da vinci movie

Originally posted by shaunybaby
one question: since when did catholics and christians rule the world?

I'm Catholic, and I loved the book. And no, we never did (tried, but that didnt work too well) . The fact is, the organized system of it, (almost any religion for that matter) is courupt. It should not have a say in peoples lives for anything other than a spiritual means to get through the day.

Thier comments were down right out of context.

And so were yours my friend. Don't blame us because of our leaders. And don't hold biases or grudges.

Shantyman relax. No one here is going to come after you with an axe, figurative or otherwise, for stating a personal opinion as eloquently as that (I hope).

Hang on, let me put on my secular humanist hat...

originally posted by Shantyman
One would think the secular humanist to be more tolerant than the bigoted Roman Catholic Knight of Columbus, but that's hardly the case, is it?

I'm sure it varies from individual to individual just as it does in any group of people.

originally posted by Shantyman
Dan Brown's book really isn't just a piece of fiction. It's an assault on the Church. A deliberate assault with the same motivations that other works that have attacked religion - to garner publicity, to mobilize the religious in order to gain free press, to align the humanist who embraces anything a church condemns. Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" - an odious example of this practice, is the example that springs to mind. Where is the artistry in either of these works? By several accounts, and not just my own, Brown's novel is pedestrian when you strip away the controversy.

There should be a guideline on this topic from here on in. No more fiction/nonfiction bickering. That conversation is totally cashed. I don't disagree that Brown's book is designed to garner controversy for the purpose of selling books. And damn if it isn't working, I can't think of any other book that has sold like "The DaVinci Code". Of course the true religion of America is always capitalism. If we're going to get upset over unscrupulous marketing ploys I think Brown's is far less worrisome then those employed by pharmaceutical companies, the petroleum industry, the tobacco industry, the political parties, etc. but I digress. The comparison to "Piss Christ" is really unfair. I too find "Piss Christ" to be pretty repulsive. The thing is, "DaVinci Code" is a mass-marketed paperback, "Piss Christ" is a piece of postmodern art. The idea behind "Piss Christ" is to make you, me, and anyone else angry. Every time someone has a strong emotional reaction to "Piss Christ" the art process continues to take place. The stronger the reaction the better. The viewer inadvertently interacts with the work and perpetuates it. That's the whole point. The thing I really dislike about "Piss Christ" is that it really isn't very clever. If you really hate "Piss Christ" then I suggest you treat it like Fight Club. Don't talk about "Piss Christ".

As a nonChristain living in the Western world I have to listen to a lot about Jesus all of time whether I like it or not. I'm not complaining, freedom of speech and all, but Jesus is thrust upon us constantly, with the same insistency as Nike sneakers or Snickers Bars. When's the last time you had a pair of teenage secular humanists show up at your door uninvited handing out pamphlets and wanting to talk about how you don't have a soul to save? Usually they only come to sell magazines. I'm not compelled by the "everyone's picking on Jesus argument", as if the Christian family of religions are not responsible for unspeakable crimes and persecutions (physical persecutions) throughout their history up to the present day of far more serious consequence than any pop-culture book could ever hope to be. I think your Guy can take it, don't you? As I have stated, I have no issue with truly faithful Christians. I'm just always amused by angry people who don't even understand the allegories and symbolism, not to mention the lessons, of the faith they proclaim to believe so much.

So no takers on the Bacchic crucifixion then?

Davinci’s Code summarized.

A human based secular Fertility Cult mythos.

The Book while interesting. Divorces religion in a name of a secular theory. There is no search for "sacred" truth. Just a search for a "secular" truth.

While it paints a picture of Male-Female love. It fails to mention the "goal" of that love. Except Carnal indulgence and children.

The only answer provided is that Jesus shagged Mary. Ok, But What does that mean to me? So the Church is Wrong. Ok, Then what is the truth then? Again Jesus shagged Mary.

Mohammed had a revelation of "Allah", Buddha realized the Universal connection of all things, Taoists declare the "non action" of the Tao, And Brown tells me Jesus screwed Mary.

The founders of all the Various religions were literary Genius's Who seek the answer of Human existence.?

Brown Book does not answer the "why"? He farts around with symbols, While denying the Universal truths behind those symbols. He tells me its a Ankh, But forgets to mention the "Sacred Truth" of Isis in human Fertility.

That is why I think it literary Garbage. More like a Comic Book then a Religious
revelation.

It does not challenge my beliefs. Its literary toilet paper. Not transcendent revelation.

Does the word fiction mean anything to people these days

Originally posted by ivanglam
I'm Catholic, and I loved the book. And no, we never did (tried, but that didnt work too well) . The fact is, the organized system of it, (almost any religion for that matter) is courupt. It should not have a say in peoples lives for anything other than a spiritual means to get through the day.

Thier comments were down right out of context.

And so were yours my friend. Don't blame us because of our leaders. And don't hold biases or grudges.

because catholics and christians (i'm told they are the same people, so i'll throw you in to one basket and call you christolics), are the ones who are apposed to the book, the filming, the plot of the movie, want to change the plot etc. all i'm saying is what gives anyone, or any religion the right to say 'changed the plot of this fictional movie'? i didn't say your name, i said your religion, and in which case i am right in saying, as your religion is apposed to it. and if my question was 'since when did catholics and christians rule the world' it was more likely to imply, since when did your leaders decide what movies were made, and were aloud to change plots?? i never said your name, don't get so uptight, you sound like a crying child looking for attention.

Is this related? Seems like it...

www.theinevitabledossier.com

Originally posted by obiwan15
Does the word fiction mean anything to people these days

Well, it appears that the author of the novel, does. He does admit that it is a novel, a fictional tale sprinkled with various unproven yet popular theories that he has culled from relevent speculative works that he deemed likely to spark interest.
I read the same books, and can't decide if I am pleased or unhappy with his creation. It has started quite a large discussion on the topic, which I like, but it has also tainted the whole subject with the introduction of new, totally fabricated and fictional material. Readers are left unsure what is potentially credible, and what is pure fantasy.
The common result is a group of fans who spout the contents of his 'novel' as though it is accepted fact. Brown is probably an agent of the secret cabal, given the task of muddying the waters which were starting to become too clear for their liking. Of course that is just pure conjecture, with no basis in reality, so it's probably bang on.

Posted by Cicada:

When's the last time you had a pair of teenage secular humanists show up at your door uninvited handing out pamphlets and wanting to talk about how you don't have a soul to save?
__________________________________

Since you're not from the west, it goes like this. They start you off early telling you that there is no God and that you're descended from a monkey. No, not teenage secular humanists, but the local "schools". The American school system is the best evangelistic preaching tool the atheists have.

As for the De Vinchi Code, it may be fiction but it is published by Satan in order to further weaken the Bible before the people. People love this stuff because they want to be free from right and wrong and do whatever they please. And the book is Blasphemous towards God and His Son. It's just filth wrapped up in tinsel for the masses of lost people of the world.

As for the difference between Christians and Catholics, first of all, that there is a difference does not mean that there are not Christians within the Catholic Church. But Christians by and large follow Christ. Cathoilics follow the Pope.

Fromabove

my 2 cents

first of all im a muslim but not a devoted one, i do not pray 5 times a day, neither have i done things asked of muslims by the Quran except for giving to charity. I do believe in GOD and if you really ask and pray from the heart you shall recieve.
I also have passion for all religions, i do not think and believe there is 1 RIGHT religion and others are false, its just that each religion was interpreted by its people in its own unique way.
Therefore i belive all religions are 1. They are all the same just a different way of prospective. We have to understand that we humans are ONE, we are of 1 man and 1 woman, we are all brothers and sisters and children of GOD and it is our religions that are holding us back from uniting to 1.

Any1 seen THE PASSION OF CHRIST
In the movie it clearly shows that JESUS was against the church and its policies and intended to make a change. But sadly he didnt accompish his task but on day of his crusefiction he said that the church will destoyed as it happened in the movie.
So if the church is the holy place of god why did Jesus try to stop its doings?
Because the church didnt enforce the religion the right way.

No church no mosque no priest can help you find and feel the love GOD for you can only find GOD and his love within yourself.

Originally posted by shaunybaby

one question: since when did catholics and christians rule the world?

my question is...since when+why did christians and catholics fight wars?

Originally posted by Fromabove

Since you're not from the west, it goes like this. They start you off early telling you that there is no God and that you're descended from a monkey. No, not teenage secular humanists, but the local "schools". The American school system is the best evangelistic preaching tool the atheists have.

As for the De Vinchi Code, it may be fiction but it is published by Satan in order to further weaken the Bible before the people. People love this stuff because they want to be free from right and wrong and do whatever they please. And the book is Blasphemous towards God and His Son. It's just filth wrapped up in tinsel for the masses of lost people of the world.
Fromabove

This is just some serious neo-Con spewage. No one should take this as anything more than just a far-right opinion that the writer failed to qualify as such.

The absence of Christian-based teachings in the public school system does not equate to a "preaching tool the atheists have". Public schools are secular instituions and do not embrace or teach any particular religious doctrine or dogma. The radical religious fundamentalists frequently see the absence of religious favoritism as an attack. Last I checked, ignoring something was not the same as attacking it.

I checked my copy of the DaVinci Code and could not find any reference to it being "published by Satan". I'm not a Christian but I cannot find anything in there that would challenge the faith of someone who was a Christian. It's just a story that pulls heavily from the works of other authors and individuals who have put forth their own theories. I don't actually believe any of them in spite of the fact that I find the story to be mildly interesting. I'm sure the movie will be midly interesting as well.

Further, I've yet to hear a single compelling argument as to how this theory, even if it were proven to be 100% true, would damage the message of Jesus or the core fundamentals of Christianity. To me, the very worst it could do would be to make the Gospel accounts seem incomplete - not wrong - just not the whole story. This seems like much ado about nothing.

[edit on 2-1-2006 by Al Davison]

But Christians by and large follow Christ.

Wrong! They follow Paul or more precicely Jesus as interpreted by Paul. What
Paul teaches that Jesus taught. All from a man that for what ever reason fell off his ass, took a knock on his head , and had a "vision"

Originally posted by shaunybaby
one question: since when did catholics and christians rule the world?

The same time everyone else started to rule the world, and Western Civilization has been plummeting since. Unless you've been living under a rock, anything will have at least one group protest it, if not many. If they're the right (or wrong, in this case) groups, (see here ) they get media attention.

Dan Brown just knows how to market a book. Like Ann Rice ending Interview With The Vampire and even The Vampire Lestat with an ambiguous ending that, if the reader wanted to believe it was true, they could, Dan Brown came out and said he didn't believe as he did the research for his book. Yet, after the research his work of fiction he claimed to believe as true. Does he really? I highly doubt it, or else he did some of the worst research in the history of the planet and thought it was legit.

The man knows how to market a book, the media provided free advertising for him, and now he's making a ton of cash as a result.

If folks had just shut up about it when it first came out instead of freaking out over the work of fiction trying to be hinted at being true, it would now be a non-issue. Instead, Hollywood saw controversy, and therefore money, so a movie is being made.

Originally posted by junglejake
The man knows how to market a book, the media provided free advertising for him, and now he's making a ton of cash as a result.

Sounds like a hammer hitting a nail, Junglejake...

I've got a real problem with Dan Brown's book too, but for different reasons. He basically stole research from other authors and devised a fictional tale around their findings.

Cicada provided a link in a related thread which has some interesting news regarding Brown and Random House, the publishers. Two of those 'other authors', Baigent and Leigh, are looking to sue for damages.

Good for them...I hope they win.
.

Posted by Al Davidson:
quote: Originally posted by Fromabove

Since you're not from the west, it goes like this. They start you off early telling you that there is no God and that you're descended from a monkey. No, not teenage secular humanists, but the local "schools". The American school system is the best evangelistic preaching tool the atheists have.

As for the De Vinchi Code, it may be fiction but it is published by Satan in order to further weaken the Bible before the people. People love this stuff because they want to be free from right and wrong and do whatever they please. And the book is Blasphemous towards God and His Son. It's just filth wrapped up in tinsel for the masses of lost people of the world.
Fromabove
___________
Al Davidson:
This is just some serious neo-Con spewage. No one should take this as anything more than just a far-right opinion that the writer failed to qualify as such.
___________

Al... I was wondering where you were, anyway, I think it was you that said to be careful at labels on people like when I said about those "ACLU types" and you went right of the handle and had a fit. Where did I ever claim to be a "neo-Con" just like I'm not actually "Rush Limbaugh" like you said I was in prior posts. My opinion is my own and unlike "left-wingnuts" I don't want or need a cheat sheet talking points memo to speak for me. I qualify my own opinion. So let me put it this way.

I am a Christian. Christians see things in black or white, good or evil. The De Vinchi Code is about my religion and my Christ. It is an evil book, an evil movie, and satanically inspired. It is intended to cast doubt upon a holy and devine Christ, His death and reesurection and ascention into heaven. The author clearly has not been listening to God when he wrote that trash, so where do you think it came from, monkeys?

As for the schools, evolution and "no God" is the only thing allowed right now. I am wrong?

You are an athiest, agnostic, or whatever, so I don't expect you to accept anything I say with any credibility, but give an arguement on the opinion, don't just call me names and place labels on me. You asked that of me and I try to do so. Do the same for me. Go back and pick apart my opinion again and make reasonable counter arguements.


Fromabove

I've never called you any names. I characterized your arguments and that is fair. I never attack anyone personally.

Now, you want me to write and write and write to counter your "sound bites" - nope. Defend your own statements.

I had this amusing image of you standing in front of all the teachers in the USA and accusing them of "evangelizing atheism" - given that the vast majority of them consider themselves to be good Christians, you might not make it out of there alive!

You have presented false dichotomies - it is simply not true that evolution=atheism. You are welcome to hold that opinion but most good Christians do not seem to share that opinion so you cannot make that as a statement of fact. You continue to decline to use any qualifiers to indicate something that is your opinion or your observation or prediction, etc. Since you make these kinds of statements without any qualifiers then you are using a popular "neo-Con / Rush Limbaugh" message technique - that's how you get your posts characterized as such. I've offered you suggestions on how you can be more credible. That's the end of my responsibility - not to you so much as to the integrity of ATS.

I don't speak for any group. I don't belong to any religious organization and I don't identify with any of them. I have a very strong belief in G-d that does not include a belief in the divinity of the Christian Jesus or Holy Spirit of the infallability of the Bible. That does not qualify me as either atheist or agnostic. Your opinion of my relationship with G-d carries no weight - just as mine of yours carries no weight.

So, if you've got some facts to present as facts, be prepared to cite sources when challenged. If you simply offer opinions, make that clear. It's really very easy.

Posted by Al Davidson:

I've never called you any names. I characterized your arguments and that is fair. I never attack anyone personally.

Now, you want me to write and write and write to counter your "sound bites" - nope. Defend your own statements.

I had this amusing image of you standing in front of all the teachers in the USA and accusing them of "evangelizing atheism" - given that the vast majority of them consider themselves to be good Christians, you might not make it out of there alive!
_____________________

I've never called you any names. I characterized your arguments and that is fair. I never attack anyone personally.

Really? Who were calling a neo-con, spewing?


Now, you want me to write and write and write to counter your "sound bites" - nope. Defend your own statements.

No resistance, no arguement, mine opinion stands alone.


I had this amusing image of you standing in front of all the teachers in the USA and accusing them of "evangelizing atheism" - given that the vast majority of them consider themselves to be good Christians, you might not make it out of there alive!

Atheistic-evolutionary evangelism is forced upon the people in the schools, all those so called Christians simply comply. They could resist basless theories but they would soon be fired, or possibly taken to court by the ACLU, or by some disgruntled person.

Fromabove

[edit on 2-1-2006 by Fromabove]

apparently reading must not be one of your strengths, either...go back and read what I actually wrote rather than what you want to think that I wrote. You'll find that I was doing precisely what I just said - characterizing your statements; not the author.

You'll also find counters to your "arguments" that are at least as well thought out and in-depth as the sound bites you posted.

Out here in the real world, you'll find differences of opinion and no matter how much scripture you post, it won't be convincing to a great many people.

Posted by Al Davidson:
This is just some serious neo-Con spewage. No one should take this as anything more than just a far-right opinion that the writer failed to qualify as such.
________________

When I think about it, I guess you were probably talking about someone else, as I was giving an opinion. You do realize that my opinions on religion will probably have biblical references to them and that is good. It's hard to make an arguement in favor of God or against evil if I can't use the word of God.

Anyway, I give you this much, that you are as steadfast in your beliefs as I am in mine. And that will always make for good discussion of the issues.


Fromabove

Here's my take on this non-issue. I'm a Christian. I've read the Da Vinci Code. It was an entertaining enough read, but do I believe it? No.

If the churches are so concerned that a self-proclaimed work of fiction is going to sway their faith, then they clearly do not have faith in their own beliefs.