[Transcend]

I don't understand the concept of "defending the faith" in this context. Nobody is exterminating Christians or burning down churches. There is no "attack" on anybody or anything; this is a mystery/thriller movie based on a FICTIONAL book.

Many would tell you, so is what they are defending.

 

[LordOpie]

Hey, as Ian McKellen pointed out, at least if Jesus screwed Mary Magdalene and had kids, it means he wasn't a faggot. Glass half full, and all that...

didn't adam and eve have two sons?

So we're all descendents of a couple of incestuous queers?

 

[TheMontashu]

Someone who just simply defends their beliefs is not a "fanatic", Jaydee. The book is offensive to my beliefs, though it will not undermine them or cause me to question the truth of the Bible.
I know you can't deny me the right to my own opinion, but it's like you are saying that believers should just ignore the media's assualt on their beliefs and not do or say anything to defend the Word of God. How hypocritical! The author and others try to hide behind the cloak of "it's just fiction, what are you getting so worked up about?"

What if someone wrote a book which was then hyped by the media which was full of perverted lies about your mother and discribed your father as a deciever. Even if the author tried to claim it was a work of fiction, don't you think you would speak out in defense of your parents (beliefs), and against the lies and misinformation told about them? I certainly wouldn't call you a fanatic for doing so.

Booo hoooo I didnt whine about the pasion. It doesnt matter what you think, hell they could show a gay wedding between paul and jesus, its peoples right to do as they please.

 

[Silver]

didn't adam and eve have two sons?

So we're all descendents of a couple of incestuous queers?

One of them must have been a real mother****er.

 

[LordOpie]

One of them must have been a real mother****er.

That's sick. What the hell is wrong with you?

 

[jaydee]

The problem is that "people" are dumber than you and forget what is fact and what is fiction.

If they're dumber than me, then they're in a real bad way.

A lot of people, consciously or unconsciously, will take some of what is said in the book and the movie as fact when it is not.

Maybe so, but people don't protest much to get the internet shut down, even though it is by far the largest source of spurious "facts" on the planet. I believe an author/film maker who tells his readers/audience that his work is fictional has fulfilled his responsibility.

If someone wrote a book defaming my parents and threw in a line or two about how it was fiction, I'd still be pissed. Tossing in a discalimer and then depicting real-world subjects in a hurtful and inaccurate way is irresponsible.

I hear ya. Being pissed is fine. But you can't deny authors the right to create stories that are cast in historical time and include real historical people. There is no way to verify dialog or events from 2000 years ago. It is an ancient, time-honored convention to conjecture about historical events. Homer did it, and he was not the first to do so. I repeat that fiction is by definition "not truth" and anybody who takes offense has every right to be upset and no right to ban the author's expression. And there has been more than "a line or two" written in this case to label "The Da Vinci Code" as fictional. Anybody on earth who has access to the book or the movie has already been barraged by information about it. This is all about trying to control what people can read about or see or think and nothing about "defending the faith".

 

[jaydee]

Many would tell you, so is what they are defending.

Ya, I purposely didn't go there. People believe what they will and, as long as they leave me out of it, I don't care if they believe in the Tooth Fairy.

 

[kinghami3]

I'm just wondering how it offends your beliefs.

One of the book's premises that I'm aware of is that it says Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had offspring. How would that be offensive to Xtians? Or is that not one of the offensive ideas put forth in the book and is just a bad example? (Sorry if it is a bad example, but it's probably the only example I've come across, not having read the book.)

I have not read the book either, but I've never been afraid to make a blind assertion . The book offends "Xtians" because it undermines the idea of Jesus' ascension into heaven. For Jesus to be free to complete his mission, a family wasn't an option. He had no home of his own. The idea of Jesus' mission is fairly foundational, and saying he had a family means that he wouldn't have been able to complete his mission, which undermines the inspiration and authority of Scripture within the church. Just making such a monumental change to the story of the Gospel in itself undermines the authority of Scripture within the church (I am not in any way making the argument that Scripture is inerrant).

That said, people need to wake up to the reality that this is fiction. Dan Brown has been pretty adamant about that. It is entertainment, and I'm sure it's a good and engaging book. However, the Fundamentalist tendency is to shy away from intellectualism and pop culture (generally because modern intellectualism itself undermines the idea that Scripture is inerrant, a foundational belief in Fundamentalist churches, and they see pop culture as purely secular), so in this case the popularity and controversy surrounding the book/movie is prompting them to speak out strongly against it. Fundamentalists are my Christian brothers and sisters, they are not dumb, but they tend to fight the wrong battles.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The problem is that "people" are dumber than you and forget what is fact and what is fiction. A lot of people, consciously or unconsciously, will take some of what is said in the book and the movie as fact when it is not.

But that could be said for any fictitious work. Should we protest all fiction because someone might believe what they are reading?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I have not read the book either, but I've never been afraid to make a blind assertion . The book offends "Xtians" because it undermines the idea of Jesus' ascension into heaven. For Jesus to be free to complete his mission, a family wasn't an option. He had no home of his own. The idea of Jesus' mission is fairly foundational, and saying he had a family means that he wouldn't have been able to complete his mission, which undermines the inspiration and authority of Scripture within the church. Just making such a monumental change to the story of the Gospel in itself undermines the authority of Scripture within the church (I am not in any way making the argument that Scripture is inerrant).

I don't understand why the idea that Jesus had a family challenges his ascension into heaven. Why couldn't he have a family? It would not change the part about him being the son of god.

Also, how is undermining the authority of Scripture offensive? Surely people do that all the time. Whenever I challenge the notion of a historical Jesus, I'm also undermining the authority of Scripture, right? Doesn't the Koran undermine the authority of Xtian Scripture? Shouldn't Xtians talk about how they find the Koran and Muslims offensive?

 

[seismic]

I guess it is ok to write a fiction novel about another fiction novel (the bibel).....and if people are naive enough to believe what they read in the bibel then of course they might also belive that what is written in other fiction litteratur is true.....

 

[Andyman_1970]

That said, people need to wake up to the reality that this is fiction. Dan Brown has been pretty adamant about that. It is entertainment, and I'm sure it's a good and engaging book. However, the Fundamentalist tendency is to shy away from intellectualism and pop culture (generally because modern intellectualism itself undermines the idea that Scripture is inerrant, a foundational belief in Fundamentalist churches, and they see pop culture as purely secular),

Interestingly enough the idea that the world is split into “secular” and “religious” or “spiritual” parts has it’s roots in dualism……….Gnosticisms more palatable cousin. Again the irony is wonderful………..

Fundamentalists are my Christian brothers and sisters, they are not dumb, but they tend to fight the wrong battles.

Well said brother.

 

[fluff]

I don't understand why the idea that Jesus had a family challenges his ascension into heaven. Why couldn't he have a family? It would not change the part about him being the son of god.

Sex is quite clearly sinful, it's enjoyable so it must be bad. Come on - get with the program. Tsk.

 

[fluff]

But that could be said for any fictitious work. Should we protest all fiction because someone might believe what they are reading?

The newspapers would be in trouble, that's for sure.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The newspapers would be in trouble, that's for sure.

Especially when they try to report on science...

 

[kinghami3]

I don't understand why the idea that Jesus had a family challenges his ascension into heaven. Why couldn't he have a family? It would not change the part about him being the son of god.

Also, how is undermining the authority of Scripture offensive? Surely people do that all the time. Whenever I challenge the notion of a historical Jesus, I'm also undermining the authority of Scripture, right? Doesn't the Koran undermine the authority of Xtian Scripture? Shouldn't Xtians talk about how they find the Koran and Muslims offensive?

The point I'm making is this: How holy of a man would Jesus have been if he had intentionally left his family? Even in our society this is looked down upon with good reason. There's nothing unholy about marriage; in fact it is considered one of the most holy institutions. But for some, marriage is the wrong way to go; it would have made Jesus' mission nearly impossible. I wasn't really trying to make this point as much as saying this idea is just a huge departure from the Gospel.

Undermining the authority of Scripture is offensive (to some Christians, others don't care) because the church is built off of Scripture. Undermining the authority of Scripture jeopardizes everything about the Christian faith. The church that is in the New Testament is the same church that exists on earth today, and therefore Paul was writing to us just as he was writing to the Ephesians. Like I said, many Christians fight the wrong battles; if the Koran was a popular book in the US that they were going to make a movie out of, that would be getting the attention instead.

edit: sorry, I just woke up 5 minutes before writing this; most of it makes no sense...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The point I'm making is this: How holy of a man would Jesus have been if he had intentionally left his family? Even in our society this is looked down upon with good reason. There's nothing unholy about marriage; in fact it is considered one of the most holy institutions. But for some, marriage is the wrong way to go; it would have made Jesus' mission nearly impossible. I wasn't really trying to make this point as much as saying this idea is just a huge departure from the Gospel.

He intentionally left his family? I thought he was crucified by others.ink:

I'm just messing with you.

Undermining the authority of Scripture is offensive (to some Christians, others don't care) because the church is built off of Scripture. Undermining the authority of Scripture jeopardizes everything about the Christian faith. The church that is in the New Testament is the same church that exists on earth today, and therefore Paul was writing to us just as he was writing to the Ephesians. Like I said, many Christians fight the wrong battles; if the Koran was a popular book in the US that they were going to make a movie out of, that would be getting the attention instead.

I'm still not sure why one would be "offended." One might feel their faith is threatened by having the church placed in jeopardy, but offended is something else. By that line of reasoning (which BTW I am not ascribing to you) wouldn't it also be safe to say that any non-Xtian is offensive to those people?

 

[Andyman_1970]

because the church is built off of Scripture

This is where I tend to disagree slightly, I understand your point, but God is the authority of the church, not the Scriptures.

The church that is in the New Testament is the same church that exists on earth today,

This is where I strongly disagree. Up until well after Acts had been written the church was predominately a sect of 1st century Pharisaic Judaism not a new religion. What we do typically today in the year 2006 as Christians, especially evangelical (I would argue even Messianic Christians to some extent) is not very close to what it was in the 1st century.

and therefore Paul was writing to us just as he was writing to the Ephesians.

Again, I disagree. Ephesus and that area of Asia Minor had a specific culture in the 1st century that Paul is specifically referring to and addressing, especially in his letters to Timothy. To take what is written in the book of say Ephesians, or the letters to Timothy and to blanketly say things like they are just like Paul is speaking to us today in the year 2006 in the United States is IMO to misuse the Text. We don’t live in a city that is run by descendents of the Amazons, so not every thing Paul writes to this city for example is directly applicable to me. Now it’s all useful and lessons can be learned from those letters, but it’s about like say I write you a letter and because it’s hot in Arkansas I say it’s not a good idea for you to wear your black shirt. Well that letter gets dug up 2000 years later and people, without knowing the background of that letter think that suddenly they shouldn’t wear black shirts.

Anyway…………….this is way off topic………..sorry.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Nukes were invented for a reason. So were space shuttles. If we want to be humane about it and save the earth some long winters, let's just start loadin' up now. I need to free up a couple acres around my house anyway...

There's no way to control anyone's twisted thought process (See Ann Coulter post...) At some point, it just is what it is. Hell, I could go on a tangent about how the liberal left is repressing my right to worship marshmellows whilst the right is getting all over my nude muslim female pork-n-jello wrestling website. As long as I put it in print, someone that's looking for something to hang on to, will believe it.

Perception is the key. And the mind is the lock. Simple.

G Out!

 

[kinghami3]

This is where I tend to disagree slightly, I understand your point, but God is the authority of the church, not the Scriptures.

you're knit-picky, aren't you

This is where I strongly disagree. Up until well after Acts had been written the church was predominately a sect of 1st century Pharisaic Judaism not a new religion. What we do typically today in the year 2006 as Christians, especially evangelical (I would argue even Messianic Christians to some extent) is not very close to what it was in the 1st century.

Today the Catholic Church is based off of Apostolic succession. This means that there is a recorded history from Peter to Benedict the 16th. While the church has evolved greatly in form and function, it is the same continuous and non-docetic (being made of real living people) congregation. We, as a church, have to recognize that we are rooted in the Jewish tradition.

Again, I disagree. Ephesus and that area of Asia Minor had a specific culture in the 1st century that Paul is specifically referring to and addressing, especially in his letters to Timothy. To take what is written in the book of say Ephesians, or the letters to Timothy and to blanketly say things like they are just like Paul is speaking to us today in the year 2006 in the United States is IMO to misuse the Text. We don’t live in a city that is run by descendents of the Amazons, so not every thing Paul writes to this city for example is directly applicable to me. Now it’s all useful and lessons can be learned from those letters, but it’s about like say I write you a letter and because it’s hot in Arkansas I say it’s not a good idea for you to wear your black shirt. Well that letter gets dug up 2000 years later and people, without knowing the background of that letter think that suddenly they shouldn’t wear black shirts.

This idea goes pretty deep, and transcends the culture barrier. The church in Ephesus is a member of the Church -- the body of Christ (so to speak), the ecumenical church. Like I said before, that church exists today, and though Paul was indeed writing to the Ephesians, we must take these ideas into account: biblical authorship was inspired by a God who intended it to be used as Scripture in Seattle, WA in 2006, and there is no one central or real meaning to Scripture. Scripture was put into the canon because they were used by many different churches at the time, each church used that Scripture not just for "good lessons," but as a foundation for their beliefs. Each church gathered different meanings form the text, but the church as a whole was built on those texts, as it continues to be today.

Anyway…………….this is way off topic………..sorry.