A conservative Christian leaders reasons why believers shouldn't see the Davinci Code

This isn't the sort of news item I usually post, but I found it interesting and thought I would share it. The article below was published as an editorial in the USA Today.

So basically he's arguing that Christians are not smart enough to see the movie and have an insufficient understanding of their own beliefs to sort out what is fiction and whit is, um, well, not really fact, but not necessarilly fiction. Is it just me or is this a significant public figure of the church asking believers to remain ignorant?

 

Isn't ignorance of their followers what the church has always fostered? It took "rebels" like Martin Luther to translate the Bible from Latin (to German) and thus make it accessible to the common person (much to the Catholic church's annoyance). Before then, only priests could read the scriptures.

 

I think the amount of fuss some parts of the church are making over the Da Vinci Code is pathetic. Nobody in my church seems to have a problem with it and I personally can't wait to see it at the cinema (bad reviews aside), but the bigger the fuss that's made about it, the more people start to question the level of fiction involved if the church is so intent on covering it up. It irritates me that people tell me I'm 'not meant to like' the book just because some other (conservative) members of my religion find it offensive and feel it gives Christianity a bad name. What's ironic is that for anyone to actually accept the concept that Jesus was married and had a wife, they have to first acknowledge his existence and the idea that he is the son of God (let's face it, a book simply revealing someone was married and had kids doesn't get most peoples' blood racing). So either way, I wish people non-religious and religious would just let it go and stop over-hyping and spoiling what is a genuinly fun read and concentrate more on establishing the tolerance and acceptance that most churches should show.

<A88>

 

Oh dear Jesus, could you provoke any more?

I thought moderators were supposed to suppress the outbreak of over-controversial, potentially offensive remarks and opinions, not start them.

 

'Oh dear Jesus'....the blasphemy is somewhat ironic I feel

Nexxo's statement was backed up with information to justify the statement (at least to an extent). How about you put aside your righteous indignation and challenge the argument, rather than getting worked up over what he said?

As for it being 'potentially offensive', well yes it is, but in a debate about religion this is almost inevitable, someone taking offence at someone questioning their beliefs or the motivation behind organised religion as a whole.

As moderators we're not here to 'suppress potentially offensive opinions' at all, this forum is for debate, and we're not going to stifle that to pander to one particular religious group or another by closing threads as soon as someone says anything 'potentially offensive' - I mean, how broad can that classification be? The sort of ffreedom of speech afforded to posters in this forum gives people the ability to say some things that may offend....but if you're offended, exercise your freedom to turn the other cheek, or challenge the argument itself.

 

religion is the opiate of the masses, acron^. kinda funny that when it comes to intelligent design, they want to "teach the controversy", but the davinci code must not be read/watched, because of its controversial material. it's not that they want their followers to be "just ignorant", it's that they want them to have a certain kind/degree of ignorance.

and, on a tangent, i hate when people confuse ignorant for stupid. see?

 

That may be provocation, but it is true. The church has always fostered a culture of ignorance, of not knowing things, of not stepping over that line.

Anyway, I watched Dogma last night. It had Alanis Morissette as god, matt damon and Ben Affleck as some fallen Angels, and some chick I don't know the name of as the last remaining reltive of christ, who got impregnated by Alanis so that she could have another baby jesus(unless I mis-understood).

That was on TV for 60M to see, in a country where some are complaining about the Da Vinci code. My point is, the controversey here has been stirred up by a few idiots, who are really living in a different world, and has spread to the mainstream.

Fair enough, if the church doesn't want to support a work of fiction that goes against its teachings, thats only natural. But the hysteria surrounding the Da Vinci code, grow up ffs.

 

Linda Fiorentino as Bethany, the last scion.
but smith prefaced it by saying it was all a joke, and that even god has a sense of humor: look at the platypus. i can't remember if brown prefaced davinci code with a disclaimer (though i want to say he did...).

 

While Kevin Smith noted that his film was not to be taken seriously, he did intend for it to get you thinking about faith and what it is to be Christian.

Dan brown prefaced the DaVinci Code with a note essentially stating that the story was historical fiction. I think one of the problems is people's basic poor understanding of history, whether it is church influence or not. Dan Brown used real people and real things and created a fictional story around them. The guy in the article quoted above does make a point that a lot of this furor over the movie can be traced back to the fact that people generally don't know where that line is.

It doesn't help that mainstream media has jumped on the bandwagon, either. The History Channel, Discovery, and the other host of related channels are all now airing specials about Bible codes and DaVinci's secret meanings. They all feature "experts" in various fields debating whether or not DaVinci really painted Mary Magdalene in The Last Supper.

I would agree to an extent. Historically this is true, the old culture of the church did seem unfriendly to its membership. Mass was in Latin, not spoken aloud, and the Priest stood with his back to the congregation . However, the modern church has improved leaps and bounds. The Catholic Church (since you specifically identified it) now encourages people to learn. Just recently the Vatican warned against fundamental dismissal of scientific theory.

But I wouldn't blame the church, per se, for fostering ignorance in the people. Back when Martin Luther was nailing his message on the door, literacy in general was pretty rare. I think it has more to do with greed in the people that were in power at the time. That's not to say that it doesn't happen today. Just look at the evangelists that are so popular. However, even then I wouldn't blame the church, because I don't think these evangelists really care about religion in the first place.

Actually, I don't think Ted Baehr is a religious figure. At least, the biography about him at MovieGuide.org doesn't list any particular affiliation. I think he's just another evangelical horn blower who has jumped on the DaVinci marketing bandwagon.

-monkey

 

So if these Christian leaders are openly stating that their followers aren't educated on what it is they are following or what it is they are actually supporting, then why the hell are people Christian in the first place? If they really are that ignorant in their beliefs then does it matter if they watch the Da Vinci Code and start to question what it is they are doing? Surely if anything it is going to provoke those who have a serious interest in a religion to do more research and check out the facts rather than blindly believing a work of fiction... although I guess most religions work on blind faith and are more interested in receiving financial donations than anything else!

 

Again...I think this should be more a message to the leaders of churches (Protestant and Catholic). If the faith of their masses is so easily shaken, then they should take a little less time condemning everone else's belief and a little more time explaining to their members why theirs is a good belief to have.

But, as I said in the other thread regarding this...in the immortal words of George Carlin:
"We don't have time for rational solutions."

 

More faith-shaking for me (not that I HAVE a faith) was Terry Pratchetts "Small Gods". Now THAT's a book slating Christianlity

The DaVinci Code is great fiction and I hope the films just as good

 

I see your point, but part of me really wonders how many people are actually questioning their faith because of this book/movie? I think back a couple of summers ago, when you couldn't go 2 feet without hearing about shark attacks. People were being attacked all over the place. The reality is that particular summer had one of the lowest recorded number of attacks in recent years. A bunch of evangelical fundamentalists are upset because they (mistakenly) think the The DaVinci Code was supposed to be historical. They get a lot of media coverage and now DaVinci hype is everywhere.

If box office receipts are any kind of sign, the majority of people don't care.

-monkey

 

Sorry but this whole argument is pathetic. Your saying that because one man on the internet said Chritsians should not read The Da Vinci Code, all christians do and believe the same. At this very moment across Britain's prtestant churches seminars are being held which encourage christians to read the book and discuss it amongst each other.

Nexxeo, your comment was both provocative and shows a distinct lack of knowledge on the topic. What do you think the King James bible introduced in 1611 was. Please don't make comments about things which you have no knowledge of.

Further more this man is of no significant standing within the church. Quite frankly you picked up his article because it is an argument which allows you to slate the christian faith and its leaders. What about the articles which tel christians to read the Da Vinci Code, you don't seem to have mention them.

The whole sturcture of your argument is pathetically weak, as you have picked a source which provides a bias for your argument.

 

I think that it's true that most religious adherants are clueless to what they really believe. I mean even congregations of the same professed faith will have different idea's/skews on topics that should be unified in thought amoungst all of them. I think for the most part it's an "if they watch this they might have questions, and we don't have the answers"I think that it's true that most religious adherants are clueless to what they profess to believe, or the religious organization itself does. I mean even congregations of the same faith in the same town will have different idea's/skews on topics that should be unified in thought amoungst all of them. I think for the most part it's an "if they watch/read this they might have questions, and we don't have the answers." They are afraid of what they could be dealing with.

It's just a movie/book, fictional btw. But can still get people's minds to be provoked into questioning things they've believed for many many years.

I still wouldn't watch it/read it because it is something that goes so strongly against the truth of the bible. But that's my personal opinion.

 

Valid point.

Protestantism derived from Martin Luther held the idea that the Bible was the sole source of doctrine and as such should be translated into the local vernacular. Being German, he thus translated the Bible in his local German language in 1534. Luther's Bible translation was profoundly influential on William Tyndale, who, after spending time with Martin Luther in Wittenberg, published an English translation of the New Testament. In turn, Tyndale's translation was foundational for the King James Bible.

By the time the King James Version was written, there was already a tradition going back almost a hundred years of Bible translation into English (not counting the Old English Bible translations that had been made in the Early Middle Ages, before the Roman Catholic Church started mandating the exclusive use of the Latin Vulgate). Many of the vernacular translations of the time were said to be filled with "heretical" translations and notes and were thus banned by the Church. The King James Bible represents a revision of Tyndale's translation.

As for provocative statements, I'm sorry, but you should talk...

 

I don't think it's the current Christians they are particularily worried about. The issue with most Christians who are critical of the book is that it damages the legitamacy of Jesus Christ, and are afraid it will damage the reputation of our religion if people start questioning its foundations (although personally I think they're doing more damage making such a fuss about it).

I think you're being a tad bit hypocritical in suggesting that people should research the facts of an argument before reaching a decision on it and then claiming that religions are simply businesses founded on unfounded beliefs.

<A88>

 

Only the truly faithful dare question their fate, I suppose. Personally I doubt that any true believers regard this film (and the book on which it is based) as anything more than a quaint work of fiction. I think that those who are worried about the film, worry perhaps too much about their public relations, so to speak. That is not what faith is about. Although of course nobody likes what they stand for to be misrepresented, nobody will take this film seriously unless they do.

 

At the risk of playing Devil's advocate (I'm really not trying to), I think that's what some of the Catholic groups are worried about. It's not necessarily their faith in quesstion, but the facts about their faith.

To put it another way:
We were discussing the whole thing at work earlier today. My boss loved both the book and movie, and despite being a somewhat fundmentalist Baptist she remarked on how the whole thing "really makes you think". One coworker saw the movie and was somewhat disappointed. He thought it was supposed to be more of a documentary (based on all the hype). During the discussion we pulled up a picture of The Last Supper and they all starting talking about how there just might just be something to this. After all, "DaVinci was a really weird guy, and that sure looks like a woman". My coworker wondered if the various Catholic groups in the movie were accurate (such as Opus Dei). I'll give him this much, at least he asked the question.

It was at this point that I reiterated that The DaVinci Code was a work of fiction using historical people and places. In the end I pointed them all to the Wikipedia article on the Last Supper, which pretty much kills all the Mary Magdalene theories.

-monkey