Christian Foes of 'Da Vinci Code' Debate How to Fight It

[Faramond]

I understand that reaction hal, but I don't think Jn was trying to advocate the criminalization of thoughts in our justice system by using the word "crime" there.

The word "crime" can have different shades of meaning. It is a crime in some sense of the word to deny the holocaust. A crime against history, and humanity.

[Cerin]

So, um, who, in Mr Brown's opinion, are those descendents?

I don't recall.


edited to add quote for clarity

[nerdanel]

Would it alter the Christian Faith to say Jesus did not die, was not ressurected, and did not ascend into Heaven shortly thereafter?

Um... yes? Any one of those 3 would pretty much screw up the whole thing.

To say that the Church made up any of that and threw in that Christ was divine... and has kept the fact they made it up secret for 1700 years... yeah... that would be a big deal...

I haven't read the Da Vinci code. I intend to. I also intend to see this movie.

However, the following beliefs are simply representative of most non-Christians' views:
(1) Jesus was not resurrected from the grave and did not ascend into heaven.
(2) Jesus was not Divine.

I realize there are a few non-Christians who believe these things are true, but precious few. The remainder of the billions of people on earth - at least those who have a view on Christianity at all - believe these things to be false.

...and thus believe that they are a (factually) incorrect invention of the Church.

That certainly represents my view, and I mean no offense beyond the obvious (i.e. I don't believe in your faith) to Christians in saying it. To believe these things to be true is to go a long way (if not all the way) to being Christian. Certainly it is also legitimate to view the Roman Catholic Church with a fair amount of skepticism.

A recent discussion has helped me to clarify my POV on Christianity; namely that the best I can do is see it as a metaphorical path to God for some people (anything further goes too far towards attempting "respect" for something the factual antecedents of which I believe to be false. And, again, if I didn't believe them to be false, I would be Christian.)

So, I'm left to wonder...are the only acceptable portrayals of Jesus those that assume the truth of Christianity? What of the rest of us who live in a Western world overwhelmingly dominated by Christianity and yet do not subscribe to its rather fantastic, purportedly factual tale? Some of the posts I see here seem to suggest that there should not be any entertainment concerning Jesus that does not assume the truth of what yov has called "the Christian myth". Why? Because people might be led to adopt a non-Christian worldview? The horror!

We have people who are alleged to be so weak-willed that they are swayed by a (supposedly, I don't yet know) poorly written fictional work, fantastic in its own right, to abandon their "faith" - and this is reason for what? Protests? Boycotts? As far as I'm concerned, those people sound like they're not of much use to either the Christians or the non-Christians; their worldview is based on little and thus is worth little.

On the other hand, if this fictional, fantastic work causes people to question in a thoughtful, reasoned way the traditional story of Jesus, which is force-fed to most of us before we are old enough to read (and consequently is very, VERY difficult to question with a view to disbelieving, particularly in the face of church-sponsored dire warnings of your certain condemnation to hell), then as far as I'm concerned, that can only be a good thing. I will have time for very few movies this summer, but this is certain to be one of them.

I'll conclude with the obligatory disclaimers:
1. I think that everyone should be able to protest/boycott whatever they want. I also think I should be able to roll my eyes at all of them.
2. I would roll my eyes at a gay boycott of a movie that suggested that homosexuality was a choice. Indeed, it was GLAAD's advocacy of an Eminem boycott/protest that caused me to become a fan years ago, in defiance. I have little patience for people who fear anyone who presents an opposing message, and believe you me, the people on the top of my annoyance list are the gay PC police. (in response to Cerin's comment to yov)
3. Criminalization of thought is bad.
4. So is Holocaust denial, which is a most reprehensible sin.

[halplm]

sigh... an edited out hug from anthy

I recognized my statement can be taken the wrong way, but I think it extremely important thoughts aren't criminalized. God will take care of our thoughts in his own time. I'll trust him to do that, but the moment a law is passed saying you have to THINK a certain way, there would be no end. Someone could take my statement there, claim I was denying the holocaust, and throw me in jail.

You want to call Gibson's father a depraved lunatic, I'm right there with ya... but to call him a criminal for THINKING... I'll object every time.

[axordil]

In some European countries, Holocaust denial is in fact a crime. Ask David Irving, who is currently resting his weasely butt (he tried to deny his denial at the trial) in an Austrian prison for it.

[axordil]

War of the Worlds was supposed to be pro-Iraqi War?

One of the screenwriters specifically said that the aliens were meant as metaphors for the Americans in Iraq. The film even contains a line to the effect that "occupations always fail." I almost skipped it because it seemed so overtly political.

Sorry to change the topic. Or maybe not.

If you look at the original work by Wells, it doesn't take much squinting to see it as a critique of British occupation of India et al. Think "malaria."

But was Wells's "Red Weed" supposed to be cotton?

[Whistler]

Ah, nel!

Always wrong, always magnificent.

Yes, ax...British imperialism was the theme of the novel. Don't know about that pesky weed.

[anthriel]

sigh... an edited out hug from anthy

[halplm]

[Cerin]

nel, I think Faramond's comments earlier in the thread helped to parse the issues here.

Christians will feel the movie is blasphemous, they have every right and reason to oppose it on the grounds that it is historical bunk but may be accepted as truth by those not interested enough to inquire. I proposed the example of a blockbuster film predicated on the notion that homosexuality is a choice, and that perhaps the gay community would have an interest in people not believing that premise, and so would have an interest in people at least knowing that they do not consider that aspect of the film accurate. But perhaps that wouldn't bother you at all?

I think there would be similar sensitivity issues on the parts of any group whose religion was conveyed in an inaccurate (and to them blasphemous) manner to the general public.

The disparagements of the Catholic Church and a particular organization are a different matter. That amounts to defamation.

edit for clarity

[truehobbit]

Hobby, Faramond gave a link to the Wikipedia account above.

Thanks, yes - I cross-posted with Faramond - lol, this thread is insane!

[The Watcher]

Thanks so much for the reply, Cerin, and the summary!

What I'd gathered from what I heard about the contents is that its premise is that the church is this evil, conspirational organisation, bent on supressing the "truth" etc etc

hobby, I would say this is the main underlying theme of the book, aside from the specifics about Mary Magdalene, etc. The church repressed the real truths of Jesus to advance their own agenda.

I'm glad I got that right, and feel justified in my above assessment of the book.

So, um, who, in Mr Brown's opinion, are those descendents?

Guess the obvious, Hobby. The plot is EXTREMELY easy to figure out in the end.......

Let us just say it is one of the main characters..........

[yovargas]

Ah, there it is! This was really bugging me but I wasn't sure why. tp got right to it. So, um, just posting to say I agree with everything tp just said.

[Faramond]

nel: So, I'm left to wonder...are the only acceptable portrayals of Jesus those that assume the truth of Christianity?

Why would someone who doesn't accept the truth of Christianity want to portray Jesus in any way?

I'm saying they don't have a right to, I just wonder why? I'm not saying there aren't legitimate answer to this question either, but I think it's worth exploring what those could be.

Obviously you answered that question for yourself later in the post, but I want to make this question explicit.

[Windfola]

Quote:

If it were proved that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and had a child, would that diminish his teachings? Would it alter one iota of the Christian faith?

That would mean that the Biblical accounts of Jesus life and teachings are false, deliberately deceitful. That would indeed undermine the trustworthiness of the scriptures, which would be of enormous importance to those who view them as the Word of God.

I found this to be a very interesting exchange. I haven't read the book and haven't followed the hype, so my context on this issue is one of an outsider.

If the events of the book were proved true (not that I'm saying I believe that at all likely), isn't it really more accurate to say that that it would mean that the traditional way of thinking about the biblical accounts would be found false, but not the biblical accounts themselves?

It seems to me that what Christians have been taught to believe in their churches and in bible study etc. etc. and by "talking amongst themselves" over the past two millenia is what would actually be called into question. Or can someone point us to verses in the bible that are directly contradicted by the DaVinci Code's story of Jesus marrying Mary Magdelene?

It's very interesting to me that Christians are having such a strong reaction to this account of events, and I wonder whether they have examined to what degree their upset is a result of actual contradictions of scripture versus contradictions of the way they have traditionally been taught to think about scripture.

??

Anyway, hypothetically speaking, I'm not sure how the "trustworthiness" of scripture is at all called into question by the premise of this book.

[Ethel]

The disparagements of the Catholic Church and a particular organization are a different matter. That amounts to defamation.

I can't remember the book very well, but I have the impression that the defamation only applied to a certain fanatical group within the church. Am I wrong about that? I'd say the members of Opus Dei definitely have grounds for complaint (not legally, I don't think, but in the name of veracity.) That albino monk murderer was pretty over the top.

[yovargas]

nel: So, I'm left to wonder...are the only acceptable portrayals of Jesus those that assume the truth of Christianity?

Why would someone who doesn't accept the truth of Christianity want to portray Jesus in any way?

Because it's a really interesting story?

[halplm]

Nel,

There's a difference between thinking a religion is incorrect, and thinking it is a lie/conspiracy.

As much as people would like to deny it, Christianity, as an extention of Judaism, is a religion most extensively rooted in HISTORY. To make the claim that that history has been falsified and altered is to make the claim that rational belief in Christianity is impossible.

This goes further than simply saying you don't believe as I do. It is saying I am a delusional fool or a liar.

[Faramond]

nel: So, I'm left to wonder...are the only acceptable portrayals of Jesus those that assume the truth of Christianity?

Why would someone who doesn't accept the truth of Christianity want to portray Jesus in any way?

Because it's a really interesting story?

Yes, that's a possible reason. Is that Dan Brown's reason?

I ask because I have no idea.

[yovargas]

I would bet that, at least, it's Ron Howard's reason.