davinci code protesters

C

charles cure

Guest
so, despite the fact that i'm not a big fan of the DaVinci code, i went to see the movie yesterday to see if it would be any good. now, i just went to suburban cineplex type of thing to see it, but there were about 50 protesters outside the theatre when my friends and i got there. they had signs declaring jesus to be the one true lord and the whole shebang. i'm betting most of them hadn't seen the movie. i was curious about a couple of things - what exactly is it that the average christian finds so incomprehensible about the possibility that the bible's account of Jesus's life isn't 100% accurate? also, what difference would it make if Jesus had really been married, other than eliminating some stupid and antiquated ideas about celibacy that are already on their way out?
i just looked at these people and felt sort of sorry for them. they really weren't having any impact at all as far as stopping people from seeing the film, in fact i bet if they made the news they actually made more people curious enough to go see the movie when they otherwise might not have.
i also thought it was kind of funny because a lot of what these people were making so much noise about was the fact that there wasn't evidence for the claims made by the DaVinci code. when did christians all of a sudden need evidence of a thing to verify it's truth. why couldn't you have "faith" that the DaVinci code is the way it all really went down?
funny stuff really.

anyone else see anything like that going on/wonder about it?
 
Arkantos said:
it's false that christians do not use any evidence to verify truth
Click to expand...

no, but they certainly believe that god exists despite a complete lack of evidence. interestingly enough, when challenged on a belief like that many christians assert that lack of evidence doesn't matter, because faith and belief trump it. however, when someone makes claims like those of the DaVinci code, christians suddenly need an abundance of proof in order to believe it. does that sound like a contradiction to you?
 
The more people boycott the movie, the more popular it gets. Duh, isn't it obvious? I think Sony may be paying the protesters :p
 
the thing about the dvc is that people will think this aosulte fiction is fact because of some sreads of history laced into the movie, the masses unforunaty are not as intellegant as some of the people here and will take the whole thing as convising fact and make life desions based on a fictional movie and while well intentioned the protests are not helping christains. i saw the movie and left very frustrated not only was it not a good movie but it was more subversively antichristian than the book
 
Little_Birdie said:
the thing about the dvc is that people will think this aosulte fiction is fact because of some sreads of history laced into the movie, the masses unforunaty are not as intellegant as some of the people here and will take the whole thing as convising fact and make life desions based on a fictional movie and while well intentioned the protests are not helping christains. i saw the movie and left very frustrated not only was it not a good movie but it was more subversively antichristian than the book
Click to expand...

first of all, how is the davinci code any more damaging than the bible. what you said about the davinci code "people will think this absolute fiction is fact because of some shreds of history laced into the story" that sounds exactly like what christians think about the bible. i think this bothers the church because finally someone has confronted them with a bit of their own medecine.
i didnt find the movie more antichristian than the book, on the contrary i was disappointed with the little bones they tossed to christianity as if it had some type of valid counterargument. neither story, the bible or the davinci code should be seen as an accurate protrayal of history, but in the end they both have the same exact message - faith is good.

i dont see why christians find it offensive.
 
Why would you protest a movie based off a book that has called itself fiction and speaks of an organization which has been proven to be false?? Pure stupidity... all you do is bring it camera-time.
 
charles cure said:
first of all, how is the davinci code any more damaging than the bible. what you said about the davinci code "people will think this absolute fiction is fact because of some shreds of history laced into the story" that sounds exactly like what christians think about the bible. i think this bothers the church because finally someone has confronted them with a bit of their own medecine.
i dont see why christians find it offensive.
Click to expand...
the bible has existied far longer and was written much closer chonolgicly to the events dipicted, the bible was not written for entertainment but salvation, there is no question as to whether jesus existed there are thrid pary roman documents of his cusifiction wheter he is lord or not is what you choose to belive, the dvc is about a heavily speculated what if theory with devistaing results to claims of christ's divinity
maybe mary was not a "prostitute" as is caimed but she was a sinner so fervently so that she wept at jesus's feet, washed his feet with her tears and cleaned them with her hair, she was adevot follower and nothing more,(biblicly) peter was "the rock on which christ built his church" to challenge that is to challenge all christanity that stems from the line of peter, for if peter disobeyed jesus and started his own church instead of a church under the "seed of christ" then all christanity is false
this movie is offencive because it spreads fiction that shakes the foundations of chirstianity to people whose faith is based on the shaky teachings of inept religion teachers.
also the use of the term "cafateria catholics" is a direct attack on benidict XVI
 
this movie is offencive because it spreads fiction that shakes the foundations of chirstianity to people whose faith is based on the shaky teachings of inept religion teachers
Click to expand...

I don't see anything offensive about entertaining alternative ideas. One still has the ability to reject the idea one finds objectionable; it's an excellent exercise for the brain. No need to get upset. As for the people who did not get a proper religious indoctrination :) or as you put it, "whose faith is based on the shaky teachings of inept religion teachers" , they can still think for themselves, I suppose.
 
Oddly 'The DaVinci Code' has only ever been presented as fiction, whereas the book 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' was presented as fact by it's authors, and I don't recall such a furore when that was first published.

So, it's one of two things;

Stupid blinkered dogmatic xtians can't tell fact from fiction, and think fiction is fact, ...

or,

Stupid blinkered dogmatic xtians don't actually read books, and have to wait for a movie to come out to find out what it's all about.

Or maybe both?
 
Circe said:
The more people boycott the movie, the more popular it gets. Duh, isn't it obvious? I think Sony may be paying the protesters :p
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: My thoughts exactly!
 
baumgarten said:
Can't we all just agree that the Da Vinci Code sucks and leave it at that? ;)
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Apparently, the film critics agree with you. Even I expected more from Opie. Definitely not his best work.
 
jblaise said:
The Bible is The Truth. My vindication will come at the end of time.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Much like The Da Vinci Code, the bible is fiction, poetry and allegory, based on astro-theological creatures, symbols and codes. In other words, it's all fiction. There is no vindication of anything.
 
phlogistician said:
Oddly 'The DaVinci Code' has only ever been presented as fiction, whereas the book 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' was presented as fact by it's authors, and I don't recall such a furore when that was first published.
Click to expand...

the holy blood and the holy grail is a non-fiction book based in fact. its like reading a documentary. the authors make no claims to absolute truth in their book either, they gather information, develop a hypothesis, and seek to support it with fact to assess the likelihood of it being true. in the end, their findings are illuminating, but inconclusive, and certainly dig up only small amounts of tangible and empirical proof to support their idea. however, the anecdotal evidence, the other historical events that seem to lend support to their hypothesis, and the contradictions found within christian lore and doctrine itself make their ideas seem far more convincing than the conventional portrayals of the legacy of jesus.
 
Little_Birdie said:
the bible has existied far longer and was written much closer chonolgicly to the events dipicted, the bible was not written for entertainment but salvation, there is no question as to whether jesus existed there are thrid pary roman documents of his cusifiction.
Click to expand...

the bible as it exists today wasn't written all at once, it was cherry picked out of a body of documents written by different groups about the life of christ, sometimes only decades after his death, and sometimes hundreds of years after. the recent "gospel of Judas" thathas come to light is much older than certain parts of the bible, does that mean you believe it is as valid or more valid than those parts? is there not a grand tradition in christianity of assembling, translating, and editing documents relating to the life of jesus in order to support or reject a particular agenda? what makes you think that any of it is actually truly the way things happened in jesus's time? the bible is riddled with demonstrable historical inaccuracy, why believe that any of it was meant to be taken as literal truth? there is most definately a debate about whether or not jesus existed, however - more importantly, there is a serious debate about whether he was actually the person he claimed to be if he did exist. this is the more relevant one i believe, since whether jesus existed or not is almost an unproveable question. however, the conflicting protrayals of his life in documents dating from nearly the same time period suggest that he may not have been the personality that has wormed its way into the hearts and minds of so many people all over the world. he may have in fact, been the equivalent of a trickster, magician, political hack, or snake oil salesman witht he same motivations as every other person on earth. once christians can admit that the character of jesus is actually not 100% certain, the debate about why we find his teachings to be true and relevant can begin. at that point human society may be able to throw off some of the chains of religious intolerance, oppression, and dogmatism that has held back progress for so long.

maybe mary was not a "prostitute" as is caimed but she was a sinner so fervently so that she wept at jesus's feet, washed his feet with her tears and cleaned them with her hair,
Click to expand...

she did not wash jesus's feet with her tears, she annointed his feet with spikenard. she then dried them with her hair, a ritual significant to many pagan traditions. for some information on that, try reading the following non-fiction books -

the templar revelation - picknett and prince
isis unveiled - blavatsky
the woman with the alabaster jar - starbird

in addition to that, mary had the spikenard ointment in her possession, an item that would have cost literally thousands of dollars in todays world, not something a poor prostitute could even hope to afford. it is also significat that in that particular instance she appears not as Mary Magdalene, but as Mary of Bethany instead, leaving it open to further debate whether or not it was actually the same woman.
the vatican was forced to recant the "mary magdalene is a prostitute" story in 1969 i believe, due to the fact that it is mentioned nowhere at all in either historical texts or the bible, and all indications are that it was developed over time as a way to devalue the role played by women in jesus's ministry so that they could be denied a place of power in the catholic hierarchy.

this movie is offencive because it spreads fiction that shakes the foundations of chirstianity to people whose faith is based on the shaky teachings of inept religion teachers.
also the use of the term "cafateria catholics" is a direct attack on benidict XVI
Click to expand...

the church has always found the pursuit of knowledge offensive. i am content to let christians live in ignorance of the alternative views of the life and divinity of christ, but if they choose to see the movie and find some of the ideas in it convincing, it is only a telltale sign that the church is not supported by enough convincing evidence to deter people from considering other theories and lifestyles as preferrable. that's not dan brown's fault.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
charles cure said:
the holy blood and the holy grail is a non-fiction book based in fact. its like reading a documentary. the authors make no claims to absolute truth in their book either, they gather information, develop a hypothesis, and seek to support it with fact to assess the likelihood of it being true. in the end, their findings are illuminating, but inconclusive, and certainly dig up only small amounts of tangible and empirical proof to support their idea. however, the anecdotal evidence, the other historical events that seem to lend support to their hypothesis, and the contradictions found within christian lore and doctrine itself make their ideas seem far more convincing than the conventional portrayals of the legacy of jesus.
Click to expand...


Blah blah blah. It's not referred to as a novel, or to be found in the 'fiction' section of the library, is it? Hence, it is 'presented as fact'. I didn't need the synopsis, as I have read the book.

The point, which you missed, was that there was no uproar when it was published as factual, yet a fictitious novel is causing a stir. Why is that, hmmm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top