Can you believe local churches are trying to pre-analyze The Da Vinci Code?

[Confutatis]

Ah, but Confutatis..."lies" about science and scientific procedure can be disproven empirically.

I don't think you understood my post. All I said is that movies that intend to educate the masses should be serious, and movies who intend to entertain them should make that clear. You know, not everyone has a particle accelerator handy to test if some claim about physics they saw in a movie is true or false. Most people will be led to believe anything they see in a movie, until they find out from a reliable source that it's not true.

Claims about, for or against theories based on faith (especially blind faith) cannot be proven either way.

In case that is not clear, I'm not against the movie at all. One year from now it will be completely forgotten, it's not a threat to anyone. At worst people will talk some nonsense for a while, that's all.

All I said is that I think the Catholic Church is not wrong in feeling offended by historical lies presented as truth. You may not have noticed, but religious people don't get upset with movies that go against their teachings. For instance, I have not yet heard any Christian church condemn a movie for promoting pre-marital sex. But any institution has a right to protest when lies about them are presented as truth.

If you havent already, I suggest you READ the DaVinci Code yourself
...it might actually surprise you...

I have never been surprised by any book of fiction, for the simple fact that they are fiction. If you like the subject of the DaVinci Code, I suggest you read about the history of the Catholic Church from independent, unbiased historians. There is quite a lot of it in writing, and they are the only reliable sources.

Just a warning: if you study the history of Catholic Church, you might indeed be surprised. There are facts about it most people don't know, and there are myths about it that most people believe are true.

 

[(Q)]

I don't think you understood my post. All I said is that movies that intend to educate the masses should be serious, and movies who intend to entertain them should make that clear. You know, not everyone has a particle accelerator handy to test if some claim about physics they saw in a movie is true or false. Most people will be led to believe anything they see in a movie, until they find out from a reliable source that it's not true.

You must be a huge advocate for Stephen Speilberg films, who shows in great detail exactly how one should think and feel when watching.

Have you never seen a movie that begins with, "Based on a true story" or "The people and events depicted are not real?"

Of course, if people spent less time with their noses in a bible and more time reading books, they already might know something about physics.

In case that is not clear, I'm not against the movie at all. One year from now it will be completely forgotten, it's not a threat to anyone. At worst people will talk some nonsense for a while, that's all.

Hmm.. it appears to be a threat to you.

All I said is that I think the Catholic Church is not wrong in feeling offended by historical lies presented as truth. You may not have noticed, but religious people don't get upset with movies that go against their teachings. For instance, I have not yet heard any Christian church condemn a movie for promoting pre-marital sex. But any institution has a right to protest when lies about them are presented as truth.

Perhaps, but the Catholic and Christian churches are far more offended when historical evidence is presented contrary to their presentation of the truth. They can protest if the wish, but in doing so in the past, they have always managed to reveal their size 13 foot-in-the-mouth syndrome.

Blind faith does not support truths, only lies.

I have never been surprised by any book of fiction, for the simple fact that they are fiction. If you like the subject of the DaVinci Code, I suggest you read about the history of the Catholic Church from independent, unbiased historians. There is quite a lot of it in writing, and they are the only reliable sources.

Spoken like a true theist. When will you realize the bible is a work of fiction?

Just a warning: if you study the history of Catholic Church, you might indeed be surprised. There are facts about it most people don't know, and there are myths about it that most people believe are true.

The facts of Catholisim are only too evident in history while the myths are predominant in modern times.

 

[SnakeLord]

I wonder how people would feel if a movie came out spreading scientific falsehoods to the gullible mass. For instance, some movie about evolution being a conspiracy theory invented by greedy capitalists to help promote a consumerist lifestyle - how comfortable would we be with lies being told as true?

One need only look at the mass majority of films. From the 8 foot velociraptors seen in Jurassic Park to pretty much the whole of Day After Tomorrow. From the world's most incompetent look at computer viruses/hacking, (the net) to there being a hidden volcano in the middle of Los Angeles.

At the end of the day, they're just movies - why would anyone get so uptight about them? That's the main problem with religious people - they bitch about anything that doesn't tie in with their naive set of beliefs.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: Okay. I went to see The Da Vinci Code. Here's my critique. It was a fictional story interspersed with bits of historic truth. Tom Hank's character, Robert Langdon, was portrayed well, but I didn't care for the character Sofie Nevue, because she was portrayed as a dumb little French girl who happened to be a police cryptologist. A little too far fetched, if you asked me. I couldn't find a valid reason to include an evil albino monk in the story. Any old priest would have done. Aside from nodding off several times during the movie, the storyline dragged. The movie in its entirety was a little disjointed and segments didn't connect as smoothly as I thought they could have.

Did it make Christianity look bad -- yes. Did it make the RCC look bad -- yes. Will it cast doubt on the Church -- yes. Will it cause the Church to lose members -- yes.

Otherwise, this movie was no different than other religious themes. I should have saved my money.

 

[Little_Birdie]

i saw the dvc and it was a ok movie personlly i think the book was better but the topic this forum is disscussing is more about the effect the only thing i would like to add at the moment is that in reliigous srguments i have known people to reference the movie dogma as a ligitimate source, on multipul occasions. i can only imagine what the dvc will spawn

 

[Medicine*Woman]

i saw the dvc and it was a ok movie personlly i think the book was better but the topic this forum is disscussing is more about the effect the only thing i would like to add at the moment is that in reliigous srguments i have known people to reference the movie dogma as a ligitimate source, on multipul occasions. i can only imagine what the dvc will spawn

*************
M*W: More fiction.

 

[Hapsburg]

I couldn't find a valid reason to include an evil albino monk in the story.

Because albinos are creepy, and creepiness makes a villain more villainy. Hell, just look at Palpatine, Nosferatu, or any number of fictional villains.

 

[Enterprise-D]

The book sheds a little light on the albino monk and his history. His being albino actually is an underlying reason for his zealot loyalty to opus dei; he was beaten for his "embarassing condition", and his bio-father was quite insane. The Fr. played by Doc Oc was the one that eventually rescues him from his horrible life situation.

MW, i would gather that the book proves itself to be more fulfilling (as is usually the pattern with film adaptations).

Yes DVC makes christianity look bad historically (and not inaccurately so either - christianity of old was quite brutal).
It doesn't make the RCC or the Vatican look bad insofar as the story goes, it makes them look used by three people with hidden agendas. On the flip side though, DVC makes the Vatican appear to be a status quo maintainence engine (at the very best).

The biggest fear, and the sole reason that protests are happening is the fact that the RCC is afraid of losing members. What they don't realise (or remain silent on) is that it will happen anyway. The world is progressing to independence from religious behemoths such as the RCC. The same will happen with all major religions that rule by fear, intimidation and power brokerage.

 

[kenworth]

The DaVinci Code is a masterful piece of fiction. .

im sorry,i must have some aids in my eye.please explain in what way the da vinci code is masterful..

 

[Sarkus]

I wonder how people would feel if a movie came out spreading scientific falsehoods to the gullible mass. For instance, some movie about evolution being a conspiracy theory invented by greedy capitalists to help promote a consumerist lifestyle - how comfortable would we be with lies being told as true?

Armageddon? The Core? Day After Tomorrow? EVOLUTION?

I suggest if you only want the truth that you switch off your telly except for News (although they are often distorted).

You don't hear of people standing outside churches on a Sunday claiming that people shouldn't go inside and listen to people claiming things as Truth.


And why has this seemingly flared up ONLY when the movie came out?
Does the Vatican and other religious centres not realise that it is based on a work of literary fiction that had already sold a million or so copies??

And they do know that there is as much provable fact in the DaVinci Code as there is in the Bible???

 

[Gordon]

Here you have a church, who's sources for believing what they believe are extremely dubious.

Then you have the Davinci Code which is also dubiously sourced. Both are as wrong as each other.

The truth is, anyone can come up with a theory on the life of Jesus and claim "My version is just as well sourced as your version".

You could certainly say that. In a free society you can say almost anything but that does not make it true!

Forget religion for one moment if I made up a story about the life of Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler or any other historical character and within this story contradicted evidence and disputed previous beliefs and accounts without producing evidence as to why they were wrong, would that make the original accounts as wrong as mine? Of course it would not. This is a total logical non sequitur!

'The Da Vinci Code' proclaims itself to be fiction. Much of the 'history' can be easily proven to be false. Neither God nor Christianity has anything to fear from it but it has to be said that Dan Brown and others are being deliberately duplicitous by suggesting that maybe some bits are true (without saying which bits!). It is probably quite important that people know what is and is not likely to be true about the story hence the Christian booklets that go into such issues.

You do have to ask yourself whether the success of the novel is because it is so well written (the evidence is against this as anyone who has read any part of it can attest!) or because it promotes an anti-Christian view (however badly researched).

If anyone is taking the main hypothesis seriously, you have to ask yourself how the fact of a married Jesus with a child would not have been exposed in the early days of Christianity by its enemies (the Roman authorities, the mainstream Judaistic leaders etc.). Had there been any truth in the story, it would certainly have been found out and if found out would have killed the new religion stone dead. It is perhaps interesting that although there are myths in Judaism from early times that Jesus was an illegitimate son of Mary possibly by a Roman soldier (and so thus to deny his divinity and even his messiahship), this particular 'Da Vinci Code' myth is never recorded.

The other question for some of the atheists is if you believe the 'Da Vinci Code' then you do have to believe in an historical person called Jesus. Many of you seem to deny any such person existed at all - slight conundrum there!


kind regards to all,



Gordon.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Gordon: if I made up a story about the life of Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler or any other historical character and within this story contradicted evidence and disputed previous beliefs and accounts without producing evidence as to why they were wrong,

The lives of these historical characters are much better documented with less holes and MUCH more hard evidence than Jesus. Using this argument is useless.

Gordon: ask yourself how the fact of a married Jesus with a child would not have been exposed in the early days of Christianity by its enemies (the Roman authorities

Very simple Gordon...while Rome strived to destroy Christianity as it emerged, it is Rome that eventually lost. Somewhere in the early 300s, Christianity was made legal in Rome, and some decades later ALL other religions were made illegal. Between the year 400 and the Renaissance, it would be VERY easy for Christian powers to bury evidence of a Jesus line (if such a line were to have existed). Honestly I don't know to what extent Judaistic leaders' power reached...but the same applies; Christianity of old became a following of conquest, and could have overrun Judaism as enemies as well.

Gordon: The other question for some of the atheists is if you believe the 'Da Vinci Code' then you do have to believe in an historical person called Jesus

I dont think that athiests deny any historical figures. In fact, it is logically likely that someone named Jesus existed and was indeed building a church. People do it TODAY in our modern society. Athiests simply do not believe in a higher controlling being, and do not subscribe to any church.

I totally disagree with you in that you state that Dan Brown et al. are being duplicitous in suggesting that some evidence stated are true. They are not being duplicitous at all. Go to google.com and search up some yourself. He has used PUBLISHED research.

I DO agree with you though (sadly) that DVC is not the end of Christianity. That honor will belong to Christianity itself, as it is its own worst enemy.

 

[Confutatis]

I DO agree with you though (sadly) that DVC is not the end of Christianity. That honor will belong to Christianity itself, as it is its own worst enemy.

Ironically, the main reason Christianity is losing adepts is because it has become a moderate religion. The fundamentalist churches, as well as Islam, are doing very well.

The battle to assert the primacy of reason has been lost a long time ago. It's silly to believe a turnaround is anywhere in sight when all facts point to the contrary.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Fundamentalist churches will also self-destruct, simply because concentrating on building congregation (conquest) - with no plan to maintain, progress or mature - will cause the instability when the members realise that there's no fulfilment and the fundamentalist org. will realise that it has become-top heavy when its leadership cannot contain its masses.

Or one'll start a "holy war" and some idiot will drop a couple nukes in the right places, screaming "in the name of God" or something similar, and there'll be a HUGE drop in membership and no one will be brave enough to fill out the ranks.

 

[Confutatis]

Fundamentalist churches will also self-destruct, simply because concentrating on building congregation (conquest) - with no plan to maintain, progress or mature - will cause the instability when the members realise that there's no fulfilment and the fundamentalist org. will realise that it has become-top heavy when its leadership cannot contain its masses.

Or one'll start a "holy war" and some idiot will drop a couple nukes in the right places, screaming "in the name of God" or something similar, and there'll be a HUGE drop in membership and no one will be brave enough to fill out the ranks.

Been reading the Book of Revelation?

 

[Enterprise-D]

LOL no, reading the actions of fanatics...if they're nuts enough to do mass suicide runs, who knows what they're capable of?

 

[Godless]

You know the movie is already out and the results are stagering. The movie earned well over 100million in it's first week end. It just goes to prove, that every time Hollywood makes a controversial movie, that the church gets all riled up, only drives the people to see the damn thing. If I was a movie producer, I'd let the freaking church condemned my movie. It proves that this will get people to watch the movie in droves. Remember "The Last Temptation"? That one sold out it's first week end too.

Godless

 

[Bigtraine]

If you like the subject of the DaVinci Code, I suggest you read about the history of the Catholic Church from independent, unbiased historians. There is quite a lot of it in writing, and they are the only reliable sources.

Does anyone have any particular recommendations here? I am personally very interested in the history of the church, but have trouble finding good resources from unbiased sources. If anyone has any pet favorites, etc... I would love to hear about them.

 

[charles cure]

Does anyone have any particular recommendations here? I am personally very interested in the history of the church, but have trouble finding good resources from unbiased sources. If anyone has any pet favorites, etc... I would love to hear about them.

there is no such thing as an unbiased source. start by realizing that.

 

[evolution]

though i am not a christian so i might be wrong. I have not seen the movie yet but i have read a about it in the news week. I was astonish to see that there is too much pictureization of jesus has been done. i would like to ask that on which base these picture are painted. I think, this art was not established in the jesus time.