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

[anthriel]

I you guys.


Sorry if that's a bit out of topic, but it's so true.

[halplm]

Like I said, VtF, hedging their bets...

That is the conversation that really got to me, though. (my craw was quite jammed up). It was very clear that this whole conspiracy was about giving the church power, and making Jesus into the figure he needed to be to solidify that power, under a pagan ruler... I mean, that's just absurd...

And Langdon made it quite clear at the end of the movie... the choice was to "destroy faith" (by exposing the conspiracy) or "renew it" (by um... doing nothing)... so they were basically saying the conspiracy proved christianity was a false religion...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

hal, my interpretation was very different. The sense that I got from the ending was a reaffirmation of the value of faith, and the ultimate danger in destroying faith. That doesn't prove that Christianity is a false religion; quite the opposite: it affirms the core value of faith in Christ's divinity and His teachings. In my opinion, the ultimate message of the ending is that Christianity transcends rational thought, and that even if the "conspiracy" is "true" it does NOT supersede those core values.

But (as we already well know) my perspective is very different then yours.

[vison]

Last night Oliver Stone's "JFK" was on TV. I haven't seen the movie and didn't watch it last night, only about one minute where some guy was telling Kevin Costner something, but it hit me that this is the same kind of thing as TDVC.

Many, many people doubt the "official" story of JFK's assassination, and many, many theories abound on the subject.

Correct me, please, if I'm wrong, but I understand that Stone's movie, and Stone himself, believe this movie version is close to "the truth"? Does this movie not make terrible accusations against people like LBJ?

I, myself, think Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, I have never even for one second believed in any conspiracy. Yet I have heard so many "facts" put forth by people who really ought to know better, people with axes to grind, people who think the entire power structure of the US is hopelessly corrupt, and moreover that this corrupt power structure murdered JFK and even brought down the Two Towers in 2001.

Whatever, guys.

But conspiracy theories are as common as dog poop. I think they're ridiculous, but there are many who don't.

[anthriel]

that Christianity transcends rational thought

Hmmm. Does this sentence imply that believing in Christ as divine is irrational?

Sorry! Sorry! I couldn't help myself...


Actually, I see your point. Although I might phrase it as "Christianity transcends natural thought".

There is much about the story of Christ that IS natural... he got mad, he got sad, he got hungry and lonely and worried... these are the things that bind me to HIM in such a bittersweet way. He felt my pain, y'know? God as man. It's a very cool concept.

But I believe he was also supernatural, and that is the part where faith comes in. You can't prove it by the laws of nature, it is not some political gambit to be voted upon; it just is something that you feel and believe.

To present it as part of a parcel of fiction being forced upon the unwitting sheep of humanity is a thought that jams up the craw of folks who hold it to be true... no matter which human is voting on what.

Still in all, it doesn't bother me that much. It is just a book, and lots of stuff in it was entertaining, and lots of stuff in it was silly, and it was a pretty reasonable weekend special no-brainer yarn. If I saw something in it that gave me pause (and I did remember that correctly! Wow, I was getting concerned, there) so what. Lots of people didn't notice it at all, or interpreted it differently than I did.

I'm glad we all have different perspectives, and yet can express them so civilly. This is all good!

[Jnyusa]

Alatar and tinwë have got it right, I believe. The Council of Nicea did reject a passle of religious texts as no longer orthodox, but none of those texts to my knowledge claimed that Jesus and Mary Magdelene were married. I don't believe there is any historical support for the idea that Magdalene's role was minimized because it interfered with Jesus's divinity.

My understanding of the Council of Nicea has always been that they sorted among conflicting religious claims of the time as to what consitututed orthodoxy and what would henceforth constitute heresy, and they established the New Testament canon. But they didn't invent anything that was not already in the mainstream.

I also did not get from the book a rejection of Jesus' divinity, but I think that those who are vested in his divinity may be more sensitive to such contradiction than I would be. There's a lot of stuff that would go right over my head but might strike a devout Chrisian as pretty radical.

(No intention of seeing the movie, btw. We saw X-Men III this afternoon and it was goooooood. )

Jn

eta: sorry - I seem to have missed this page where the conversation evolved a bit. My post is regarding the stuff on the previous page

[JewelSong]

I also did not get from the book a rejection of Jesus' divinity, but I think that those who are vested in his divinity may be more sensitive to such contradiction than I would be. There's a lot of stuff that would go right over my head but might strike a devout Chrisian as pretty radical.

I'm a Christian. Some might say I was devout. The theses presented in the book struck me as kinda interesting at best and downright silly at worst.

I thought the end was a huge let-down, to be honest. The Grail is never really found - instead Brown goes off on this tangent about the Goddess and the feminine and all...something about something blah blah blah. I think he was trying to make some sort of point about the Divine being both male and female and the church doing its best to cover up and hide the feminine. Which has some basis in fact. But Brown is such a mediocre writer, it doesn't really come across. IMHO.

When I asked my daughter (who said the movie was the "worst she had ever seen") about how the supposed "church-bashing" came across, she responded, "They didn't even do that well!"

[Democritus]

hal, my interpretation was very different. The sense that I got from the ending was a reaffirmation of the value of faith, and the ultimate danger in destroying faith. That doesn't prove that Christianity is a false religion; quite the opposite: it affirms the core value of faith in Christ's divinity and His teachings. In my opinion, the ultimate message of the ending is that Christianity transcends rational thought, and that even if the "conspiracy" is "true" it does NOT supersede those core values.

But (as we already well know) my perspective is very different then yours.

My opinion on the ending is different again, it was obviously a load of codswallop designed to placate reactionary Catholics and make an already very bland, "safe" movie even blander. If you think that there is value in faith and an "ultimate danger" in destroying faith then that is fine, but the film is only justified in tacking that conclusion onto the end of the film if a decent argument (or indeed any kind of argument) on the merits of faith vs non-faith had been made in the film up to that point. Since that clearly wasn't the case it (a) fails to convince anyone but the already converted and (b) reeks of the placatory, PC Tag-On that it so clearly was.

[Parmamaite]

Well, I haven’t seen the movie, but I did read the book again (all of this discussion peaked my interest - it took me all of four days to read it this time, compared to the two months it took me to claw my way through Foucault’s Pendulum. Not sure what that says about me, in fact I don’t really want to know).

I'll put Foucault's Pendulum on my "to read" list.

[anthriel]

I also did not get from the book a rejection of Jesus' divinity, but I think that those who are vested in his divinity may be more sensitive to such contradiction than I would be.

Exactly, Jn. Although I did not see it as necessarily a rejection of Christ's divinity... more of a way to undermine the concept of his divinity by presenting it as a cold-hearted sales point foisted upon the maleable masses.

One thing I have learned by being involved in these messageboards is how some things look so different to different people, based on their backgrounds and what they are "vested" in.


It's been a real growth opportunity for me.

[Lidless]

Reading through this thread, it strikes me that for those of us who do not have a prescribed religion, who do not have a published faith, we note that the similarities between DVC and the Bible, Edda, Koran, whatever, are more commonplace than one might suppose.

For example, although it has been proved that the Priory Of Sion is a recent artifact and not a real organisation stretching back hundreds of years, there is still more prima facie evidence for it than three people, yes, just three people, who claim they saw Jesus after he died, and yet this is claimed as fact by many.

Ultimately, what you believe is what you believe. It may seem frustrating to one camp that they can see the preposterousness of another's position and cannot 'get through to them' (and this thread proves that), but just a little introspection would show that the reason they are not getting through to them is that their own house is also built on sand, not facts.

Faith vs faith - the most futile of conflicts.

Last week on Anguilla, I was woken up at 7:30am by some serious shouting from the neighboring apartment. They even had their door open. I banged on the wall, and it toned down - just - but still very loud.

Donning clothes, I went next door and was confronted by a group of four people holding hands in a circle with heads bowed - obviously a prayer type deal. I bit my lip and returned to my apartment.

Whilst I had '20-20' hearing, I discovered that the head of the family was shouting to God. Not asking, but giving orders. Barking them actually. "Bless this family! Watch over this family!" Now I didn't say the obvious - something obvious to this ex-Christian. One is supposed to be humble towards God. One is supposed to be meek. One certainly doesn't need to shout. God can hear a thought, never mind a whisper.

Should I have said something? No, of course not. I realised that this is what works for her. This is what gets her through the day and helps to cope with the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune that life throws her way. It even turned out she was a pastor from Jamaica.

I try and live my life (lapsing occassionally like any mortal) according to most of the Christian Code. It's a good code, just like most successful religions. It works in the social intercourse. It's just that I doubt the CV of the messenger.

And ultimately, that's what DVC said at the end.

[JewelSong]

I discovered that the head of the family was shouting to God. Not asking, but giving orders. Barking them actually. "Bless this family! Watch over this family!" Now I didn't say the obvious - something obvious to this ex-Christian. One is supposed to be humble towards God. One is supposed to be meek. One certainly doesn't need to shout. God can hear a thought, never mind a whisper..

Heh. We have a number of people from the Islands who are members of the (very diverse) little church I attend. And a couple of them pray just like this. "God, you will talk to my son! You will get him to come to church where he belongs! You need to talk to him right now!"

It really struck me the first time I heard it...I pictured God kind of cowering in a corner when confronted by one of these ladies, going, "Yes, yes, okay! I'll do it! Now stop yelling at me, okay?"

I think it has to do with the perceived remoteness or closeness of God. To these ladies, God is a member of the family and you can take him to task when need be. Well, you know, why not? God can certainly take it, can't he?

Anyway, sorry to derail the thread...but I do like to hear stories like this!

[Alatar]

From an interview with Ian McKellen.

Q: Were you one of the umpteen million people who read "Da Vinci Code" early on?

IAN MCKELLEN: No, no. It's difficult to remember now, but I think I'd heard of it. I must have. I think I even knew a little about what it was about perhaps, but no, I didn't read it. I read it after I'd read the script, which is the way rather to do it, because it's a foolish actor who takes a part on the basis of the material on which the movie is based.

Q: Why did the book become the best seller of best sellers?

MCKELLEN: He landed on a story that is genuinely fascinating. It's the stuff of the Discovery Channel, isn't it? What is the Holy Grail? Well, anyone can sit through an hour and a half of that on TV, even though you know at the end you're not going to know the answer. But he gives you the answer! Dan Brown tells you what the Holy Grail is. As he goes along page by page, you just get caught up in it, and you begin to believe it. By the end, such is the wizardry of the storytelling, you believe something that if you were told it at the outset, you would say, "Rubbish."

Q: The book's suppositions about ancient secrets of Christianity certainly helped.

MCKELLEN: Of course, the implication at the end of it all is that he's uncovered something about an age-old institution and found it to be not quite what it says it is. The Catholic Church. I'm all for these old institutions being constantly challenged and having question marks thrown at them. I don't think they get asked to explain themselves often enough, so I don't think it's appropriate for them to get too upset when someone writes a thriller which raises a few questionable assertions about Catholicism. Because the believers are going to remain believers, and the skeptics are going to remain skeptical.

I think the world is pretty much not changed because of "Da Vinci Code," other than people who have had an awful good time reading it. I don't think it was Dan Brown's intention to bring down the Vatican.

[Lidless]

Protests against Life Of Brian were organised based on its perceived blasphemy, not the least of which because the film ends with a comical song sung by the victims of a mass crucifixion ("Always Look on the Bright Side of Life").

Ironically, this song was later re-released with great success, after being sung by British football fans. The increase in popularity, though, became evident in 1982 during the Falklands War when British sailors, injured in an Argentine attack, started singing it. Indeed, many people have come to see the song as a life-affirming ode to optimism.

On its initial release in the UK, the film was banned by several town councils (some of which had no cinemas within their boundaries). The film was also banned for eight years in the Republic of Ireland and for a year in Norway (it was marketed in Sweden as 'the movie that is so funny, it was banned in Norway!'). The film was not released in Italy until 1990, eleven years after it was made. The film was not shown in Jersey until 2001. The Bailiff of Jersey wanted it to be watched only by adults, even though the BBFC rated it suitable for those aged 14 or over.

Accusations of blasphemy also centred on an off-the-cuff comment by Eric Idle who, when asked about the name of the Pythons' forthcoming feature before it had been made, replied "Jesus Christ: Lust For Glory". It has been variously reported, however, that this idea was merely one of a number abandoned at an early brain-storming stage, mainly when it became clear that a parody of Jesus' life just would not work or, as the Pythons put it, 'we discovered (after extensive research) that Jesus's ways are unknockable'.

The focus shifted to a separate individual born at a similar time, and a legend was born. When Jesus does appear in the film (as he does on two occasions — in the stable and speaking the Beatitudes ( Matt 5:1-48 ), he is portrayed according to Christian beliefs. The comedy only begins when members of the crowd mishear his statement 'Blessed are the Peacemakers...' ('I think he said, "blessed are the cheesemakers"'; also, later, there is some debate on whether the 'Greek' should inherit the Earth).

Mary Whitehouse and other campaigners launched waves of leaflets and picketing at and around cinemas that showed the film, ironically boosting the publicity. Leaflets suggesting that the Wise Men would not have approached the wrong stable (as they do in the opening of the film), and similar arguments are documented in the Robert Hewison book Monty Python: The Case Against.

Shortly after the film was released, Cleese and Palin engaged in a debate over it on the BBC2 discussion programme Friday Night, Saturday Morning, in which Malcolm Muggeridge and the Bishop of Southwark put the case against the film. Cleese has frequently said that he enjoyed the debate, since he felt that the film was 'completely intellectually defensible'. (The debate itself was then sent up, the following week, in a classic sketch from Not the Nine O'Clock News, entitled "General Synod's Life Of Christ".)

For their part, the Pythons contend on the DVD commentary that the film is heretical because it lampoons the practices of modern organised religion, but does not blasphemously lampoon the God that Christians worship.

[Alatar]

Da Vinci Defies Critics, Protests

Controversy and bad reviews didn't stop Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code from debuting on the May 19 weekend with the largest domestic box office of the year, taking in about $77 million, the Associated Press reported. The film's three-day opening worldwide take was even better: $224 million, second only to Star Wars: Episode III—Revenge of the Sith. The film also was the best domestic opening for both star Tom Hanks and director Howard.

Over the Hedge, meanwhile, opened in second place for the weekend, with $37.2 million in domestic box-office receipts.

The Da Vinci Code, based on Dan Brown's best-seller, received mixed reviews, and protesters picketed outside a number of theaters, upset over the story's suggestion that Jesus Christ was married and had a child. But the controversy did little to deter moviegoers, who packed theaters in almost every country the film debuted, the AP reported.

[Lidless]

It's been out only 10 days and it's already the 56th highest grossing film of all time worldwide with USD 462m (USD 144m US).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It's interesting to see that while it had the expected steep drop-off in the U.S. market, it did not in the world wide market, and actually exceeded X-Men III's totals.

[axordil]

Part of that was probably due to later release dates. It's not uncommon for films to come out a week or two later (or even mmore!) in some world markets than they do in the US and the other "primary" markets.

[Lidless]

Strangely enough, the US were one of the latter countries to get both movies.

The Da Vinci Code was released worldwide between 18-19 May (the US on the 19th). The only later exceptions are/were Japan (20th) and Bahrain and Kuwait (June).

Three countries had a release date of the 17th, two days before the US: France, Belgium and Switzerland - all with a significant French speaking population.

Also, one should take into account that Christians are a minority group in the world.



For X Men III, it had already been released in most countries between the 22nd and the 25th - the US opened on the 26th. The only countries still waiting are India (June 2nd), Taiwan (June 16th) and Japan (Sept 16th)

Research, Ax! Research!




By the way, I found this wonderful gem on McKellen's Q&A website which I empathise with completely.

Q: I saw an interview with the president of the Catholic League stating that if Ron Howard did not put a disclaimer before The Da Vinci Code the Catholic League would take action. Do you know if Ron Howard or Sony Pictures intend to put a disclaimer before the film?

A: Before telling storytellers to extrapolate fact from fiction, and disentangle them from myth, perhaps the League should examine its own literary source ("Holy"' or not) which is a right old mix of history, imagination, poetry, metaphor and prophesy. Room for a disclaimer there perhaps.

[halplm]

Yes, given how good of an actor Sir Ian is, his opinions certainly carry more weight than most...