ROTTEN TOMATOES: It's Rally Time for "Da Vinci Code" Opponents as Vatican Urges Boycott Comments

It's Rally Time for "Da Vinci Code" Opponents as Vatican Urges Boycott

by Jen Yamato | May 03, 2006

Summary

While opposition to Ron Howard's blockbuster thriller "The Da Vinci Code" has been brewing for some time, another Vatican official has urged a boycott of the film; with only weeks to go, will Catholics moviegoers heed the call? Back to Article

(1-61 of 61 posts) | Reply

SozeStrangelove writes:
on May 03 2006 02:01 PM

[b]Ouch![/b]
From Variety: "On Friday, papal insider Archbishop Angelo Amato denounced the book as "stridently anti-Christian" as well as "full of calumnies, offenses and historical and theological errors regarding Jesus, the Gospels and the church.""

I thought that the Da Vinci Code book, having read it twice, had historically accurate info. that is what made it controversial. otherwise, it would be in the baragin bin.

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on May 03 2006 02:14 PM

Good to see that their religon can hold up to such strong scrutiny.

(Reply to this)

sokiveta.com writes:
on May 03 2006 02:52 PM

[b]Boycott?[/b]
I'm not Catholic, but I am actively Christian. And as far as scripture goes, there is nothing wrong with idea that Christ got married while on the earth. In fact, I personally think that he did, and had a large family. I don't believe there was a conspiracy, like in this book. Only 3 years of Christ's life was recorded in the scripture, from age 30 to 33. I think the part of his life where he was a good husband, father, and neighbor are left out because it was God's will, and not because of a secret society. I think he kept his family private because of prosecution, not just to them physically, but to their name. Think how many times the name of Christ is used in swearing. I think he kept his family hidden so the people wouldn't disrespect them as they do Him.

As for the conspiracy story, it makes good fiction and will probably make a good movie. I say, the Vatican shouldn't boycott certain movies, they should urge their members to avoid all movies that are inappropriate. This movie may make the Catholic church look bad, but what about movies that are immoral and violent? If the Catholic church really wanted to make a difference, it would promote personal standards for all media � movies, books, magazines, music, television, internet, etc. Then, it wouldn�t have to boycott certain movies, it�s members would already know what is appropriate and what isn�t.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on May 03 2006 03:05 PM

In reply to this comment (#835023)
[b]But you are wrong.[/b]
It is not historically acurate, it is a work of FICTION. Some guy did not just uncover the biggest lie of the world, it is just a book.

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on May 03 2006 03:23 PM

Thay are remaking Clash of the Titans too. Hopefully they'll get the facts straight with that one as well.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on May 03 2006 03:45 PM

I was just curious what in the Scripture would indicate to anyone that Christ Jesus had a wife and family? It doesn't seem to make any sense to me, but I'm not a scholar. I can uderstand someone getting testy about this book. It isn't like Dan Brown personally was able to do what 2,000 years of other hadn't, mainly 'disporove' Christianity. But after a while it would get annoying to have people constantly making stuff up about your God. I can see how you might want to boycott a movie doing that. In fact, if anyone CANT understand Christian's reaction, then they won't have any hope of understanding current events. How could you possibly understand Radical Islam if you can't understand the Catholic Church's reaction to the Da Vinci Code? That would betray a severe lack of understanding Faith in general.

(Reply to this)

hugz4thugz writes:
on May 03 2006 04:47 PM

In reply to this comment (#835028)
understanding radical islam and understanding the catholic church's reasction to the da vinci code are totally NOT related at all FOOL!

(Reply to this)

Hieremias writes:
on May 03 2006 05:21 PM

"Good to see that their religon can hold up to such strong scrutiny."

A work of fiction that rewrites history and insults their religion in order to make millions of dollars in book and movie sales is not "scrutiny". The vatican is not objecting to legitimate historical research.

Now, I don't see why this should surprise or affect anybody. Did anyone really expect the catholic church to welcome with open arms a fictitious work that insults them from start to finish? It's not like they're taking legal means to block the film's release. They're just speaking out against it--and in a free society they're allowed to do that.

If you're a "good catholic" and want to obey everything your leaders tell you, then don't watch the movie. If you don't care what the catholic clergy thinks, or just like a good conspiracy theory story, then watch it. If you think the movie is based on real history, you might want to do a bit more research.

(Reply to this)

Paul_Is_Drunk writes:
on May 03 2006 06:29 PM

Get this:

The Catholic Church finally conceded in 1989 that the Earth does indeed revolve around the Sun. 1989. Yep, they are really open to change and questioning. Now try pointing out that humans have personally evolved dogs from wolves, then ask 'em about the whole 'universe created in 7 days' thing. Then you'll see how they respond to questioning. You'll be lucky if you aren't hit.

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on May 03 2006 07:54 PM

Hopefully the alter boys will get a bit of a breather.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on May 03 2006 07:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#835032)
The catholic church completely believes in evolution. Learn your facts little boy.

(Reply to this)

insanemansam5 writes:
on May 03 2006 08:13 PM

Christianity should know well the best way to generate interest in something is to discriminate against it

(Reply to this)

scruffy_wallace writes:
on May 03 2006 08:18 PM

The DaVinci Code is a complete work of fiction, there is no historical evidence supporting any of the claims by Dan Brown. The priory of Sion was made up by a Frenchman to historically link himself to French royalty. Do not attack the Catholic Church for trying to prevent Christians into believing a fictional story. People read the book and Dan Brown's opening FACT on the Priory of Sion, and dont question it. I have a friend and two family members who read the book and all believed a lot of the story to be true, when one looks into the facts its obvious it is all a work of fiction.

(Reply to this)

Impavido writes:
on May 03 2006 09:02 PM

Jesus didn't dig chicks. He was above that. Women are dirty. Diiiiiiirty.

(Reply to this)

Paul_Is_Drunk writes:
on May 03 2006 09:03 PM

In reply to this comment (#835034)
Ad hominem little girl ;)

(Reply to this)

synergyred writes:
on May 03 2006 09:40 PM

Fiction. Say it with me. FICTION. I can understand that the Catholic church is a bit miffed at the was it was protrayed so they can sulk alll they want. But, in the end this book is a work of Fiction. False. I don't care what anyone else thinks, if you want me to believe something you've written, write a non-fiction book.

And it's not even THAT good. I mean, yes, fun novel, but it's not a masterpiece of literature. It's a light beach read. But, I will be seeing the movie. It has Paul Bettany in it. I saw FIREWALL because that guy was in it. He is one talented guy.

(Reply to this)

Flim Springfield writes:
on May 03 2006 09:41 PM

Why did they even bother spending money on advertising this movie? It's getting tons of free press. Controversy sells tickets, it doesn't keep people away.

(Reply to this)

renny2077 writes:
on May 03 2006 10:53 PM

In reply to this comment (#835032)
'The Catholic Church finally conceded in 1989 that the Earth does indeed revolve around the Sun.'

That's because they actually never studied the bible. The Old Testament clearly depicted that the earth revolved around the sun. And this was written more than 2000 yrs ago. Whatever the Catholic Church says doesn't necessarily have to be right. Because its a bunch of men able to twist the Word of God for their own gains.
What should matter to most christian is what the Bible actually says. There isn't a signle indication in the Bible that Jesus was ever married. The only marriage that is mentioned is his marriage to one bride, i.e the church that will happen at the end of time.
Rather than boycotting the film, the Catholc Church should teach the truth, which is their responsibility. Because truth sets you free. The church seems to be acting out of fear rather than faith.

(Reply to this)

mizzoucritic writes:
on May 03 2006 11:21 PM

Oddly enough, my uncle is a Catholic priest and he's a fan of the Da Vinci Code novel. He understands that it's fiction and has a thing for thrillers. He's told people on many occasions that there are a lot of historical inaccuracies to it, but as long as they don't let a work of fiction override their faith, then they're fine.

And personally, I'm against the Catholic church speaking out against the film, but understand why they are doing it. I do think it might have worked better if all of the Catholic preists out there would just explain briefly to their parishes that it's fiction. That way it would all blow over much more smoothly.

(Reply to this)

Peyton Westlake writes:
on May 04 2006 06:52 AM

Why is everyone getting their knickers in a twist over such an obvious work of fiction? what's that book called again? Oh yeah, "The Bible". Some people will believe anything...

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on May 04 2006 06:58 AM

In reply to this comment (#835038)
I am a man little boy, move out of your parents basement then talk to me.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on May 04 2006 07:02 AM

In reply to this comment (#835043)
Oh you are so funny, hahahahahaha, god the british kids are so funny, oh wait no they are not. Just because you are a little slow and you believe the Da Vinci Code you should not make fun of other people's beliefs. Ignorance is a two way street.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on May 04 2006 07:21 AM

I don't think a lot of people have a good grasp on what people of faith are all about. It is either assumed that they are gullible idiots, or blind zealots. Neither of which is true. I suppose people forget that Newton, Galileo, and most founding fathers of modern science were deeply religious people. Even Einstein thought that looking deep into the universe was like seeing the hand of God. Just because some church's doctrine (which is all man made) resists change, that doesn't imply anything about the correct nature of Truth. Truth exists completely apart from anything we mortals have to say about it. Unfortunately, rather than investigating God in order to discover Truth, we let humans influence whether we are going to have faith or not. Whether humans are persuading us or disuading us makes no difference, we're still using fallible humans to discover Truth when we should be looking to God as the revealer of all things true. Don't place too much faith in humans, especially if your reason for not believing is because the screwed up, sinner humans in charge of the chruch are hypocritical. (Oh, and to the guy who said mankind has evolved dogs from wolves....they are already in the same kind my brother, they can do that on their own. It'd be more impressive if we evolved chimps from wolves. And even then, we would have forced it which would hardly be conclusive proof of natural evolution)

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on May 04 2006 07:49 AM

OK, so I'm an actual Catholic historian, with a couple of shiny degrees and everything, as well as an American Literature teacher. So I can tell you a few things:

- The DaVinci Code is indeed full of factual errors that are easily disproven, not even getting into the "Jesus was married" bit. Dan Brown in not an historian (he's an English teacher, in fact, although I can't complain about that, as I am too, sort of). His sources themselves are likewise barely reputable. One of many examples: Brown claims that those ancient gnostics loved "the divine feminine", when in fact they despised women as the embodiment of creation, since they also believed that creation was bad and the physical world was the product of evil.

- Dan Brown's assertions often simply don't make sense. Example: early Christians didn't believe Jesus was divine? Wonder why they all marched to their deaths, then? Why would they not simply apostasize toward Roman paganism, or stay within the strictures of traditional, and allowed, Judaism? Doesn't make sense.

- Reading the Bible as a purely historical document, there is no indication in any way that Jesus had a "hidden family". What's more, comparing the biblical gospels with the gnostic gospels reveals the gnostic ones to be ridiculous chicanery more akin to fairy tales, whereas, believe what it says or not, the biblical gospels are written in a manner consumate with contemporary histories, and was taken as such at the time. And the best secular, historical scholarship places the gnostic gospels at least 150 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, whereas the latest biblical gospel, John, is dated around 115 AD, still within living memory.

Therefore, if one were to consider ANY gospels as legitimate historical documents, relying on the gnostic ones over the biblical would be like accepting a brand new, unreferenced book that claimed Robert E. Lee and Ulysses Grant were actually homosexual lovers working on the Underground Railroad, rather than military opposites in the Civil War.

- The Catholic Church never officially declared heliocentrism heretical. The theological document that DID condemn it is not, nor has it ever been, considered official church teaching by anyone who knows anything. It's essentially like if your local bishop condemned Chinese food. Silly and stupid, but it just might make people stop eating it.

John Paul II's apology was for the intractible ignorance of some churchmen, or people doing bad things in the name of the church. It was not an admission that the church officially declared something as false that ended up being true.

- The Church is quite favorable to evolution, but won't condemn people who teach intelligent design or creationism. The church is very clear these days about how they don't teach science, but that we should realize that faith and reason are complementary, rather than opposed. So, for example, the church won't promulgate a doctrine on how human cloning works, but WILL maintain the teaching authority to condemn some of it as contrary to human dignity, if necessary.

- The DaVinci Code is really not very well-written. I don't believe Brown was setting out to write the great American novel, but I am bothered by some people thinking it's a work of literature just because they agree with his "facts" and assertions. Of course this is just my opinion, but I believe most people who read anything other than the written equivalent of junk food would agree.

Anyone too mentally challenged to use the internet or a library to verify these facts, I would be willing to provide documentation. But I'd really rather you did your own research.

(Reply to this)

SpikesInMySkull writes:
on May 04 2006 10:32 AM

Yeah, I'll file this along with the supposed "lawsuit" where those guys where sueing the publisher of the book (who's is also their own publisher) over copywrite because apparantly you can now copywrite an unoriginal idea as being a total bogus ploy to drum up interest in the movie. Which makes sence because honestly "The Da Vinci Code" was all the rage a couple years ago, but now it's kind of old news. And frankly Gabrial Knight III: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned did a better job with the same concept.

(Reply to this)

Jen Yamato writes:
on May 04 2006 12:35 PM

[b]Another interesting "Da Vinci"-related article[/b]
The AP's got an interview up today here (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/05/04/entertainment/e114201D26.DTL)

Opus Dei's not scared of Dan Brown/Ron Howard...Rev. John Wauck:"'If you find what you see there attractive you will probably enjoy a Catholic Mass," he said. "I've seen people who have come back to their faith after reading 'The Da Vinci Code.''"

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on May 04 2006 12:37 PM

In reply to this comment (#835048)
You're totally right about this. It's not even an original idea -- he just dressed it up the right way, at the right time.

And good post, JY. Opus Dei has the right idea.

(Reply to this)

Paul_Is_Drunk writes:
on May 04 2006 01:56 PM

In reply to this comment (#835044)
Couldn't figure out Ad Hominem could you? That's okay, I'm sure it'll be on your SAT Study Guide. Oh, and a little secret: It's the internet. It's pretty easy to be brave and insulting when you have no accountability, but it's just indicative of a frustration with real life where obviously you wish to say such things but can't. That's okay, you can get over it. Just be a little more assertive and try to voice your concerns and eventually you'll find that confidence to be a full person instead of trolling on message boards to get your much needed attention. It's going to be okay.

*Group Hug*

(Reply to this)

gbwillner writes:
on May 04 2006 02:44 PM

[b]This movie's gonna make a ton of dough....[/b]
So suck it, new pope.

I guesstimate 200 million.

/the book was mildly entertaining- it would have been much better without the "Scooby Doo" ending.
//Angels and Demons was better

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on May 04 2006 05:27 PM

In reply to this comment (#835051)
Oh little boy, you need to try harder to try to sound like a big man to me, unlike you i have moved out of my parents house and graduated from high school. Grow up learn some facts little boy and then talk to me.

Oh i know what ad hominem means, especially since i took 4 years of latin, but i was just pointing out that you are just little kid that lives in his parents basement that knows nothing of the real world.

(Reply to this)

FireflyFan4evr writes:
on May 04 2006 07:20 PM

Maybe if all of us ignore the Catholic fundalmentalists and their weird city...er.... "country", maybe they will go away and never return. FOREVER. If you can't take critisicm on a scale of material appearing in a fictional book, maybe you should go searching for a different belief system.

Besides, The Bible isn't exactly historically accurate to any great extent, and that should be placed along side the Da Vinci Code in the fiction section of bookstores. that, or the garbage bin. Christian fundamentalists like these can cram their religion up some region on their lower back, being that they can't realize more people don't believe in a big magical person in the sky like them or their religion anymore (thank goodness for that).

There's something called science and fact, I think they should look into that before believing what some Romans put in a book about 1700 years ago and thinking it's all true.

I know that a lot of what's in Da Vinci is false, and that's why I like it. It's a murder mystery and nothing more. I knew it was not real going in, whereas some people have to denouce it as "wrong" or "heresy".

We'll never know what the real life of Jesus was really like, being that it is steeped in paganism, myth, legend, and fact, which will be nearly impossible to untangle.

(Reply to this)

Impavido writes:
on May 04 2006 08:27 PM

DIRTY!!!!!

(Reply to this)

LunchBoxer writes:
on May 04 2006 08:34 PM

[b]Perfectionism[/b]
I have often been asked, why would the Vatican publicly condemn things or *ban* them, though it knows full well that this will ensure a greater audience for the focus of its ire? Why does ANY group make an issue of ANYthing when it knows that it will essentially be counterproductive?

What most people seem not to have realized is that, the Catholic Faith, like all major religions and many political groups, asks the same question that Socrates did, 2500 years ago -- *what is the good life?*.

The thing is, the answer that Catholics have come to is what (modern, professional) philosophers call a 'perfectionist' answer. (For *Catholics*, here, one can substitute the name of most perfectionist groups: Christians -- in general -- Muslims, Communists, Capitalists, etc.)

The good life, for a Catholic, is a Catholic life. Catholic values, in other words, are held to be THE ONLY point of entry to the good life that we all want -- that is where they get their 'value' in the first place. This is why Catholics often have no tolerance for non-Catholics. Why should they? They are attempting to subvert their solution. They are 'living the bad life'. They need to be converted or silenced. (Catholics often protest that they are pacifistic and tolerant, because they understand that society considers these qualities *positive*. However, these are not perfectionist values. Far from it. They are contractarian values -- they belong to the Enlightenment program of liberal humanism, to which everyone pays lip service, even if some secretly wish it to be replaced by theocracy.) True Catholics can never truly tolerate dissent, and they could only ever be pacifistic in a world where every person was Catholic. Intolerance is endemic in perfectionist groups because they necessarily loathe "imperfection". This is why theocracy and pluralism are necessarily opposed. That pluralism exists at all is a testament to the revolution effected by the great contractarian philosophers. But that's another story.

Thus, though it will ensure that many more people will see it than they otherwise would, the Vatican will attack this film. It has no choice. It is "imperfect" and must be destroyed.

Thank heavens -- pun intended -- for the marginalization of perfectionism.

(Reply to this)

lavatory love machine writes:
on May 04 2006 08:54 PM

"The DaVinci Code is a complete work of fiction, there is no historical evidence supporting any of the claims by Dan Brown."

there's no historical evidence supporting any of the claims of the church either

it's just a question of common sense and making your own mind about it

personally I tend to believe people who didn't burn people alive for saying that the earth is not the center of the universe, but that's just me

(Reply to this)

Flim Springfield writes:
on May 04 2006 10:05 PM

I'm waiting for "The Smith Code" that blows lid off the Book of Mormon!!

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on May 05 2006 07:15 AM

In reply to this comment (#835056)
[b]Huh?[/b]
What kind of nonsense is this? The Church doesn't have a choice? What a completely silly thing to say. All your psychobabble amounts to not very much here. The truth of it us, everyone believes certain things are right. They want others to believe those things too. Your promoting the "Enlightenment values" is you trying to get others to believe those things who you perceive don't -- or at the least, your attempt to denegrate those who don't accept what you consider to be the truth of things.

Would it make sense if I said you had "no choice" but to push what you consider to be Enlightenment philosophy on everyone? Of course not. You have a choice, and so does the church.

As to the sensibility of the issue itself, would you not condemn someone attacking you that just wouldn't shut up? "Hey everyone, Lunchboxer molests children and drinks their blood, and I'm going to mount a national campaign to prove it, even though I have no facts at all, because I want to sell books!"

Ignoring that would be stupid, and you know it. Speaking out against it is called self-defense.

And what's this crap about Catholics having no tolerance for non-catholics?

And finally, all those Enlightenment philosophers were educated in a Christian system, by Christian teachers, who taught them from a grand storehouse of knowledge dating back to antiquity which was preserved by the Catholic church. I guarantee you there are far more good Catholic scientists and philosophers than you realize.

So please hop down off the pluralism high horse. Pluralism is fine -- but you act like it's the perfect system . . . that would be "perfectionistic" of you.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on May 05 2006 07:33 AM

In reply to this comment (#835054)
[b]Not again . . .[/b]
Why do people feel the need to attack the Church? See, this is why we speak out against things.

I shouldn't even get into this, because it won't do any good. But what the hell.

Let's just chalk up your first paragraph to hate speech and leave it at that.

"Bible isn't exactly historically accurate to any great extent". . . how many times do we Christians have to tell you people this? We get our knowledge of accepted, totally unquestioned history about stuff like Alexander the Great, Sparta, ancient China, etc. from sources much older, less verified, less preserved, and more poorly translated than the Bible. If no one used the Bible for religious purposes, you and everyone else would consider it a highly prized set of valid historical documents, and in fact some of the best we have from antiquity.

If people worshipped according to the works of Eusebius, would you discount him? Would you talk about how we "really don't know anything about the life of Plato" if Platonists were quoting "The Republic" and talking about the parable of the cave as if it were divinely inspired?

"There's something called science and fact" . . . well, since you see, not to know how to evaluate an historical fact, I think you should stick to science. By the way, many of the world's ground-breaking scientists achieved their work as Catholics, and with the support of the Catholic church. And please don't embarrass yourself by bringing up Galileo. We've been through that already.

Finally, saying something doesn't automatically make it true. Claiming Jesus' origin is steeped in paganism, myth, legend, and fact, for example, doesn't mean it actually is. The historical documents and texts that mention or discuss Jesus and his immediate followers' teachings about him, not even including the Bible, create a pretty clear picture. Again, do some research beyond one side. Check sources. Check sources' sources. If you aren't willing to do that, then at least make sure the opinions of the people you trust to tell you what to think are well-informed and worthy of attention, and not as one-sided as you seem to be.

But hey, at least we both agree Firefly is awesome.

(Reply to this)

scottybarkbark writes:
on May 05 2006 07:45 AM

who gives a damn about tom hanks hair in the movie? big effing deal!!! he has long hair get over it. sheesh
sorry, had to get that off my chest

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on May 05 2006 09:45 AM

In reply to this comment (#835061)
Yeah, I agree. What a stupid reason to complain about a movie.

Besides, Hanks is an awesome actor, and while the story and script are hackneyed all to hell, he will be the only reason this movie might turn out to be good cinema (it seems pretty clear Ron Howard has decided to go over the top, so I couldn't credit him).

I bet it won't be very good, though. Movies based on books are almost uniformly worse than the books in some way. If that axiom holds true here, this movie will suck.

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on May 05 2006 11:09 AM

Looks like this movies's throwing stones at the clay feet of the cult of Christianity.

(Reply to this)

Ultimale069 writes:
on May 05 2006 11:26 AM

[b]Everyone has to just think for themselves.[/b]
Personally, I don't have any emotional investment in this argument, but I do find the whole controversy interesting. I am an equal opportunity offender in this situation, in which I think the people who defend and argue their whole hearted belief in the bible, a document that has been around for almost 2 milennia, particularly ignorant. Everyone cherry picks from their sacred relegious texts and believes what they want. The bible is full of outragous material, that if it hadn't been worshipped for as long as it has, people would think it was nuts- kinda scientology. Think of circumcision: God makes a covenant with Noah, he creates a rainbow, he makes a covenant with Abraham, your supposed to nip the tip of all male's penises. Frankly that a very outdated precudure, and barbaric to say the least.

As for the life and times of Jesus, No, i do not believe all the things that are claimed in the bible. I honestly believe that Dan Brown description was more accurate. Jesus was a man, damn right he got it on! And who better than a woman who gives it up reletively easy like Mary Magdelene- j/k. But I also think that the church probably did commit a smear campaign on her.

The bible has been around for an extremely long time, and has probably been changed and adapted to those people who are in charge to control people.

No one has to look to the bible for how to live, if everyone was as full of faith as they claim they are, an attack on ones belief shouldn't have any effect. That is why the Vatican has its panties in a fix, because they are losing its control over its followers, and that is a good thing. God blessed us all with a conscience, a spiritual instruction manual if you will, on how to live a good decent life, and that is what I abide by. My experience with the bible has just been a way for people to justify their intolerance and prejudice, all in the name of god's word.

People need to think for themselves. I'll be damned if I will have some stupid book telling me what it is I should believe or not, that goes for the Da Vinci Code or the Bible.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on May 05 2006 12:13 PM

This debate is very interesting, and I have to add a little input here. There are over six billion people on this planet, and the vast majority of them are like Ultimate069. We are completely lacking in all knowledge of the past. For instance, I doubt that Ultimate knew that Christ is actually mentioned in 19 NON-CHRISTIAN books from antiquity, which outdraws even CAESAR who is only mentioned 7 times. I doubt he knows that comated to the 200 manuscripts existing for the next-best-recorded work from antiquity, the Bible has over 25,000 manuscripts available. See, the Bible is an incredible (dare we say, miraculous?) composition of literature. There really aren't too many people nowadays, scholar or not, who can't accept the veracity of the Scriptures. What we as people need to do is look at this type of stuff very closely. Ultimate disregards the Bible because it contains elements of the 'fantastic.' Well, if ever there was a book that recorded the miraculous works of God, I would EXPECT it to contain elements of the fantastic. There are more reasons to place our faith in God than in anything else. People of faith have an amazing foundation God has laid out for them to defend themselves. The problem is, not many actually KNOW it.

(Reply to this)

kstoner26 writes:
on May 05 2006 05:26 PM

In reply to this comment (#835026)
[b]How would you know?[/b]
How would you know it's not historically accurate? Where you there? Let's not forget that the bible is also just a book.

(Reply to this)

Impavido writes:
on May 05 2006 06:31 PM

True, there are some ancient text sources that are used as serious historical resources. But they are taken more seriously as a source than the bible. I dunno, it might just be that sea parting, burning talking bush, water walking, being swallowed by a whale whole and escaping, entire cities being vaporized, people being turned into salt pillars, and such that might just not pass the smell test.

(Reply to this)

HoneycombSAFARI writes:
on May 05 2006 10:34 PM

the Da Vinci code is not only a work of fiction, it's a mediocre one at that. Brown's Angels AND Demons is way better

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on May 06 2006 09:18 AM

In reply to this comment (#835068)
But isn't that just the point? Why DOESN'T it pass the 'smell test'? If there was a God, and He did exist, wouldn't that be exactly what we would expect from Him? Not necessarily those exact situations, but things that are fantastic would no longer be unbelievable. All I'm saying is you can't disprove God's existence, or the existence of His Word, by pointing to things that are fantastic, miracles if you will. That's circular reasoning, and unfortunately we do it all the time.

(Reply to this)

Impavido writes:
on May 06 2006 03:14 PM

So god exists because I cant DISPROVE an invisible man in the sky?...

Eh whatever. No point in making any theological debates. Neither of us will win.

Soooo.....how about that Da Vinci Code movie eh? Audrey looks gorgeous as usual.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on May 06 2006 05:39 PM

No, I didn't postulate that. What I said was you can't disprove the validity of His Word based on its containing elements of the fantastic. Read a little bit closer, and take the time to ponder the ramifications. That's all I'm saying.

(Reply to this)

Ultimale069 writes:
on May 06 2006 08:37 PM

So we are supposed to believe in the Bible purely on faith, just as the mAsses did throughout history? Well, why exactly should we believe all of the fantastical elements of the bible? I am more inclined to set my beliefs in line with the Harry Potter books if I were inclined to believe in a fairy tale and derive my values from it. At least those books are engrossing.

And of course those bible thumping believers get this all the time, but if God is real, and he communicated with people SOOO much in the good ole bible days, how come he chooses to ignore us all now? Remember he was the vengeful god in the old testament, and the benevolent god in the new testament. Why the head games? If god truly does exist, then I firmly believe the Almighty is a female. How fickle thy Lord be.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on May 07 2006 08:28 PM

In reply to this comment (#835073)
Well of course faith plays a role in it. Faith plays a role in whatever you believe. I think if you actually, with an open heart, read about the veracity of the Scripture you'd be suprised exactly how reliable they are.
I don't think God ignores us now, we just ignore Him. No one expects Him to communicate with us. Besides, if you want to talk numbers, lets look at it a little. How many people did God actually 'talk' to in the Bible? And how many people are on Earth right now? So, the odds are much greater that He has indeed talked to someone and you just don't know that person.
The last part, as for how God appears vengeful in the Old Testament but loving in the New Testament.....well, go back to the text. Its the same God, but just like you or I He has different aspects of who He is. His plan from even the fall of mankind was to save us through grace. Read the Psalms, the Prophets, they talked of Christ's coming from the very beginning. God is the same then as He is now. A belief otherwise isn't proof against Him or His word, but rather betrays our own lack of knowlege about who He really is. Of course there will always be things about Him that we cannot understand....that's the definition of Him being God and us NOT being God. However, He does reveal Himself to us in certain aspects, and His scriptures are designed to do that.

(Reply to this)

Rab75 writes:
on May 08 2006 06:25 AM

It looks good. I wanna see it.

(Reply to this)

Ultimale069 writes:
on May 08 2006 08:42 AM

In reply to #530220

Ooo. pretty obvious someone has a sexist view of what the Lord's gender might be. (He, Him) Typical patriarichal relegious follower mindset.

On another note, I find it strange how we all dismiss anyone's belief in the gods of old, specifically Greek or Roman mythology, and anyone who believes in that is nuts, but Christianity or any of the main stream relegions are totally solid and belieavable. To make a distinction like that is the same as saying Spiderman is a more believable and real than Superman. Sheesh.

(Reply to this)

villain78 writes:
on May 08 2006 12:58 PM

[b]I'm actually going to see it for the mullet.[/b]
Truth be told, Tom Hank's hair in this one fascinates me. I don't know why. I read the book. Going to see the movie.

Oh and by the way. I'm Catholic. I think I'm smart enough and wise enough to seperate fact, fiction and speculation.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on May 09 2006 10:24 AM

In reply to this comment (#835076)
You better be careful or the God of the computers might get mad at you and try to strike you down.

(Reply to this)

Ultimale069 writes:
on May 09 2006 11:28 AM

[b]Hahaha[/b]
No God would strike me down! I am too entertaining a person to kill off. That's the whole reason why humanity was created. We're just reality television for the Almighty. "Only the good die young," because the good are boring-

Nope, I will live to a ripe ole' age.

It's all you mindless, boring, regimented follower people that drop off early. If heaven is full of you people, I am not entirely sure I wanna end up there.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on May 09 2006 01:08 PM

I don't mean to be a spoilsport here, but according to a recently completed 12 year study, those who attend church every week actually live longer(Wash. Times).
And if following God's advice on how to live my life makes me a follower, than count me among the followers. However, I think it just makes me smart. ;) Afterall, God tells us these little tidbits about how to live life because He loves us and wants us to have the best life possible.

(Reply to this)

LimpytheTurtle writes:
on May 09 2006 03:02 PM

As my roomate just stated "Chelax Nigga its just a book"

(Reply to this)

Stclair_99 writes:
on May 10 2006 10:36 AM

In reply to this comment (#835079)
[b]uber L33t[/b]
I'm in fully agree with your point of view...but i want to see Survivor: the Flood Edition

(Reply to this)

wakeofinsanity writes:
on May 10 2006 03:11 PM

I think it's vital to remember as Salman Rushdie once said, to be aware of the "fictionality of fiction". Now I'm not comparing this book to the Satanic Verses... obviously it's not nearly as good. Still it's important to not freak out. that's all.

(Reply to this)

notnaturallyred writes:
on May 15 2006 11:25 AM

[b]When is a lie a lie?[/b]
Unlike Brown's book, there is a great deal of historical evidence to support the writings regarding the early days of the Christian church. In fact, there is no historic evidence to disprove the New Testament -- there is only human unwillingness to accept that which we can not understand. Brown's fantasy, on the other hand, does not stand up when historically scrutinized.

There would not be nearly the backlash in the Christian church over Brown's book (and the movie) if Brown had agreed to label his book as pure fiction, but he calls the historical basis for it fact; most of the "facts" being not only indefensible, but easily proven wrong by ancient historians.

How sad that while the church is forced to continue to prove itself over and over, hacks like Brown (whose writing should be scorned as much as James Frey's; a lie is a lie is a lie) make millions on the controversy of their writings.

Not as Catholics, or Christians, but as a society, don't we have a right to expect responsible writing and a responsibility to demand it?

(Reply to this)

MRoseH writes:
on May 23 2006 08:21 AM

In reply to this comment (#835041)
[b]Jesus was never married...[/b]
No, there isn't a single indication that Jesus was ever married, BUT it does state pretty clearly that he was indeed a Rabbi. When Jesus was alive, men were not permitted - NOT PERMITTED - to be Rabbi's unless they were married. Period. He would not have been allowed to have been a Rabbi, nor referred to as Rabbi had he not been married.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Ron Howard

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links