The DaVinci Code

[Mike Olbinski]

We know you won't see it because of your religious beliefs, but who cares what critics say? If you read a review of 40-year-old Virgin that says it's the worst piece of junk out in 10 years, you would say that the critic doesn't know what he's talking about. But have him say that about a movie like the DaVinci Code, which you have already condemned without seeing, then they must be correct.

Chaplin...

I think I already said in this thread that I wanted to see it...and I am a little miffed at your "we know you wont see it..." crap...

I WANTED to see it before I realized most are calling it a Two and Half Hour Turtlefest

I don't waste good money on crap...I'll just rent crap later.

We were all set to watch it on Saturday, but decided not to...

And most of the comments I am making in this thread, are about the book, not the movie.

 

[Mike Olbinski]

I didnt get that from the book. I got that they were both very rich and from very powerful families (which jesus was, the story is just better if he was poor and Mary was a prostitute)

I got from the book that Mary was an apostle (Hence her being in the last supper painting next to Jesus) and that they were married and had a daughter named Sarah. More than believable to me. In fact much more believable than what is taught now.

Also, I think it was 83 books to choose from and 4 were published in the new testament? Who is in charge of making that call? No one questions that?

I would have to re-read the book...

 

[Chaplin]

Did you read the book?

It basically says that Jesus isn't the messiah, Mary is...

(if I remember correctly)

Umm...pretty big deal there

I think that's absolutely wrong. The book doesn't disclaim that Jesus was the messiah--it says that before he died for man's sins he married Mary Magdalene and had a child. The only thing that affects is his divinity, but I don't recall ever reading that it invalidated his being the messiah.

The whole Catholic ideology is based on the fact that Mary was impregnated by devine conception and that Jesus was pure. The DaVinci Code presupposes that Jesus did have a daughter before his crucifixion, but he was still crucified and he still made the conscious choice to die for man.

The controversy revolves around a bloodline that theoretically would still exist today, not that Jesus wasn't the messiah.

 

[Mike Olbinski]

I'm not a Brown defender, I just see both sides arguing innacuracies with the story and it's frustrating. At least argue the facts!

Sorry Yuma, I am just forgetful I guess...I may have to re-read it...

 

[Mike Olbinski]

I think that's absolutely wrong. The book doesn't disclaim that Jesus was the messiah--it says that before he died for man's sins he married Mary Magdalene and had a child. The only thing that affects is his divinity, but I don't recall ever reading that it invalidated his being the messiah.

The whole Catholic ideology is based on the fact that Mary was impregnated by devine conception and that Jesus was pure. The DaVinci Code presupposes that Jesus did have a daughter before his crucifixion, but he was still crucified and he still made the conscious choice to die for man.

The controversy revolves around a bloodline that theoretically would still exist today, not that Jesus wasn't the messiah.

No, I am looking up stuff on Google...and there are discussions of how the book also says Jesus wasn't divine, that was invented by the church.

Not being divine = not being the messiah...

That's what I mean.

 

[Chaplin]

It matters to me, Chaplin. Okay, I know this is VERY religious sounding, so bear with me...just look at my side: I personally have faith that if you don't believe in Jesus or accept him as your savior, you aren't going to heaven, etc. That is my belief, and I don't apologize for them.

So if I see something out there that could throw people off course, I'm going to worry about it. And yes, I have seen and heard peopel talking about the book outloud, even asking things like "wow, this is interesting...I can't believe it's all fact..."

We can believe what we want, yes...but if what I believe if true, and I have faith in it...it would be a disservice to YOU, and to God, to just let everyone continue on their way without me trying to be of some influence.

ANd now this thread should likely go to the P&R forum, lol.

First of all, I think it's terrific that you have your beliefs and are sticking by them. That's what having freedom of religion is all about.

I think what interests me more is the rest of your post--which describes something that I think many secular people have against people of faith. I won't call it preachiness because it's not always that--but a lot of non-religious people can't stand organized religion because those that are gung-ho about it constantly try to change others to their line of thinking--MUCH moreso than secular people trying to convince hardliners that God doesn't exist.

The problem as I see it is that too many religious people, especially the ultra-religious ones, want to invade others lives to push an ideology. That has gone on for centuries in the Middle East, and we've seen it throughout European history and perhaps today in this country.

The DaVinci Code poses some interesting questions, but it's not the end-all and be-all. I would think people of faith would be steadfast in that belief, and not vice versa, worrying about some family in rural Kansas that might decide the Catholics aren't as nice as they thought.

 

[Chaplin]

No, I am looking up stuff on Google...and there are discussions of how the book also says Jesus wasn't divine, that was invented by the church.

Not being divine = not being the messiah...

That's what I mean.

Also, consider the source--that's all I'm saying. You really should read the book. There are a lot of ideas in there you won't believe in, but it is interesting, nonetheless. I have a feeling you wouldn't like the book, but you probably would think it wasn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be.

 

[Mike Olbinski]

First of all, I think it's terrific that you have your beliefs and are sticking by them. That's what having freedom of religion is all about.

I think what interests me more is the rest of your post--which describes something that I think many secular people have against people of faith. I won't call it preachiness because it's not always that--but a lot of non-religious people can't stand organized religion because those that are gung-ho about it constantly try to change others to their line of thinking--MUCH moreso than secular people trying to convince hardliners that God doesn't exist.

The problem as I see it is that too many religious people, especially the ultra-religious ones, want to invade others lives to push an ideology. That has gone on for centuries in the Middle East, and we've seen it throughout European history and perhaps today in this country.

The DaVinci Code poses some interesting questions, but it's not the end-all and be-all. I would think people of faith would be steadfast in that belief, and not vice versa, worrying about some family in rural Kansas that might decide the Catholics aren't as nice as they thought.

There are some who like to invade...but I choose to let my life be an example, and I give my input where I feel it's been asked for.

Although sometimes...if I love someone enough, I may just tell them about Jesus anyways, because it would be not-loving them to never mention it...

 

[Mike Olbinski]

Also, consider the source--that's all I'm saying. You really should read the book. There are a lot of ideas in there you won't believe in, but it is interesting, nonetheless. I have a feeling you wouldn't like the book, but you probably would think it wasn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be.

Chaplin, I did read the book...I loved the book, the story was great, but I got very upset at the fact that he seemed to make a statement in the forward that it was all fact, and then went on to completely make up crap

 

[CaptTurbo]

There are some who like to invade...but I choose to let my life be an example, and I give my input where I feel it's been asked for.

Although sometimes...if I love someone enough, I may just tell them about Jesus anyways, because it would be not-loving them to never mention it...

I sat next to this women on the airplane that just went off spouting about Jesus. She asked if I followed him and I said "No" which sent her on a crusade to save me.

Turns out she follows this guy around who heals people from cancer and AIDS and stuff. Gives him a ton of money. I wonder if she will ever understand that that makes her look like an idiot and invalidates any thoughts that she expresses.

Glad you dont do that lol

 

[Mike Olbinski]

I sat next to this women on the airplane that just went off spouting about Jesus. She asked if I followed him and I said "No" which sent her on a crusade to save me.

Turns out she follows this guy around who heals people from cancer and AIDS and stuff. Gives him a ton of money. I wonder if she will ever understand that that makes her look like an idiot and invalidates any thoughts that she expresses.

Glad you dont do that lol

That bothers me too

 

[KloD]

Okay...well, that is fine, I respect your opinion..but you are talking about a book written by Dan BROWN, a few years ago that has been proven to be false, while the Bible was written thousands of years ago, and has 1000+ manuscripts to back it up, and almost every fact in there, historically at least, has been an accurate portrayal proven by historians...

Anyways...comparing the two...makes me laugh sorry...

Mike

Boy, sorry I said anything. I didn't mean to start a P&R thread here.

I wasn't comparing the two. I only found humor at the religious side claiming the book isn't factual (I never thought it was) yet claim the bible is. In your response to Chaplin about places and events mentioned in the bible being proven factual, that doesn't make the stories themselves factual. It's also pretty easy to prove something one claims and the wrong way to do it. You're supposed to look for evidence to disprove it. Either way, doesn't matter. I'm not here to rip on religion.

 

[Stout]

LOL

Talk about taking it to the extreme.

Being a history minor, I thought the movie was very entertaining. Funny how if someone shoots an old building and historical sites, they are "trying" to make an epic film. It's a mystery--nothing more. The music is very understated, and very good, by the way. You're reading much more into it than it is.

It's not Ron Howard and Tom Hanks (who I agree was pretty wooden)--it's the way the film is marketed--which is the problem with most films.

But it did make a ton of money and from what I understand is the 2nd highest EVER grossing movie internationally--just behind Star Wars (either ep. 1 or 4, not sure which).

Eh. It made a ton of money because of the following from the book and the curiosity of people who heard of the book.

I'll stand by my trying to be an epic idea. The combination of the directing and the musical score, especially in transitions and leadups to big scenes, made me feel as if it was not only trying to be an epic, but downright bludgeoning me over the head with it. It absolutely served in the opposite manner because the movie was not very good.

 

[jenna2891]

i have a feeling this movie will drop quickly in its sales.

 

[Chaplin]

i have a feeling this movie will drop quickly in its sales.

Really? You mean like every other movie not named Titanic? Whatever gives you that idea?

 

[Chaplin]

Eh. It made a ton of money because of the following from the book and the curiosity of people who heard of the book.

I'll stand by my trying to be an epic idea. The combination of the directing and the musical score, especially in transitions and leadups to big scenes, made me feel as if it was not only trying to be an epic, but downright bludgeoning me over the head with it. It absolutely served in the opposite manner because the movie was not very good.

Examples? I didn't see it at all. Sure, they filmed the historical sites a lot, but come on now, you kinda have to. If they didn't show establishing shots of the churches, it wouldn't be nearly as powerful.

 

[Stout]

Examples? I didn't see it at all. Sure, they filmed the historical sites a lot, but come on now, you kinda have to. If they didn't show establishing shots of the churches, it wouldn't be nearly as powerful.

Not specific examples, but like I said, it was a feel. Like when Silas is coming in, and I heard that overly sinister music, or when the scenes would transition and you'd get a slow camera buildup to a place with epic-sounding music. I'm not being technical but, you know, if I felt that's the way the film was trying to be, then for me, that's the way it was.

 

[jenna2891]

Really? You mean like every other movie not named Titanic? Whatever gives you that idea?

just call me the prophet, my friend.

 

[JasonKGME]

OK here's my 2 cents....

First let me start by saying I am a christian, I believe both in God and that Jesus is my savior. Having said that, I guess I am in teh minority of Christians that is very excited about this movie. Why you may ask if I am a Christian would I be excited about a movie that brings up questions about my faith? Because thats what it is, Faith. I think this movie will bring about 2 really good things, #1 - It will help define my faith, either I believe in God and Jesus or I don't I honestly can't see any movie changing that faith in me, but asking questions about faith can allways be a learning experience. #2 - It will cause other people to question thier lack of faith... What I mean by that is there are a devote number of athiests and non believers in the world, and if they go into this movie and decide the movie is indeed factually it will make them have to re-evaluate thier opinion on a higher power and actually lern and discover more about religeon, thus opening them up to recieve God's word, which they may not have been open to before.


The thing to remember on all of this is the Faith aspect, I mean lets be honest no-one Christian or Atheist can state with 100% factual basis wether or not God exists, or wether Jesus was the son of God, just the same way I cannot 100% confirm there is a Russia since I have never personally been there, all I can go by is my Faith in the Lord and my belief in Jesus.

 

[PortlandCardFan]

OK here's my 2 cents....

First let me start by saying I am a christian, I believe both in God and that Jesus is my savior. Having said that, I guess I am in teh minority of Christians that is very excited about this movie. Why you may ask if I am a Christian would I be excited about a movie that brings up questions about my faith? Because thats what it is, Faith. I think this movie will bring about 2 really good things, #1 - It will help define my faith, either I believe in God and Jesus or I don't I honestly can't see any movie changing that faith in me, but asking questions about faith can allways be a learning experience. #2 - It will cause other people to question thier lack of faith... What I mean by that is there are a devote number of athiests and non believers in the world, and if they go into this movie and decide the movie is indeed factually it will make them have to re-evaluate thier opinion on a higher power and actually lern and discover more about religeon, thus opening them up to recieve God's word, which they may not have been open to before.


The thing to remember on all of this is the Faith aspect, I mean lets be honest no-one Christian or Atheist can state with 100% factual basis wether or not God exists, or wether Jesus was the son of God, just the same way I cannot 100% confirm there is a Russia since I have never personally been there, all I can go by is my Faith in the Lord and my belief in Jesus.

Nicely said Jason. I give you

 

[Bada0Bing]

OK here's my 2 cents....



The thing to remember on all of this is the Faith aspect, I mean lets be honest no-one Christian or Atheist can state with 100% factual basis wether or not God exists, or wether Jesus was the son of God, just the same way I cannot 100% confirm there is a Russia since I have never personally been there, all I can go by is my Faith in the Lord and my belief in Jesus.

That can pretty much said about anything. Take it to the extreme, just because I see this computer in front of me doesn’t mean that it’s there. It just means that my brain sees it there. It’s a strange world out there….

 

[CaptTurbo]

Pretty good movie. Sticks exactly with the book. Doesnt change much. A few things here and there but not much.

Almost was exactly what I saw in my head as I was reading it.

 

[Yuma]

No, I am looking up stuff on Google...and there are discussions of how the book also says Jesus wasn't divine, that was invented by the church.

Not being divine = not being the messiah...

That's what I mean.

Mohammed was a messiah, not divine. So not being devine doesn't mean you can't be a messiah. Messiah means messenger.

Mike, quit looking up stuff on Google. There's as much wrong in those articles as there is in this thread. Suppose Jesus was divine. Would him being married to a woman here on earth make him NOT divine? I don't think so. And people are getting Mary, Jesus' mother, vs. Mary, Jesus' wife according to the book mixed up. They are two different people.

 

[Yuma]

Boy, sorry I said anything. I didn't mean to start a P&R thread here.

I wasn't comparing the two. I only found humor at the religious side claiming the book isn't factual (I never thought it was) yet claim the bible is. In your response to Chaplin about places and events mentioned in the bible being proven factual, that doesn't make the stories themselves factual. It's also pretty easy to prove something one claims and the wrong way to do it. You're supposed to look for evidence to disprove it. Either way, doesn't matter. I'm not here to rip on religion.

Exactly! I could write a story about Las Vegas that's totally bogus. But 1000 years from now, someone digs up my book, and knows there was once a Las Vegas, and therefor my story MUST be true.

Now, I am not discrediting the bible. I am just agreeing that from a logical viewpoint, because they find ruins and relics and ascribe them to biblical places, doesn't mean the stories are thusly true. It also, inversely, doesn't discredit the stories either.

 

[Mike Olbinski]

Mohammed was a messiah, not divine. So not being devine doesn't mean you can't be a messiah. Messiah means messenger.

Mike, quit looking up stuff on Google. There's as much wrong in those articles as there is in this thread. Suppose Jesus was divine. Would him being married to a woman here on earth make him NOT divine? I don't think so. And people are getting Mary, Jesus' mother, vs. Mary, Jesus' wife according to the book mixed up. They are two different people.

Quit looking stuff up on Google?

I'll read what I want, and have my own opinions...Google and the Internet are a great place to research many things, and to just say it's all crap and wrong is ridiculous Yuma.

May as well toss out all stuff on the net if that's the case.

Mike