84 replies to this topic

[benning]

Roger Ebert weighs in giving the movie 3 stars...

"They say The Da Vinci Code has sold more copies than any book since the Bible. Good thing it has a different ending. Dan Brown's novel is utterly preposterous; Ron Howard's movie is preposterously entertaining. Both contain accusations against the Catholic Church and its order of Opus Dei that would be scandalous if anyone of sound mind could possibly entertain them."


http://rogerebert.su...email_headlines

[forumreader]

5. As I have , not knowing diddly about the Catholic religion other than to understand that it is a religion of rote and hail mary's to endless degrees....

.. and what is it with all the Hail Mary's - thought false idols were not allowed ....

These statements illustrate how many misconceptions there are about the Catholic Church, and how The Da Vinci Code may fuel these falsehoods.

F500: Regarding the "Hail Mary," the Blessed Mother is not an idol. -- Do you really want an answer about the role of Mary in the Church and this particular prayer, or are you just making a flippant criticism of the Church?

[folsom500]

These statements illustrate how many misconceptions there are about the Catholic Church, and how The Da Vinci Code may fuel these falsehoods.

F500: Regarding the "Hail Mary," the Blessed Mother is not an idol. -- Do you really want an answer about the role of Mary in the Church and this particular prayer, or are you just making a flippant criticism of the Church?

Forum-- I would REALLY like to know- I have been to Catholic Weddings, Catholic mass once and to a death thing ( forget what it is called) ... as I was raised a Baptist , I cant for the life of me understand the endless hail mary's and other repeated sayings the at the priest and the congregation engage in...
a service time could be cut in half if it were not for these endless and repeated sayings...
And as far as worshiping Mary-- I really do see this a Idol worship...

Do explain...

Cheers
F500

Edited by folsom500, 18 May 2006 - 11:23 AM.

[folsom500]

These statements illustrate how many misconceptions there are about the Catholic Church, and how The Da Vinci Code may fuel these falsehoods.

Forum

You Say THESE statements-- are you saying ALL of them are misconceptions and falshoods ??? Or did you not read them all ???

cheers
f500

[forumreader]

Forum

You Say THESE statements-- are you saying ALL of them are misconceptions and falshoods ??? Or did you not read them all ???

cheers
f500

I'm saying that the view of Mary as a "false idol," and Catholicism as a "religion of rote and endless Hail Marys" are not true. I quoted your post as an example of some of the misconceptions about Catholicism in the general population.

I'm glad that you are truly interested in a clarification about some of these Catholic practices and beliefs. -- I will answer later today when I have a little more time.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Isn't it ironic that non-believers are so easily impassioned by a work of fiction when that's exactly what they claim of Christians?

[benning]

well, it is tough to have a one sided debate. I tried it once and I won.

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

The movie sounded interesting and I thought I would want to see it, and decided to read the book first. I was disappointed with the book; when I read a story that is supposed to be suspenseful, I want suspense. The various clues were way too easy to figure out. I'm not sure I want to see the movie now. I understand it's 2.5 hours long; to draw out the predictable isn't my idea of fun.

I heard that some wanted the movie producer to display a disclaimer reminding the viewing audience that the story is fiction. How ludicrous. It isn't being promoted as a documentary, although aspects of it may be based in fact/history. Will some people assume that the movie is 100% fact-based? Sure; some people believe that if they buy sporty cars they'll attract sensuous members of the opposite sex or that it's possible to lose weight fast without exercise or changes in diet.

People believe what they want to believe.

Edited by Resume Lady, 19 May 2006 - 01:27 PM.

[banana]

People believe what they want to believe.

That is the wisest comment yet.

Many people believe what they've been indoctrinated to believe. Unquestioning frequency and repetition is all that's required (now you know why commercials on TV are so prevalent and repititious).

God Himself could not convince His followers (of any faith) that He is just a more advanced being from elsewhere in the universe even if He wanted to (assuming that were the truth).

Unfortunately, the bulk of the population on this earth lives in poverty and is uneducated (in many cases illiterate).

We all use technology with little understanding of how they work ie. cell phones, home phones, TVs, cars, and so on. Just think the world of medicine. We take it for granted and to us, it's not magic, but to the 3rd world, it might as well be.

So it's no surprise that 98%+ of the people on this planet believe in some God or another that created what they see, etc. Such simplistic notions are easily adopted by large uneducated populations, and they remain the majority opinion because those ideas are indoctrinated in us by our (usually) less educated parents, and the alternative explanations require years if not decades of education and are not easily explained to lay people.

It will take millinea to educate the world's population and show them that resuscitating someone that just had a heart attack or seemed to have drowned is not magic or a work of a God.

Millenia from now we'll look back at ourselves and see the same lack of knowledge that we see in cavemen.

I've had my share of intellectual challenges with Catholicism. I had so much trouble with the book of Genesis that I couldn't get very far before thinking it was more a work of fiction/opinion than fact.

Genesis 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

Wouldn't He know this already before he saw it? (He is all knowing)

Genesis 3:6-11 [Trouble accepting the idea of a God that favors lack of knowledge over knowledge]

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

? I guess He isn't all knowing and doesn't see all. I've heard the argument of man having free will, but that doesn't negate knowing all - either He is all knowing/seeing or He isn't, in which case we're talking about something other than what I would think of as God.

There are numerous others, but I find that those that know the Bible well, often get lost in esoteric discussions of physics, mathematics, biology and other scientific principles and philosophical concepts that keep us from having any meaningful dialogue.

For example, what if Jesus returned (and proved of course that He is the one and same original Jesus described in the Bible) and told you, that in fact, He is just a member of a more advanced race for which none of his miracles are miraculous?

I suspect that He could not convince Christians that He is not God, nor could He convince those that do not believe that He is God.

So the discussion of religion is a matter of belief that is largely devoid of knowledge (faith does not require knowledge), and so it is a pointless discussion unless those involved are ready to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work required to understand one another.

[Farley]

That is the wisest comment yet.

Many people believe what they've been indoctrinated to believe. Unquestioning frequency and repetition is all that's required (now you know why commercials on TV are so prevalent and repititious).

God Himself could not convince His followers (of any faith) that He is just a more advanced being from elsewhere in the universe even if He wanted to (assuming that were the truth).

Unfortunately, the bulk of the population on this earth lives in poverty and is uneducated (in many cases illiterate).

We all use technology with little understanding of how they work ie. cell phones, home phones, TVs, cars, and so on. Just think the world of medicine. We take it for granted and to us, it's not magic, but to the 3rd world, it might as well be.

So it's no surprise that 98%+ of the people on this planet believe in some God or another that created what they see, etc. Such simplistic notions are easily adopted by large uneducated populations, and they remain the majority opinion because those ideas are indoctrinated in us by our (usually) less educated parents, and the alternative explanations require years if not decades of education and are not easily explained to lay people.

It will take millinea to educate the world's population and show them that resuscitating someone that just had a heart attack or seemed to have drowned is not magic or a work of a God.

Millenia from now we'll look back at ourselves and see the same lack of knowledge that we see in cavemen.

I've had my share of intellectual challenges with Catholicism. I had so much trouble with the book of Genesis that I couldn't get very far before thinking it was more a work of fiction/opinion than fact.

Genesis 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

Wouldn't He know this already before he saw it? (He is all knowing)

Genesis 3:6-11 [Trouble accepting the idea of a God that favors lack of knowledge over knowledge]

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

? I guess He isn't all knowing and doesn't see all. I've heard the argument of man having free will, but that doesn't negate knowing all - either He is all knowing/seeing or He isn't, in which case we're talking about something other than what I would think of as God.

There are numerous others, but I find that those that know the Bible well, often get lost in esoteric discussions of physics, mathematics, biology and other scientific principles and philosophical concepts that keep us from having any meaningful dialogue.

For example, what if Jesus returned (and proved of course that He is the one and same original Jesus described in the Bible) and told you, that in fact, He is just a member of a more advanced race for which none of his miracles are miraculous?

I suspect that He could not convince Christians that He is not God, nor could He convince those that do not believe that He is God.

So the discussion of religion is a matter of belief that is largely devoid of knowledge (faith does not require knowledge), and so it is a pointless discussion unless those involved are ready to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work required to understand one another.

That sound you hear is a standing ovation!

[watstein]

Ok Since this whole topic is more about the religious controversy and not the movie itself, I am only talking about the movie.
I went and saw the first showing at Century here in town and there was a full theatre with lots of people interested. I never read the book but I got the whole picture of why everyone thinks it controversial but let me say I am questioning faith more than normal. I am not a very religious man but after seeing this movie I can be plausible but I would need some more proof. I think that for everyone of Christian and Catholic faith being upset is like Jews were for Passion of Christ. So I really don’t see why people should be rude about these films, it is an interpretation of events. I also read Rodger Ebert’s review and I think he is trying to not piss off the church so he is calling the movie preposterous like he thinks the book is. Also for a Pope to ban and boycott this film adds fuel to the fire by basically saying that people shouldn’t question faith and we all know that the church can be wrong, anyone remember Gallileo? Well I have to say is let people decide what they believe.

Edited by watstein, 19 May 2006 - 06:39 PM.

[Cookie]

Ok Since this whole topic is more about the religious controversy and not the movie itself, I am only talking about the movie.

Also for a Pope to ban and boycott this film adds fuel to the fire by basically saying that people shouldn’t question faith and we all know that the church can be wrong, anyone remember Gallileo? Well I have to say is let people decide what they believe.

The reaction has little to do with religion. The preference of most authority is unquestioning loyalty and devotion. Most authorities do not like inquiry and questioning and suppress attempts at investigation.

- Parents
- Police
- NSA, CIA, FBI
- Governments
- Heads of state

The church is no exception. Like any other authority, it doesn't mind if you question everything else, as long as you don't question the church. And in this regard, God is like man, at least as portrayed in the Bible. He too expects unquestioning rule over His subjects.

For believers, man was made in God's image so it's no surprise that man expects unquestioning authority over his subjects. You know what they say, like father like son....

For non believers, man wrote the Bible and its numerous iterations, so it's no surprise that it reflects the nature of man (God or no God).

Genesis 11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

you know the rest of the story...

Genesis 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

I find Genesis 22 interesting. For most believers the underlying assumption is that by "us" it's just God and the serpent.

The first time I ever heard this verse I imagined that there was more than just God, Devil, Adam and Eve within earshot. One or more 'silent' Gods sitting around. Could never get the initial impression out of my head that by "us" God was talking about more than just the two of them.

[bishmasterb]

I just got back from seeing the movie tonight. I thought it was a good solid thriller; not great by any means, but certainly not bad at all. I'd probably give it 3 out of 4 stars, 2 and a half perhaps if I was being very critical.

[watstein]

I take a different approach to God and the church I take approach like a scientist and want to see god to believe there is an almighty, I believe that there is something but need hard evidence to believe it. The Bible in Latin means short fictional stories so how do I know that the scripture is even correct. My approach would be like (sorry for star trek) Captain Kirk ask god for ID. I seek proof which there isn't hardcore evidence in either case of what is correct and I don't assume we will ever find the Grail anytime soon so I will believe like I do which is there is something but I don't know what it is. You might say I'm agnostic or an atheist but I don't believe in being classified as even that. Since you are quoting Genesis I question if you seen this movie or read the book. If not why? Also the church should be questioned who cares about the authority, history has shown time and again that the church was question and they responded and out-casted people for disbelief but the church has been wrong on numerous occasions and because of religious persecution I believe the church doesn’t have the right to dictate what is right and wrong, religion is a persons quest for their own spirituality and no matter what path you take to reach it is in the eyes of the beholder themselves. Indians believe in the cast system to reach nirvana, Christianity believes in heaven and heck and so on and so forth. My take is unless you or I or anyone who was there can prove the creation of this earth and life on it then everything is hearsay including spirituality and death itself. Like I said in my first post I am not religious because I don’t believe in an almighty god or Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha or whatever your beliefs are but I believe that there is something there and I need physical proof and until I get that proof then I will question all types of religion.

The reaction has little to do with religion. The preference of most authority is unquestioning loyalty and devotion. Most authorities do not like inquiry and questioning and suppress attempts at investigation.

- Parents
- Police
- NSA, CIA, FBI
- Governments
- Heads of state

The church is no exception. Like any other authority, it doesn't mind if you question everything else, as long as you don't question the church. And in this regard, God is like man, at least as portrayed in the Bible. He too expects unquestioning rule over His subjects.

For believers, man was made in God's image so it's no surprise that man expects unquestioning authority over his subjects. You know what they say, like father like son....

For non believers, man wrote the Bible and its numerous iterations, so it's no surprise that it reflects the nature of man (God or no God).

Genesis 11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

you know the rest of the story...

Genesis 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

I find Genesis 22 interesting. For most believers the underlying assumption is that by "us" it's just God and the serpent.

The first time I ever heard this verse I imagined that there was more than just God, Devil, Adam and Eve within earshot. One or more 'silent' Gods sitting around. Could never get the initial impression out of my head that by "us" God was talking about more than just the two of them.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Ok Since this whole topic is more about the religious controversy and not the movie itself, I am only talking about the movie.
I went and saw the first showing at Century here in town and there was a full theatre with lots of people interested. I never read the book but I got the whole picture of why everyone thinks it controversial but let me say I am questioning faith more than normal. I am not a very religious man but after seeing this movie I can be plausible but I would need some more proof. I think that for everyone of Christian and Catholic faith being upset is like Jews were for Passion of Christ. So I really don’t see why people should be rude about these films, it is an interpretation of events. I also read Rodger Ebert’s review and I think he is trying to not piss off the church so he is calling the movie preposterous like he thinks the book is. Also for a Pope to ban and boycott this film adds fuel to the fire by basically saying that people shouldn’t question faith and we all know that the church can be wrong, anyone remember Gallileo? Well I have to say is let people decide what they believe.

Thank you for your post. It illustrates - and no offense meant - what happens when people take a work that is stated fiction and treat it as a critical, historical analysis of events. It is absolutley nothing like the Passion of the Christ because that film dealt with events most would agree took place, regardless of Christ's divinity. The Da Vinci Code is a fictious novel that relies on made up characters, events, and circumstances - many of which have long been provento be false - which is OK since Dan Brwon was not writing a history book.

I take a different approach to God and the church I take approach like a scientist and want to see god to believe there is an almighty, I believe that there is something but need hard evidence to believe it. The Bible in Latin means short fictional stories so how do I know that the scripture is even correct. My approach would be like (sorry for star trek) Captain Kirk ask god for ID. I seek proof which there isn't hardcore evidence in either case of what is correct and I don't assume we will ever find the Grail anytime soon so I will believe like I do which is there is something but I don't know what it is. You might say I'm agnostic or an atheist but I don't believe in being classified as even that. Since you are quoting Genesis I question if you seen this movie or read the book. If not why? Also the church should be questioned who cares about the authority, history has shown time and again that the church was question and they responded and out-casted people for disbelief but the church has been wrong on numerous occasions and because of religious persecution I believe the church doesn’t have the right to dictate what is right and wrong, religion is a persons quest for their own spirituality and no matter what path you take to reach it is in the eyes of the beholder themselves. Indians believe in the cast system to reach nirvana, Christianity believes in heaven and heck and so on and so forth. My take is unless you or I or anyone who was there can prove the creation of this earth and life on it then everything is hearsay including spirituality and death itself. Like I said in my first post I am not religious because I don’t believe in an almighty god or Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha or whatever your beliefs are but I believe that there is something there and I need physical proof and until I get that proof then I will question all types of religion.

Here's the other problem with your argument - you state straight away that you would prefer to use the scientific method to prove religion. Religion is not science nor is it meant to be. It is based on faith, which falls outside the bounds of proving a hypothesis. Can you prove your dog loves you with science? Or will your experiment show that your dog is merely trained to respond to you in order to get what it wants? Can you prove you parents love you by repeated experiments?

Subjecting faith to scientific scrutiny makes as much sense as using the Bible to prove gravity - it doesn't work.