauty of freedom--selective liability. State your thoughts at the right place and time, and people will merely accept them and respond with their own, instead of trying to rip your face off.

Oh, and for the record bipper, I do feel like I'm being scolded by someone who has no right to do so. I don't need anyone to coach me on the politically correct way to talk about religion. And if I want to say something like "God is the ultimate hypocrite and sinner, and the proof is right there in his own lovely Bible", I think I'll just go ahead and say it. Oops, already did.

I can name a million more deaths caused by Science and the results of scientific zealots, yet I am not naive enough to potray those occurances as being the goal of Science.

And I just had to make a little statement about this one. It's not religion or science that causes war and death. It's people, and these are the tools they weild to justify the means. Let no invention of man hide the fact that people are just plain stupid, and are constantly coming up with new reasons to smite one another. And bipper, I bet you actually can't name a million more deaths caused by science and the result of scientific zealots, and you're just saying that. Well, then, I'll just say that I too can name a million more deaths caused by religion and the results of religious zealots, and that many times said zealots use scientific weapons specifically designed for their holy wars. And I'll just leave that hanging there with no evidence to support it--except for the fact that a bunch of fans of the almighty Lord our God took a highly sophisticated piece of machinery (known as an airplane) and smashed it into a building (known as one of the Twin Towers) where my uncle was working, 5 years ago. Oh my, it's all science's fault.

That came our rather long after all. If it's even possible to bring this thread back on topic, then I'll just restate that Dan Brown's book is indeed a work of fiction, intelligently laced with factual historical events and theories. If people who read it want to take the entire thing at face value without first thinking about it and doing some research, then that is nobody's fault but their own. I don't think the publishers are trying to decieve anyone by mixing in some nonfiction elements. If you are decieved, it's because you let yourself be. By no means is The Da Vinci Code a new age bible, but if people choose to treat it as such, then that is called an opinion. Ignore it, and pick something else to talk about.

[bipper]

Oh my God. Forgive me for being WAY too lazy to respond with a ten page post of my own. Yes, I clearly stated that I wanted to walk down a street and scream the Bible is a load of propoganda or something like that, and not get hit by a brick. TRANSLATION (that is, if you could use some of those awesome reading comprehension skills of your own, bipper): I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK MY VIEWS ON RELIGION WITHOUT GETTING BURIED ALIVE BY A BUNCH OF CHRISTIAN ZEALOTS. Since you are only one zealot, and not a bunch, I guess I should be grateful that I got my wish--at least online.

eh? No.no.no.no. I would restate my point again, but I guess I am just yelling at the brick walls, as usuall. You yell out an insult, you can't bitch about the effects of such.

Now you're going to lash out at me about how you're not a zealot and I should be completely liable for having the freedom to make such an atrocious statement about the Bible and blah blah blah. Save your breath, please, because it pisses me off when people talk down to me about my opinions.

Look up zealot, please. And yes, like it or not, you are liable for what you do. I don't see how I am even enforcing an opinion here - its more of a fact.

If I stood on the roof of a church and screamed expletives about Christianity, yes, I would be liable for something. However, if I post an opinion I have in a place meant for people to freely express their opinions, I'm not liable for <img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif">. That is the true beauty of freedom--selective liability. State your thoughts at the right place and time, and people will merely accept them and respond with their own, instead of trying to rip your face off.

Beutiful premice, but alltogether self destructive (read prior post) - besides, this is entirley off discussion.

Oh, and for the record bipper, I do feel like I'm being scolded by someone who has no right to do so. I don't need anyone to coach me on the politically correct way to talk about religion.

Where the smurf did I even scold? Coaching, mabey. Scolding - no.

And if I want to say something like "God is the ultimate hypocrite and sinner, and the proof is right there in his own lovely Bible", I think I'll just go ahead and say it. Oops, already did.

thats dandy, as long as you are not intentionally picking a fight in saying such. IE trolling on a forum.

I can name a million more deaths caused by Science and the results of scientific zealots, yet I am not naive enough to potray those occurances as being the goal of Science.

[/quote]
And I just had to make a little statement about this one. It's not religion or science that causes war and death. It's people, and these are the tools they weild to justify the means. [/quote]

Speaking of reading comprehension, read the very quot you quoted. The last sentance. Eesh.

Let no invention of man hide the fact that people are just plain stupid, and are constantly coming up with new reasons to smite one another. And bipper, I bet you actually can't name a million more deaths caused by science and the result of scientific zealots, and you're just saying that.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernoble, etc. Ignorance allows you to argue when you agree with people, congrats.

Well, then, I'll just say that I too can name a million more deaths caused by religion and the results of religious zealots, and that many times said zealots use scientific weapons specifically designed for their holy wars. And I'll just leave that hanging there with no evidence to support it--except for the fact that a bunch of fans of the almighty Lord our God took a highly sophisticated piece of machinery (known as an airplane) and smashed it into a building (known as one of the Twin Towers) where my uncle was working, 5 years ago. Oh my, it's all science's fault.

You missed my point, as I already stated it earlier. This was also directed at LYCHON - thanks for your insights though.

I do agree though, that the book is fine, as we seem to agree here as well. I do not like how the book is being advertised (again as I have stated) because people try to bend the fiction as though it is fact through a strange plethora of suggestive advertising. Normally, I could care less, but when fact based fiction begin getting greyed, it does not need any help from marketing.

Bipper

[Leeza]

When you all learn the fine points of discussing an actual topic instead of ripping each others posts apart, maybe this thread can start up again.