DaVinci Code....???
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): DaVinci Code....???
The movie is the subject of all the hype this week. Many Christians around the world are upset about the movie's release. I have not read the book, but I understand that it is FICTION. That no one is purporting this to be true.
It's too bad that Leonardo DaVinci is only being remembered for this. He was an amazing man in many ways. Besides being a gifted painter, he was an inventor, and an animal rights activist. He was a vegetarian, and would purchase animals destined for slaughter, to free them.
Do you think that the book or movie are offensive or sacreligious?
I think there are tons of books and movies that are offensive. I didn't find this book any worse than others, actually found it a bit boring.
On a totally different note, if you want a great kid's book about Leonardo Davinci - try "The Genius of Leonardo" by Guido Viconti
I loved the book and will go see the movie on Friday if I can get a sitter (i have a call in).
Is it offensive to a Christian, not quite. I guess I knew it was fiction when I read it, certainly had some interesting view points. I did make sure that after I read the book I went and read some debunking stuff. For me when I get so enthralled in a book or movie I have to reset my mind, so to speak. So no matter what it is, I research what i just read about so that I have a very clear book of truth and fantasy.
As far as DaVinci, what this book makes me think of him...what a genuis! Obviously when he was painting pictures there was so much more to it than just getting in on paper. I don't know those reasons, but I really will never look at his art the same, to realize there is underlying meanings in each piece is very interesting. Are those meanings was the code is about? Probably not, but still some of them are very interesting notations. I think artistically it has broadened my mind, not limited it.
I am very much looking forward to the movie. I want to see how the movie makers interpret it for the screen and see how Tom Hanks does in the lead role since I had a completely different image of Langdon in my head while I was reading it.
I read the book at face value. I found it an easy, entertaining read. Did I find it offensive? No. Sacrilegious? To me, no, but I can see how it might be interpreted that way, especially by those who are not open to different ideas concerning their religion.
I don't see how Da Vinci will only be remembered for this. I knew before reading this book of Leonardo's genius and I'm sure I'm not the only one. If anything, the book made me more curious about him, his art, other artists of his era and that time in history. It also produced long conversations with my kids, my friends and family who read the book. That in and of itself was worth the price of the book! 
I have no interest in any fiction that has to do with the Bible. Not that I consider it offensive or sacriligious, but as a Christian, I do not find it entertaining in any way. Most movies that are made about the Bible and religion are done so with an effort to portray events as closely as is possible to the way in which we believe that they may have happened. Naturally, a bit of creative license needs to be taken, but pure fiction such as this (or remember the "Last Temptation of Christ?" ) do not interest me in any way.
I loved the book and look forward to seeing the movie.
I look at the book as entertainment, not a true story. I don't care about what they say about Opus Dei or Mary Magdalene or any of that. I do get why a lot of christians are so up in arms about the whole thing, but i don't agree with it. Some people are just very sensitive to what others say about their religion.
I'm not THAT religious, so it just does not bother me.
I have been looking forward to seeing htis movie since i read the book last year.
I haven't read the book. Not because I object to it but because it's just not my thing. Not into fast paced thrillers really. Now if Dan Brown had thrown in either some aliens, wizards or clever women pining for love in the 19th century...Then I might have picked it up.
I know some Christians find it insulting for reasons similar to why they got all frothy at the Gospel of Judas...It's interpretted as an attack on what they've been told is TRUE. And if the Bible isn't factually true then they think that means it's a lie (not that all literalists are in a tizy).
There's also the implication of female power and that Christ was not divine.
I also know that quite a few liberal Christians are upset because his research was a little shoddy in parts and because they're tired of people asking them if they think it's real. One comment, "I just ask those people if they picked the book up out of the fiction or non fiction section."
I do think it's useful though. There are people out there with really interesting ideas on who the historcal Jesus really was or whether he was even real. I think it would be really exciting if we could open up discussion of christian history.
I think it would be really exciting if we could open up discussion of christian history.
Exactly!! This is exactly why, as an evangelical Christian, that I am NOT upset about this book or movie. I read the book and frankly thought it was pretty predictable and from a literary standpoint it did nothing for me. However, I will be seeing the movie. It has opened and will continue to open up nonthreatening opportunities for faith-based discussions with others. That can only be a cool thing as far as I am concerned. And I must say that I'm embarrassed in particular for all of the Christian groups making a huge deal out of the book when they likely haven't read it and don't even know what it is about. I still believe that Jesus is divine, was single and celibate, and that the Bible is inerrant. TDVC is merely a book of FICTION. Sorry, but fiction doesn't threaten muy faith.
Here's an interview with Brian McLaren from a Sojourners Magazine email I got:
An interview by Lisa Ann Cockrel
With The Da Vinci Code poised to go from bestseller list to the big screen on May 19, pastor and writer (and Sojourners board member) Brian McLaren talks about why he thinks there's truth in the controversial book's fiction.
What do you think the popularity of The Da Vinci Code reveals about pop culture attitudes toward Christianity and the church?
Brian McLaren: I think a lot of people have read the book, not just as a popular page-turner but also as an experience in shared frustration with status-quo, male-dominated, power-oriented, cover-up-prone organized Christian religion. We need to ask ourselves why the vision of Jesus hinted at in Dan Brown's book is more interesting, attractive, and intriguing to these people than the standard vision of Jesus they hear about in church. Why would so many people be disappointed to find that Brown's version of Jesus has been largely discredited as fanciful and inaccurate, leaving only the church's conventional version? Is it possible that, even though Brown's fictional version misleads in many ways, it at least serves to open up the possibility that the church's conventional version of Jesus may not do him justice?
So you think The Da Vinci Code taps into dissatisfaction with Jesus as we know him?
McLaren: For all the flaws of Brown's book, I think what he's doing is suggesting that the dominant religious institutions have created their own caricature of Jesus. And I think people have a sense that that's true. It's my honest feeling that anyone trying to share their faith in America today has to realize that the Religious Right has polluted the air. The name "Jesus" and the word "Christianity" are associated with something judgmental, hostile, hypocritical, angry, negative, defensive, anti-homosexual, etc. Many of our churches, even though they feel they represent the truth, actually are upholding something that's distorted and false.
I also think that the whole issue of male domination is huge and that Brown's suggestion that the real Jesus was not as misogynist or anti-woman as the Christian religion often has been is very attractive. Brown's book is about exposing hypocrisy and cover-up in organized religion, and it is exposing organized religion's grasping for power. Again, there's something in that that people resonate with in the age of pedophilia scandals, televangelists, and religious political alliances. As a follower of Jesus I resonate with their concerns as well.
Do you think the book contains any significantly detrimental distortions of the Christian faith?
McLaren: The book is fiction and it's filled with a lot of fiction about a lot of things that a lot of people have already debunked. But frankly, I don't think it has more harmful ideas in it than the Left Behind novels. And in a certain way, what the Left Behind novels do, the way they twist scripture toward a certain theological and political end, I think Brown is twisting scripture, just to other political ends. But at the end of the day, the difference is I don't think Brown really cares that much about theology. He just wanted to write a page-turner and he was very successful at that.
Many Christians are also reading this book and it's rocking their preconceived notions - or lack of preconceived notions - about Christ's life and the early years of the church. So many people don't know how we got the canon, for example. Should this book be a clarion call to the church to say, "Hey, we need to have a body of believers who are much more literate in church history." Is that something the church needs to be thinking about more strategically?
McLaren: Yes! You're exactly right. One of the problems is that the average Christian in the average church who listens to the average Christian broadcasting has such an oversimplified understanding of both the Bible and of church history - it would be deeply disturbing for them to really learn about church history. I think the disturbing would do them good. But a lot of times education is disturbing for people. And so if The Da Vinci Code causes people to ask questions and Christians have to dig deeper, that's a great thing, a great opportunity for growth. And it does show a weakness in the church giving either no understanding of church history or a very stilted, one-sided, sugarcoated version.
On the other hand, it's important for me to say I don't think anyone can learn good church history from Brown. There's been a lot of debunking of what he calls facts. But again, the guy's writing fiction so nobody should be surprised about that. The sad thing is there's an awful lot of us who claim to be telling objective truth and we actually have our own propaganda and our own versions of history as well.
Let me mention one other thing about Brown's book that I think is appealing to people. The church goes through a pendulum swing at times from overemphasizing the deity of Christ to overemphasizing the humanity of Christ. So a book like Brown's that overemphasizes the humanity of Christ can be a mirror to us saying that we might be underemphasizing the humanity of Christ.
In light of The Da Vinci Code movie that is soon to be released, how do you hope churches will engage this story?
McLaren: I would like to see churches teach their people how to have intelligent dialogue that doesn't degenerate into argument. We have to teach people that the Holy Spirit works in the middle of conversation. We see it time and time again - Jesus enters into dialogue with people; Paul and Peter and the apostles enter into dialogue with people. We tend to think that the Holy Spirit can only work in the middle of a monologue where we are doing the speaking.
So if our churches can encourage people to, if you see someone reading the book or you know someone who's gone to the movie, say, "What do you think about Jesus and what do you think about this or that," and to ask questions instead of getting into arguments, that would be wonderful. The more we can keep conversations open and going the more chances we give the Holy Spirit to work. But too often people want to get into an argument right away. And, you know, Jesus has handled 2,000 years of questions, skepticism, and attacks, and he's gonna come through just fine. So we don't have to be worried.
Ultimately, The Da Vinci Code is telling us important things about the image of Jesus that is being portrayed by the dominant Christian voices. [Readers] don't find that satisfactory, genuine, or authentic, so they're looking for something that seems more real and authentic.
Lisa Ann Cockrel is associate editor at Today's Christian Woman.
Wow, Pam! That was a great interview!! I couldn't agree more with Brian McLaren. ANYTHING that gets people talking to each other in a constructive, non-judgmental way, is a good thing. There were some that said that Mel Gibson went over the top with the gore in "The Passion of the Christ", but it got people to think and to exchange ideas.
I'm afraid that the Christian church has become known as propagating intolerance of others ideas or beliefs, because some have "hijacked" it as a political end.
We had a poster on the wall in our fellowship hall at church for a few years. I loved it. It said, "Jesus died to take away your sins, not your mind".
The judgemental and intolerant reputation that the Christian church has earned has been, at least in part, the fault of many famous television preachers, in my opinion. However, we all have to be judgemental to some degree. For instance, I can judge for myself which behavior is good in the eyes of the Lord, and which behavior is condemned in the eyes of the Lord.
And let's also remember that Jesus preached among the thieves and the gamblers and the prostitutes, and that he also judged their behavior and told them to turn away from it.
One of the interest quotes I read (not sure from where) went something like this "if Christianity can survive the likes of Darwin, it is unlikely that a writer from the midwest can really shake Christianity"
I enjoyed the book for the puzzling of it, I liked to figure out the "codes" along the way, I am not a religious person so found no offense or education on that standpoint. However with most books made into TV, I am usually dissapointed so I'm not sure if I'll see it or not.
Kaye, you sound like my hubby, he is totally engrossed when reading a book and tends to take on "personalities" my favorites are the Ann Rice Vampire series, I swear he turned pale during those books and kept odd hours And the Beatles memoir, he was a different Beatle everyday and the man cannot sing!LOL
PamT wrote:
>>I still believe that Jesus is divine, was single and celibate, and that the Bible is inerrant<<
We're on opposite ends of the spectrum. I'm not even sure Jesus wasn't a mythical figure myself. I see the bible as a book written by men(or rather a collection of books) of myth, opinion, history, etc.
But that's sort of the point. We've got a great faith that built itself from scripture and tradition and instead of discussing all the different views, from myth to inerrancy, we often shut each other down like some people are trying to do with the DaVinci Code. It would be really interesting if we could share our different views in a reasonable manner. We don't have to convince each other, just share.
The reviews I am reading and hearing is that the movie is a big bore - and I can't say I was terribly impressed with the book.
I agree, Pam, that was a great interview.
And everyone who reads the book or sees the movie should remember - it's fiction. I don't think the Bible is 100% fact, I do think it was written by men, recording history as they remembered it or were told it, and is a serious and marvelous attempt to make sense of what is, essentially, unknowable. But inerrant, no. However, the view that Brown postulates in his book was ruled heresy by the then Church (the only Church at that time), and seriously contradicts the mainstream view. I think the churches who are pouncing on it and calling for boycotts are simply adding to the attraction of it for many, and wish they would, instead, do as recommended in the interview and use it as a springboard for teaching and helping people explore their faith.
While I don't believe the Bible is inerrent, I am basically Christian. Brown's book is a reasonably good yarn, and, like most yarns, incapable of proof but (sadly) a great springboard for even more conspiracy theories.
Well, Dawn, it's understandable that you would wonder why some people can't talk about their faith without getting defensive. It's probably because it's such a personal and emotional subject, much like patriotism can be.
When someone tries to explain why they feel the way they do about their beliefs, they often end up defending the reasons WHY they have faith in a particular belief, and that can be difficult to explain. That's faith by definition- "I believe it because I do."
That's absolutely it, Lisa. I believe it because I do. I don't need proof, I don't want proof, and if someone tried to "prove" it to me, then it wouldn't be faith.
GREAT point Lisa. It's hard to not be defensive about something you strongly believe in.
You all have me curious to read this book OR see the movie....not both because my experience is that one will always be worse than the other once you have those pre-conceived ideas in your mind about it.
My sister just converted to the Catholic Church and I attended her conversion ceremony. Their lobby was FILLED with literature and books bashing the DaVinci Code. That immediately peaked my interest, especially since I am not Catholic.
Yes, and I think that it is for that reason that the concept of faith is difficult to relate to someone who doesn't have any, or doesn't share the same faith as you do. I think when discussions of faith are pursued, that is why it tends to turn bitter. Possibly only clergy are both trained and have the patience to have a religious discussion without it getting out of hand.
Didn't read all the posts. I will - when I get a chance. Just wanted to throw this out there, though. The Code is badly researched fiction - lots of stuff in there is so innacurate.
BUT - Has anyone read the newly released Gospel of Judas? WOW - talk about a trip to the wild side of Christianity!
If you want something to shake up a faith based discussion, check that out. Also, I'm reading "Peter, Paul & Mary Magdalen" by Ehrman. Again, reading the real scholarly research makes you wonder how we can still believe anything! - and yet, I still do.
Ame
I enjoyed the book and will see the movie. I can not believe that a novel and a Hollywood movie have people so paranoid about their beliefs and faith.
I was born and raised a Roman Catholic in MA. My Dad's side of the family were immigrants from Poland. Very Catholic. I could even recite the Polish Mass by heart, growing up. I swear when John Paul II became Pope it was a HUGE event in our family!
However, I've learned from our own parish, that man is man and not God. Human man can and will interpret their faith according to each own's ideas. Human man will say one thing on the alter then do sinfull things behind closed chamber's doors.
I strongly believe that the Bible is man's interpretation of fact, beliefs and ideas. Not the word of God.
I do like that Dan Brown's novel stirred up Christian venues for conversation. We are lucky we can discuss religion with open minds and not forced into a dictator's ideas to ensure our safety and lives.
If the Catholic church is afraid of a novel, then I think that is the least of their worries as a religious entity.
Well said Annie! I have been amazed that a work of fiction has caused such controversy in the church!
In my memory, the Catholic Church (and others) have been big on attempting to ban or keep their members from seeing certain films or reading certain books - and it seems only to spur interest in the book or movie. I remember when I was a teenager there was a Doris Day movie banned by the local Catholic Church because the character married a man, believing her husband was dead, and several years later her first husband was found alive - so she was, of course, married to both of them and it worked out in typical Doris Day/Hollywood fashion. I remember it because my parents went to see it only because so much fuss was being made about it (my family isn't Catholic).
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4927618
Apparently Ginny, you are on target. The movie opened in Rome and set boxoffice records.
Ginny, I believe that movie is Move Over, Darling. That's too funny
I am Anglican (Episcopalian), and our priest started a book club to study this book when it first came out. I didn't attend, but I'm sure he just used it as a teaching tool. He's never talked about it during his sermons.
I saw Dan Brown on some talk show last week. They said he's somewhat of a recluse and doesn't usually do that kind of stuff. His comment regarding all the hoopla was a laugh and something to the effect of to the best of his knowledge his book was still being sold in the fiction section of the bookstores. And he added that the book was maybe 5% fact and 95% pure fiction.
I'm like a few other Christians here. It doesn't bother me. Jesus Christ has survived for roughly 2000 years. I don't think some fiction book is going to take Him down. And I think that God can use all things for His purpose. Let's say a nonChristian sees the movie and/or reads the book. Maybe it is interesting to him. So then he does some research and reads some more. And then, oh no, he's reading the gospels in the Bible. God might just get his heart in there somewhere.
Well said, Debbie. My thoughts exactly... and I thought it was a darn good book.
I did go see the movie (and have read the book). I enjoyed it. It wasn't a great movie, but it was good. Not a bore, I will probably rent it when it comes out on video.
Probably the best quote I have heard....comparing the works of dan brown and Christianity, is like saying that Star Wars will have an effect on our space program.
Intersting to me the view points of the Bible by so many here. I believe it is the divine word of God, written by man, but inspired by God. Each revision, each rewrite and even those who decided what books go in what order. I feel they are all comanded by God.
The gospel of Judas. I have read this also. Does shake my Christian faith any more than the book of Morman.
As far as the validity of the Bible. Do you realize that the gospels were written with in decades of Christ's death? They actually have physical remains of documents dated back to I believe it is 50bc. Which means when people were reading it and hearing it, there were people who actually witness a lot of it. For example we have books written about JFK, if they veer to far from the truth, there are people that will stand up and say no WAY. But if we try to fabricate a book about George washington, really no one could easily prove that wrong.
For me historically the Bible stands up. When it talks about places and people, archeologists have proven time and time again that it matches, not contradicts.
Okay, I have another thought that I don't think has been mentioned. I was thinking about this the other day. It appears to me, based on the above interview that I read, that what's got some of the Christian right so riled up about this is the apparent liklihood that the author, among others, actually believes what he has written and is trying to influence his audience via his modem of entertainment. It wouldn't be the first time an author or screenwriter has used the entertainment industry to further their cause or agenda. I mean I know that he says it's fiction, but is it really fiction to him? Is he merely trying to stir up dialogue or is he trying to promote his idea of Jesus?
It looks to me like some Christians are just sick and tired of their religion and their faith being questioned and attacked and picked apart. Hence, as I said before, it's no wonder that some Christians can't have a dialogue about their faith without it degenerating into an argument.
Just a thought.
I have not read the book or seen the movie. My dh did read the book in order to do a lesson in apologetics refuting it though.
|
Members
