Anyone see the DaVinci code?? Did they tiptoe around

[adigal]

the religious controversy???

Just wondering how they handled it.

[Up2Late]

1. Every review I've heard says that it's lousy.

I have no interest in seeing it, and now even less.

[Scoody Boo]

10. I never mix my movies and politics or religion.

I spend my money on a movie to be entertained. This movie may be anti-Catholicism or anti-Christian (I am an agnostic so it should in someway appeal to me) but it sounds like a dud so I won't see it.

If a movie was made exposing Bush for what he is but was a real chore to sit through, I would skip it. If it was a rip roaring good time, I would go. I seek entertainment from my entertainment dollars.

[hwmnbn]

15. Hi Scoody Boo, .....

welcome to DU! :hi:

[lovuian]

79. Well you will miss an Excellent movie

It was well acted the scenery was magnificant.

Ron Howard's ending was fantastic ...

Sorry you will miss the gorgeous work of art...

People have to do what makes them comfortable

I'm not afraid...

[alittlelark]

2. No tiptoing.... they weren't able to go into much detail, but

the movie hit most or all of the controversial issues dead-on.

It was well worth seeing (but I ate too much popcorn - belch).

[madaboutharry]

3. Rotten Tomatoes.com has it

rated at 16%. That is really rotten! I don't usually listen to film critics, but those reviews are god awful. (no pun intended)

[momster]

29. What did they see?

I saw an enjoyable chase movie, with a couple of good startle moments and a few chuckles. The core plot device was no stupider than, oh, a treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence or a group of terrorists taking over Air Force One. I wasn't looking for the Holy Grail of summer movies (tee-hee) and I didn't find it. Just a solid two hours of entertainment after a tough day. I do agree that it ran 20 minutes too long, but most movies do these days. Maybe the critics were looking for some great epic or the final evidence of what Dan Brown contended in his novel. Maybe they were disappointed which is why they panned it. As for the controversy -- Hellboy, Constantine, or Van Helsing had more twisted religious dogma than this. This is just as much a fantasy as any of those. The Church and the Christians should just relax. It'll be forgotten by the Autumn.

[still_one]

54. If you liked the book you will like the movie

it is as simple as that

it was a very good rendition of the book

[wallybarron]

70. Agreed

It was a fun movie. Enjoyable couple of hours.

[FlaGranny]

69. I have found that 99 percent of the time

that film critics and I are on totally different wavelengths. I actually liked many of the movies they say are the worst of all time and I've actually hated many of the ones they consider best of all time.
I do agree with them on a few of them - I did, in fact, hate Cleopatra with Elizabeth Taylor, I also hated "A Star is Born" but the critics certainly didn't hate that one.

[Poppyseedman]

4. The movie is based on a fictional book !!!

Which religious controversy??? I can think of several

[adigal]

5. Many fundamentalist Christians and Catholics I know

feel that the movie is evil, a blasphemy, because it suggests that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. My Catholic friend (and we are Catholic) was shocked that we plan to see it.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. Tell them to prove that he wasn't... as if it would be a sin or sumpin.

[Roland99]

16. Can't wait to hear the "can't prove a negative" from the far-right...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

18. Alright then, tell them to prove that he was single beyond a shadow

of a doubt.

[Roland99]

21. And they can't use the Bible....at all.

;)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

22. Nope, no cheating on the test, no looking at your neighbor's

test paper....

[Roland99]

24. No divine intervention either

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

60. Not an open book test.

lol

[Poppyseedman]

7. Evil may be a strong word, but to a Christian, I can certainly

understand why a they would think the film is blasphemy.

Since the resurrection of Christ is the core fundamental of the faith, the fact that Jesus got married and had children might seem a tab offensive. You think ?

[LostinVA]

35. WHY would it be offensive???

I taught CCD for years, studied theology and Koine Greek in college, and don't get this. The point of Jesus being the Christ is his Resurrection. There is NOTHING in either the Bible or Catholic doctrine that would have Jesus' marriage/widowerhood negate his divineness. Nothing. No way this has anything to do with the "core fundamental of faith."

IF Jesus existed, he was either married or widowered. He would have been a freak, a pariah, an exile of his community if he wasn't... instead of a charismatic rabbi with a large group of followers.

[JVS]

45. The issue of whether Jesus was a freak, pariah, and exile is open

You don't end up on a cross for fitting in! Also, from what I understand, his following was not large until after Pentecost where Peter spoke in toungues and thousands heard and were converted.

There is stuff in the bible against marriage

From 1st Corinthians 7:
1Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
...
8But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.
9But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.


It seems that the gist is, be celibate, but if you can't then at least get married.

Kind of similar to how parents today might tell their teenagers not to have sex, but if you're going to anyway use a condom.

If marriage is considered a crutch for those unable to "contain themselves", then it is not surprising that the suggestion that Jesus Christ, the perfect one, would need this crutch could be offensive to some christians.

[BuelahWitch]

59. But that was written by Paul, not Jesus

Paul was gay, that's why he didn't want to touch a woman.

[JVS]

77. Jesus never wrote anything.

And Paul wasn't talking about his preferences, he was giving advice to the Corinthians (and the Church considers itself to be addressed as a whole) that they shouldn't marry if possible.

[radio4progressives]

82. Paul was also a misogynist and promoted misogyny

I haven't read the Bible, Paul's letters to the Corinthians was required reading in College and I that was the most fundemental revelation of how and why misogyny was allowed to be promoted, and how and why Women's status as nothing more than chattel was cultivated in Christianiaty.

I think next to excerpts of Levitcus that I've read, Pauls letters have got be the most evil doctrines ever written in the name of "Christianity". I think that's why I have such a visceral reaction to organized religion in general and "Christianity" as promoted by the establishment in this country with highly negative feelings.

[BuelahWitch]

61. Thank you for bringing out the point about resurrection

Why does marriage take away his divinity? It's not like he was a pimp on the south side of Jerusalem or something...

[radio4progressives]

47. Not to me. I love the Notion that Jesus Married Magdalin and had Kids

Makes me think more of the guy...

[recoveringrepublican]

76. I'd kind of like that also

I don't believe in organized Christianity, though I believe Christ is my Savior. So any Church's take on any issue really doesn't concern me. I believe He was sent to live as a man. What would be more human than marrying and having some rug rats? That's the problem with this for other Christians, not that he may have married, but that he may have had sex, which is evil don't you know. sigh.....

[CTyankee]

80. but what I don't get is: why do we need to be saved anyway?

Unless you believe the whole Garden of Eden thing (which I find far fetched to say the least), why do we need a "savior"? What are we being saved from? And what caused us our need to be saved?

[recoveringrepublican]

75. I'm a Christian and wasn't offended. The book kept me interested enough

that I went on to read more books on various subjects raised in Dan Brown's books. One was a fictional (obviously) tale of what Mary Magdalene's life may have been like in the era. My Faith hasn't wavered one bit. One either has faith or they don't, if a simple movie sways someone their Faith most likely wasn't real anyway.

Wouldn't really matter to me if Jesus married and had children anyway.

[ClintonTyree]

8. Funny.....that's exactly the way I feel about fundies and catholics.

That they're evil, I mean. :evilgrin:

[LiberalPartisan]

11. I enjoyed the book and the film AND I'm Catholic

Anyone who finds DVC offensive has a very brittle Faith.

[adigal]

57. You hit the nail on the head, but isn't the right wing like that

about everything?? No dissension, no questioning, just obey Father or the President because they know best.

[Squatch]

13. Well, as a person who seriously considered the priesthood...

I am really looking forward to this film.

The book was a good and energetic read. At no time during my reading of the book was my faith in jeopardy. Thankfully, I have enough brain cells in my head to realize what's false and what's true.

[knitter4democracy]

73. See? We can think critically and still be Christians.

:D Thanks for making that point.

I read Master and Margarita every Lent (well, I didn't this year, but it was a first). It hasn't jeopardized my faith, just given me stuff to think about.

[mmonk]

42. The Catholic Church

was mainly concerned with the portrayals of the Church I believe.

[radio4progressives]

49. Yes. Not really Concerned with Faith, Just the Supremacy of the Church

that's all they care about, because that's what's needed to keep their billions of $$$$ to keep slabbing more Gold on the roof top of those old catherdrals, don't ya know.

[knitter4democracy]

72. Doesn't bother me.

I grew up evangelical and am now Eastern Orthodox.

I haven't read the book, and I'm not going to see the movie. It's just not something I'm all that interested in, frankly. I don't think it's blasphemy or anything like that--it's simply fiction.

Now, a modernized movie version of the Handmaid's Tale--that, I would see.

[ClintonTyree]

9. There's as much supporting evidence..........

for "The Da Vinci Code" being real as there is for "The Bible". Most people don't see it that way though. They'll believe in "The Bible" without ever questioning it's authenticity. Why? :shrug:

[Poppyseedman]

19. Huh ?

Claiming there is the same supporting evidence for the Bible as for "Da Vinci Code" fictional work is ridiculous and I might add ignorant.

You either have no idea what you are posting about or posting purely for flame baiting.

I think the later

[ClintonTyree]

25. OK.........

I want you to send me all of the empirical evidence that exists supporting the Bible as truth. I'll be waiting.

Ignorant? I'm not the one who believes in fairy tales. :rofl:

[Poppyseedman]

28. Your post said there was as much supporting evidence

for the Da Vinci Code as there was for the Bible not evidence the Bible is truth.

I could send you literally realms of links of solid peer reviewed verified empirical evidence that the books written in the Bible are in fact written by real men and women, evidence based on historically documented "other than biblical" sources. Apologetics is a word you might want to look up.

You can't find more than a few kook links to back up your claim there is actually evidence for the premise of the DVC

Now the matter of truth is an entirely different matter.

[ClintonTyree]

34. The point I was trying to make.........

was that NOT that "The Da Vinci Code" is true (I'm well aware that it's a book of fiction) but that "The Bible" is a book of fiction as well.
As for your "peer reviewed" evidence, "written by real men and women".......that means nothing. "The Bible" is supposed to be the word of god, not men and women writing about the supposed word of god.. Face it, there is no empirical evidence supporting "The Bible". It's as much a work of fiction as, "The Da Vinci Code". All you have is belief, a very dubious quality.
I don't want to get into a flame war, I'm done discussing it. Peace. :)

[LostinVA]

38. Having studied this very thing, I can tell you you;re mistaken

Of course real people wrote the Bible... who the heck else would have written it -- a computer? But, there is nothing backing up about 99% of what we know as the OT and the NT. Two good layman books: "Don't KNow Much about the Bible" and "Misquoting Jesus." Very good, well-researched books both written by respectful, but not blinded, Christians.

As I said, it's a matter of faith, not fact. There's nothing wrong with that at all. Just as I have no facts to back up some of my beliefs -- only faith.

[ldf]

40. uh, lets see....

"links of solid peer reviewed"

you mean people who all believe the same thing?

"verified empirical evidence"

you mean verified, anywhere from 70 to 300 years AFTER the alleged life of christ? (don't forget, no recordings, tapes, camcorders, tivo.) not only have they verified his existence, they know, word for word, what he said on the mount. can you tell me what YOU said, word for word, one week ago?

"written by real men and women"

well, duh! or ghosts? of course "men and women" (women?) wrote it, 70 to 300 years after the fact. how? because they were "divinely inspired". that means THEY WERE TOLD WHAT TO WRITE! by "god"? hardly, but by controllers who knew a good scam when they saw one.

it's worked pretty well, hasn't it?

:evilgrin:

[Arugula Latte]

83. Poppyseedman, you think Noah really took two of every animal on Earth?

And one man and one woman existed in a Garden no more than 6,000 years ago? And from their presumably incestuous coupling, humanity arose?

:rofl:

... And that's not fiction?

[LostinVA]

36. You're correct, Clinton.

There is zero, primary evidence supporting the life and times of Joshua ben Joseph. It is a matter of faith, not fact or history.

THis is not an anti-Christian screed, so no flames. Everyone in my life I love is a Christian. A REAL Christian. My belief, however, based on something other than faith, is that Jesus did not exist. I respect your beliefs, so please respect mine.

[papau]

33. Well said - but you will find the I don't have to prove anything but can

assert anything standard response is all you will get plus a demand that you pull together the syllabuses for 25 or 30 Seminary courses and email that plus notes back to the atheist.

Having a real discussion is not possible IMHO - and indeed on DU just about every thread that goes within a mile of a religious topic, and even threads having nothing to do with religion, is destroyed by the same technique - but since we allow high-jacking of threads, even on topics not part of the forum, it is permitted. If you like getting back cut and past thoughts from easily identified atheist sites, and you want to try to reason rather than respond with the stock responses from the Christian/theist sites to those atheist points, I wish you luck.

:toast:

:-)

[radio4progressives]

50. Huh?

Which bible are you talking about anyway?

[CJCRANE]

65. There is no such thing as THE Bible

just different versions, translations and interpretations.

[mikelewis]

43. I question it's authenticity all the time and yet I still believe...

If the Bible can't stand up to scrutiny, what good is it? You can't afford to walk around blind in your faith. Intelligence and Faith are what should guide my decisions and it'd be dangerous to shut my eyes and try to navigate through life. I believe Jesus is the Son of God. I believe he was sent here by God to deliver a message. I also firmly believe we've spent the last 2000 years royally fucking it up.

The questions I have about the Bible are:
1)Did the story of Jesus evolve out of folklore like King Aurthur or Robin Hood? If it did, would that necessarily invalidate the message? Would that be reason enough to cast aside my faith in what I believe to be true Good?

2)What personal biases filtered into the writing of the Gospels? I'm not saying the Disciples would have been intentionally deceitful but I often wonder about their recollection of events and their ability to convey in writing the absolute truth. I know if I got to spend a few hours hanging out with Jesus at that time, I'd want to write about it. I also know I wouldn't remember everything exactly the way it happened no matter how much I tried.

3)If the Bible isn't real, does that mean the Devil isn't real? If so, then what is that wicked force that has seized our Government and caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people all over the world. This sort of wickedness is supernatural in nature and unnatural in spirit, yet it exists. There is an evil force behind these Neocons in our government; there is some well from which they all derive their inspiration and draw their power. If it's not the Devil behind this madness, then what is it? If it is the Devil and there's no God, wouldn't that make this Hell? If this is Hell, would you like to buy some ice water?

4)Is the Bible some dark and sinister plot to force me into submitting to a brainwashed civility toward other humans or is it a dark and sinister plot to rid me of every free penny it can find? Is it merely a complete deception like Millie Vanillie, Jeff Gannon or 9/11; some clever ruse devised to manipulate my feeble malleable mind?

So yes, I question its authenticity, why not? It still seems more likely that the story is as true as it can be and it's about as close to God as we may ever get. That's just my take on it, of course. You are free to develop any philosophy you choose but let this serve as a reminder to us both...


HORATIO
O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

HAMLET
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[radio4progressives]

51. Do people of Faith actually "believe" IN the Bible or in God's Teachings?

I don't get it. The Bible is a collection of books written by who and translated by who? and when? How much of the Bible has to do with Jesus? What do people mean when they say the believe IN the Bible?

How could people Believe IN a body of works that are interpretations of humans with various agendas?

[CJCRANE]

68. I always

wonder how many fundamentalist christians have read the Bible from cover to cover?

For instance, what do they think of Ezekiel's visions, are the laws of Leviticus applicable the present day etc?

[radio4progressives]

81. My sister is a fundie..

says she meets with a bible study group once (or more times)a week and that she's all about "God Guns and Country"...

I don't actually have conversations with her, we spoke during Katrina because we have family in Biloxi and Golfport Mississippi and that's the last time we talked.

I wanted to ask her where in the Bible is "God Guns and Country" mentioned, but I didn't have the energy for her response, and just focused on the well being of our shared family members instead.

The little I have read of the Bible were so full of puzzling inconsistencies and weird assertions - that I simply have never been interested in trying to flesh it out. Eventually at around the age of 12 (that was over 4 decades ago) I decided that the Bible was written by a bunch of old men who had some sort of weird agenda that had nothing to do with the teachings of God or Christ.

It still doesn't matter to me if my perceptions were juvenile, pedestrian. I believe now as I did then, that faith is a deeply personal experience and whatever that experience brings to each individual is the only thing that really matters.

All this too say, i have no idea what visions Ezekiel held or expressed, but i have read enough of Leviticus (by virtue of excerpts) in context of political discussions etc.. to point to that very thing that says to me, no Prince of Peace and Love would ever support such evil ideas.

[mikelewis]

85. I think Ezekiel was getting his visions of God from a magic mushroom...

"still some survivors shall be left in it who will bring out sons and daughters; when they come out to you, you shall see their conduct and their actions and be consoled regarding the evil I have brought on Jerusalem (all that I have brought upon it)."

The Pharisee and the Scribes accused Jesus of drawing on the Devil's power. But Jesus said that his power to cast out Demons derived from God not the Devil. He said that the Devil cannot cast himself out because he'd be working against himself and a house divided against itself cannot stand. So which one is right about God? Is it Jesus who was right? If not, wouldn't God be using Evil to do good?

However, on the other hand. Jesus also likened the Kingdom of Heaven to a field of wheat; where a farmer plants wheat only to have his crops spoiled with weeds by an enemy. The farmer makes the decision to let the weeds grow to save the wheat. In Ezekiel's vision, God is chopping down the weeds around the wheat. At the very least, this would signify a drastic change in divine policy. If Ezekiel's vision is a true vision of God and his wrath; what are we to think about Jesus's message, especially since Jesus was truly God incarnate?

"When I have wreaked my fury upon you I will cease to be jealous of you, I will be quiet and no longer vexed." How can God be jealous of Man? These visions are clearly tainted by Ezekiel's Republican bias. God does not murder people, people murder people. God does not wreak vengeance on people, he just leaves them to live without his presence. God is not petty and jealous, people are, so clearly these visions, if from God, were not written by God. I'm sure Ezekiel had a vision of God but I wonder if these visions were more of a reflection of his own anger at what he considered the sinfulness of the Jewish people. The best modern day equivalent of Ezekiel would be Pat Robertson praying for God to send a hurricane to Miami to kill gays. Ezekiel sought to instill Fear of God to force the people to live the way he thought they should live. God doesn't do shit like that.

As for Leviticus, it's pretty much just the rules set up by the church at that time. Each law served a purpose but were hardly based on the Rule of Law. God didn't hand down these laws like he did the Commandments. These laws were "inspired by God" through the leaders of the Church. They claimed divine inspiration and then set about writing the "laws of God". They were attempting to create a utopian society based on their own personal ideology, what these learned men failed to realize is that Utopia can only be created by God. Only God has the power of creation, we create nothing, we only discover uses for what God has created and try to replicate his power as best we can. (Except art and music, art and music might be as close as we get to God's power of creation). Jesus talks at great length about such Pharisee and Hypocrites.

The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.
For they preach but they do not practice.
They tie up heavy burdens (hard to carry) and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.
All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.
They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.'
As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.
Do not be called 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah.
The greatest among you must be your servant.
Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves.
"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.'

Now you see why they nailed him to a cross and tried desperately to erase any trace of his existence? It's called the Old Testament for a reason. The Christian Church has brought a lot of old baggage with it by coupling the Old and New Testament. Christ was God coming down to clarify the meaning and origin of all these visions we'd been screwing up for thousands of years. He comes down as one of us in an attempt to connect to us in a way we'd understand and what does he get for his troubles? Nailed to a fucking Cross. Then we spend the next 2000 years trying our damnest to screw up his message yet again.

I am a Christian because I believe in God and his son Jesus Christ. I put my faith in them and them alone, no man can write anything that could convince me that there was any higher law than God. The Bible is flawed because it was written by Man but it is as close as a testament to God's nature as I've found. Not everything in that Book is Gospel, only the Gospels are Gospel. The rest is open for debate.

[Pacifist Patriot]

58. Not necessarily. It depends upon how you read it.

As a mytho-historical record of a group of people it's a fascinating library of truths. I may not be a Biblical literalist, a Jew or a Christian, but I cannot equate the books of the Bible with a popular contemporary work of fiction.

The myths people embrace to make sense of their world are not created in the same way a single author composes a novel.

[Dorian Gray]

67. What is the evidence that

the Da Vinci Code is authentic? There is really a Robert Langdon chasing around the world to crack codes? Oh, you meant the religious speculation in Da Vinci Code! I'd love to see this authentification! It sounds compelling.

[ClintonTyree]

74. As I stated........

there's as much empirical evidence that the Da Vinci Code is authentic as there is authentic evidence that the Bible is authentic. They're BOTH fiction but people choose to believe one yet not the other. Why? :shrug:

[Dorian Gray]

78. Faith. Teaching. Belief systems.

People often believe what they are taught. My ex was a huge conspiracy nut, and read Holy Blood, Holy Grail as though it was Gospel. I'm a relatively religious Catholic, and I read the Gospels as though they are Gospel! Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

[hwmnbn]

12. I liked the movie .......

It portrayed Catholicism as a patriarchal institution with a violent history of persecuting its detractors and lying to the faithful. That sounds about right.

There is a "secret society" called Opus Dei that is entrusted with suppressing any information about Jesus and Mary Magdalene's supposed marriage. Well it's not-so-secret anymore since Tweety did a show on them. They went into many other aspects that make the Catholic church "uncomfortable." That was cool.

Anyway I enjoyed the thriller/whodunnit aspect of the movie. It was about 20 minutes too long but overall, I recommend it. :thumbsup:

My two friends who read the book say the movie was better. They think Opie (Ron Howard) did a great job bringing this complex story to the screen.

[smirkymonkey]

31. I will see it just because it pisses off the religious right so very

much. I am going into it looking it as a "fun" movie, albeit a very controversial fun movie. People really need to relax about this whole thing. It's only a MOVIE!

[Obamarama]

14. I wish the holy rollers would just shut their pie holes for once....

If they are so strong in their faith, do they really believe a FICTIONAL movie is going to undermine their beliefs, or any other Christians' beliefs for that matter? The hyper-religious folks are really starting to work my last nerve.

[hwmnbn]

17. It's the Colbert effect .......

You know he's playing a fictional character, but he's exposing the truth.

This movie just suggests things, the rest is up to the reader/viewer.

[Dudley_DUright]

20. I just saw it today and this is my comment from another thread

My biggest complaint is that for a story that is suppose to decry the church's suppression of the "sacred feminine", they sure don't give the female lead much of a role in the solving the riddles of the grail quest. My wife Nell said exactly the same thing when we got home. The book give Sophie much more of a role than the movie does.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x211665#211727

[Pacifist Patriot]

63. That right there is enough to inspire me to skip it.

[Mandate My Ass]

23. Warning: spoilers included

No, they didn't at all tiptoe around the religious controversy, although I wish they (Dan Brown in particular) had not clobbered it in the manner he did because the simple truth would have been quite a bit more damaging.

I'm a recovering Catholic who believes Jesus was a mortal man who lived @ 2000 years ago. He was a prophet who was executed because he was political, not because of 30 pieces of silver, his immaculate conception or whatnot. The description of the Pharisees of his day matches spot on with the neocon republicans of our day. Proclaim loudly to anybody who will listen how pious you are, then stab anybody in the back you want, because they're weaker than you and hope nobody will find out.



I saw an A & E special once addressing the premise that Jesus had to have been a married man. They laid it out very methodically:

1) Jesus was a practicing member of the Jewish faith. In the Bible he was circumcised, brought to the Temple at 12 years of age etc. In those days, marriage was not optional to those who were practicing. Your parents picked your spouse when you were barely an adolescent. Failure to marry meant ostracism.

2) Only a practicing Jew would have been addressed with the title "rabbi." Since Jesus went from 12 to 30 in the Bible, he would have had to marry in between those ages to be accepted in any public forum.

3) Jesus openly kissed Mary Magdalene in public. That was only socially acceptable between spouses.

4) Mary Magdalene went to Jesus's tomb after his execution. Only a blood relative or spouse would have been allowed to be there.

The book and movie were all about pseudo religious hype and the grail legend. Jesus was executed because he was political.

The movie is all about the tension between the Priory of Scion and Opus Dei, those who want Jesus' immortality to be based on unquestioned divinity due to male monotheism and those who believe his immortality to be based on his trust in Mary Magdalene to spread the word because historically the male/female union was considered the only path to redemption.

There are some acceptable historical backflashes, explanations etc. but these are mostly based on hype.

If the Church is balking at this silly movie then they are telegraphing that there is something being revealed that they prefer wouldn't be.

On a side note, I thought Ron Howard improved on Dan Brown's book and Audrey Tautoo especially rose above the meager material that the book would have provided for her character.

[Pacifist Patriot]

62. Sadly the Pharisees have gotten a bit of a bad rep because of...

the New Testament. We should remember the texts used to learn about them were written by their critics. The only Pharisee of the era to leave a written record was Saul of Tarsus.

It's probably a bit like learning about 21st century American liberals by reading Coulter and ilk in 2000 years.

[robbedvoter]

26. No, but I saw a "debunking" on Sci-Fi channel - wingniuts foaming

at the mouth....Funniest parts - Opus Dei is benign, the templar knoghts were saintly - these were only two lies I could verify.
I didn't read the book, don't care about the movie - may be kitchy. But for making the lunatics angry - kudos from me - I hope it makes a shitload of money!

[nebenaube]

27. it's not the religion --- read the book!

Dan Brown did the same thing Orwell did... He explained how neuro-linguistic programming works, albiet from a different angle... It's how they sell the story.... Or any fiction for that matter!

[hyphenate]

30. I enjoyed it

As I didn't read the book, I don't know about controversy, but I must say I can understand why fundies, Catholics and other Christians are pretty horrified by the implications in it. Simply put, I relished the amount of doubt it offered.

It opens a lot of controversy to debate, and it gives me some satisfaction to argue some of the themes in it.

Funny, but I just started reading "Why I am not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell, which also puts a lot of doubt onto organized religion, and it's fueling some great debate material.

[UnityDem]

32. Protestors in front of my theater

about 10 thumpers carrying signs saying to boycott it because it was "blasphemous"....geez....it was just a movie.....I liked it....entertaining....well directed by Opie and well acted by Hanks & others.

[misternormal]

64. "The Last Temptation of Christ" was the same way...

There were tons of Christian protesters in front of theaters, calling it blasphemous... Not one of them had seen the movie... They were carrying out the orders of their particular clergy...

See the movie... Read the book... If One's faith is solid, it will not matter. I enjoyed it... it was a good story... fun time.

[freethought]

37. I went to see it this afternoon.

I think it followed the book reasonably well. As a movie I think it was OK, but not more than that.
The one thing I will say is that this was not the right kind of roll for Tom Hanks. The man can do a lot but he didn't seem to come across as a northeastern academic very well. I will give him credit for the effort though. I didn't particularly like Audrey Tatou, for some reason I thought her character was not as strong as the Sophie Neuveau in the novel.
No protesters were there. Theater was about 1/2 full. Nobody made any loud comments or protests during the film. I think most left the film trying to figure out what the fuss was about.
If you want to go see it, go ahead. It's a good way to kill 2+ hours, especially if you're up in the Northeast and its still raining. Just don't expect to be blown away by the film.

:popcorn: :shrug: :shrug: :popcorn:

[The Traveler]

39. The scholarship that Brown cites is

controversial and more than a little thin.

Still, the book made for a good read and it sure has prompted a lot of discussion. I plan on seeing it.

[Roland99]

41. Have you seen the DVD...The DaVinci Code Decoded?

Interviews the authors of the books Brown used in his research (Lincoln, Starbird, etc.)

Pretty intriguing and eye-opening.

[The Traveler]

44. I read Barbara Thiering's books

and a few others. Did some cross checking. There is no doubt that something heavy went down in the early days of Christianity, and that several vital principles got stomped on (like the feminine aspect of the divinity explored by early Christians). Still, their conclusions are based on speculative leaps with little external support in fact.

I think what is important about these writings is not that they might be right, but that it prompts people to consider the evolution of Christianity. I look at it today, and I regard the reported teachings of Jesus. It seems to me a vast gulf has emerged between the two. The person of faith is surrounded by pharisees these days ... and the contempt of Jesus for such is obvious.

How did this happen? What more can we learn about the true teaching? Does the teaching work, does it produce results for the individual that established power structures can never accept? These books make us ponder those questions.

I do not know those answers ... but believe they are worth the search.

[Cleita]

46. My local channel just interviewed movie goers coming

out from TDVC. They all said it was boring and they wouldn't see it again even when it comes on TV.

:shrug:

[lovuian]

48. I saw it to a sellout crowd and got applause at the end

there were a couple of people who walked out
A friend who went had a heckler
" Its just a cartoon"

My friend yelled back who'd ya like the best Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck
Everybody laughed...

It was an incredible movie... the critics are full of BS as USUAL

[savemefromdumbya]

52. seems that the media have had their orders to trash it

different than Narnia

[still_one]

55. same thing I was thinking

I just saw the movie, and it was one of the best adaptations of a book to a movie

I liked the book, and therefore I also liked the movie

[still_one]

53. just saw the movie, and it follows the book very well

If you liked the book you will like the movie

I am convienced that the critics were pressured by certain elements in the church to pan it

To answer your question, they handled it as the book handled it

I thought it was a good movie

[displacedtexan]

56. I waited in line an hour for the noon showing yesterday.

I found it to be an excellent adaptation of the novel, considering how
much background info had to be revealed while the plot
moved forward.

Ron Howard's direction was inspiring: the use of historical "ghost" images
of the people attending Newton's funeral while the main characters walked
down the aisle of the same church; the grainy quality of the "newsreel" footage
of historical events (like the church's persecution of women and the Knights Templar);
and the innovative camera angles.

As for the acting, Ian McKellan had me completely convinced that he needed those canes to walk,
and Hanks was pretty good... but a bit un-academic-looking on occasion.

But, Hey. It's a movie. Based on a novel. I left thinking that the self-flagellation and other
(it was made clear that these were extremists and that not all were/are wacko-zealots)
Opus Dei "facts," as well as the references to the Catholic church's oh, so human
historical votes on divinity, the trinity, and officially-sanctioned Bible books choices probably
freaked the church out most of all.

[Dorian Gray]

66. Yes.

I saw it yesterday. It was almost exactly like the book. But, it was boring, overacted, melodramatic, and really kind of bad. (I think the conspiracy stuff reads better than it plays out on screen.) What was supposed to seem complicated and genius (cracking the codes), just seemed ridiculously stupid. I was totally underwhelmed by the movie. The religious stuff was the least of this film's problems. I can't believe that this was the same Tom Hanks in Philadelphia.

[Jason9612]

71. The Da Vinci Code was very good

I liked it a lot, and I didn't even read the book. I liked it, and I could care less what any hardcore religious group does to protest it. If they don't like it, then DON'T GO SEE IT. Simple as that.

[osaMABUSh]

84. American Idol reviews The Da Vinci Code

Randy: It was just all right for me dude; started out fun but you kinda lost it at the end
Paula: Whatever Randy said...but I still love Tom Hanks and Opie
Simon: I prefer the Monty Python version but overall you did OK and I expect you will back next week

[Catherine Vincent]

86. I saw it tonight.

YAWN! :boring: