The Da Vinci Code

[techshooter]

For the convenience of selling a book and movie, a writer is stating what historians consider fiction as fact, but its impact is so huge across the Globe and now launching in theaters Friday.

It has spawned a whole culture and counterculture of literature debunking the Da Vinci Code theory, which is the backdrop of a mystery, and many people love a mystery.

I suppose mystery and investigation is the driving force of conspiracy theories, and the Da Vinci Code right now is the biggest of the big in inasfar as making money.

Organizations have hand-out literature debunking the theory, as well as a couple of books ant-Da-Vinci code written since the fictional book preceding the movie came out.

What has driven sales is usually a fiction has the back drop of truth behind it, not a back drop of fiction behind the fiction.

In otherwords by calling untruth truth, that will be controversial.

For example the society came out in the 1950's rather then the 1100's as the book claims, and the suporting evidence of the movement being older was planted in France public libraries, as admitted later by the con artist.

Also mixing up the dates of "the other gospels" debunked that came out long after the first ones as being earlier and covered up is part of the re-write of ancient historical fact.

In any case, the purpose of the book and movie besides making enourmous amounts of money is what was a cry to hate, but is creating debate: the great thing about any conspiracy.

So while I am not saying the movie is bad, the debate is the premise if the movie is a conspiracy that is a big debate.

My opinion.

[Lone Star]

Huh?   :roll:

[SAWgunner]

Roger that, Techshooter.  Sometimes as a Freemason, I get tired of defending myself and the craft against Dan Brown's "Truths".  He mentioned us in Angels and Demons, then a small mention in DaVinci Code....but his next book is going to be ABOUT us Freemasons.  Boy, that is going to cause me to lose my voice at work.  That just go to show the old theory that if you mix 20% truth with 80% fiction, then 90% of the people will believe it.

[1911crazy]

We have to step back and say "what if"?  If its true in a way because some hollywood movie facts are changed because it makes a better story but what if the foundation of facts is true that Jesus had kids with mary m?
This would surely turn the catholic religion on its ear.  It could be the best kept secret of all time.  All I'm saying is some of it could be true and what if it is what happens then? Everything can be proven or denounced very quickly sometimes and lets not move too fast here time will tell if someone comes forward and spills the beans with the real truth because we haven't heard the real truth yet i think the catholic church is lying to us too.

I'm a catholic and i should say i was once a catholic because i denounce that religion because of what they did to little boys. Our goverment shopuld of packed them all up and sent them off to the vatican. But thats another story.

[LeadPoison]

It's a movie.

[Skeptic10787]

Eurika!!!
It's a movie. It's a book. Regardless of whether the author intended it to be a legitimate conspiracy theory against Christianity, or just a story... it's just a book, just a movie... not the antichrist rising through the ground.
The idiots who are making a fuss need to get a life. They don't realize that the more they protest, the more everyone wants to watch the movie and see for themselves what all the fuss is about.

[992]

All they wanted to do was to create a big stir to get everybody talking about it.Well,they did it.Most people know the truth,but if they can create a big enough lie,then people will pay MONEY to see what all the stink is about.
That is the driving force behind the who mess of lies and FICTION,it doesn't have to be true, just profitable.
The bigger the lie,the more money made!!!

Just he way I see it.

992

[Skeptic10787]

...right over your head, buddy.

[urrlord]

i read HOLY BLOOD,HOLY GRAIL years ago it is a nonfiction book that covered the same topics--jesus marrying mary, having kids,founding the lineage that spawned royal families,templars etc. i found it interesting and so did dan brown-he rewrote it as fiction with a murder mystery.there are a lot of odd things that have  happened thru the centuries.but a continuing conspiracy ?don't know.i just know christ and i'm happy.

[1911crazy]

I always had a feeling the catholic church was a hoax.  Let them get real jobs now.  They should of been all closed up for what they done to little boys alongtime ago anyway.  Any other business that raped little boys would of been destroyed by our goverment a longtime ago anyway.

I believe in God/Jesus its just not the catholic church that i believe in.  Jesus had offspring that theory is awesome I love it and if its true Jesus is just like you and me were all human.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

D Man,

Well I guess you are sort of put to rest any argument that it's a harmless work of fiction.  

If it's so harmless why do we have posts like yours.  I realize it probably hasn't caused your ill feelings towards the RCC, but it certainly seems to have added a little gasoline to your fire.

What if DVC is incorrect?  What if the RCC is correct?  Then what?

[wijim]

we live in a culture that thrives on the negatives.  if there is a controversy...it'll sell.  thats what made michael moore rich.  hated...but rich.  remember that book out relatively recently called a million little pieces (jeez i think thats the name of it...lol..i read it).  it was a shocking memior of a drug addict that was controversial in and of itself.  it sold alot because of that nature.  then it came out that it wasn't truly a memior...as alot of it was embelleshed.....then it sold like gangbusters just at the tale end of it's popularity....due to the fact that there was even another controversy surrounding it.


im with the mindset of ..."its just a dang movie".  dont like it dont watch.  it certainly wont change minds.  i read the book and skipped the movie cuz it was moronic in my opinion.  but just like the last temptation of christ and frey's book of a million little pieces.......it is selling even more than it would have because of all the stink about it.  if people would stop saying "dont see this movie its horribly against xyz and a bad message etc.".......people wouldnt go out of their way even further to see what the big fuss is about.  its like a gawker slowdown on the freeway.  if i wanted to make a zillion bucks overnight.....by stirring crap....there is no other way than to try n find a way to effectively insult or create a stir with 1/2 of the population.  by doing that...i get 1/4 to see it...and talk about how cool it is...i get another 1/4 who see it and say its horribly offensive....then the remaining half go to see it just because it has controversy....then im rich and a household name...then why would i care what 1/2 the population thinks of me?

hell 3/4 of the country hates micheal moore....he laughs about it all the way to the bank daily i bet.

[Skeptic10787]

Exactly. The sorry souls who are protesting the movie are only making their cause worse. Now that they've made a scandal out of it, everyone wants to see why. Same with "The Passion" ...the jews who complained so much about how the movie portrays them as savage killers only made people want to watch it more. Their goal is to boycott the movie, yet the movies wouldn't have been nearly as popular had they not made such a big deal.

America is addicted to scandal (and beautiful rich white women who went missing). Our pathetic media knows it, which is why day after day, all we hear of is the latest scandal and the deep pocket behind it that needs to be sued.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Exactly. The sorry souls who are protesting the movie are only making their cause worse.

On the contrary.  Those who despise the falsehoods depicted in the movie are getting a lot of free publicity on account of the movie and its marketing.

There was one book Da Vinci Code.  There are numerous books debunking the code.  

The fact that the DVC is giving Christians a pole-vault leap onto the pulpit doesn't make the DVC and it's falsehoods "good".

[nabob]

Folks who are objecting to the movie are not, in my opinion, sorry souls. They are meeting falsehood with truth, as they are required to do by their faith.

The DaVinci Code relies on people's lack of knowledge about a particular historical period, the Middle Ages, and their lack of knowledge about Catholicism and the early church. Rather than read Eusebius, they'd prefer to have information handed to them. Will many of them take the time to do any reading to determine for themselves if the assertions made by the movie are true? Probably not. Therefore, the protesters try to make people aware of the fact that this IS just a movie, that this IS just fiction, that the assertions are NOT true. In doing so, they provide a valuable service, I think.

[Skeptic10787]

No matter how you look at it, religion is a matter of opinion. Even the so-called "facts"  of religion can only be interpreted by opinion. If christianity was clear-cut facts, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
If the protesters are so threatened by opinions in a movie, a darn movie, they really are sorry souls. It only proves that christianity is dying... not at the hands of evil, but rather at the hands of misplaced faith by the followers.
Maybe god needs to wake up from his 2000 year nap and give us a little dose of "truth".

[nabob]

Well, I'd partially agree with you. Religion is a matter of revealed truth. People have differing opinions about the truth that they have come to in their lives so in that sense, it is a matter of opinion. For some, the truth that has been revealed is that there is no God. For others, the truth is that there is a God. In each case, though, each side believes they have the truth of the matter.

The people protesting the movie are not threatened, in my view, by a mere movie. They are threatened by something that is 1) ubiquitous and 2) calumnious. Why should they sit silent when what they believe so strongly in is being vilified on a zillion screens every weekend? They are "sorry souls" because they have decided to make an alternative statement? Since when did expressing one's opinion about matters that concern one's self become such a paltry thing?

I'm Catholic and I cannot tell you how many people I've spoken to who are not Catholic (most not even "churched" - no religion at all) but who came away from either reading the book or seeing the movie and half-convinced about some of the statements made. The problem is that quite a few people treat this work of fiction not as a complete fiction but as a sort of "historical novel", where a fictitious story line is woven around basic historical facts.

If everyone going to the movie or reading the book treated either with skepticism, there wouldn't be a problem. However, lots of people don't. Therefore, people try to set the record straight.

That's pitiful in your view? Not in mine. Of course, it isn't your religion that is being pilloried on the big screen. DW Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" spread lots of lies about blacks. Blacks were depicted as corrupters of white women, shiftless and lazy, upsetting the natural order of Southern society.

They should just have taken the viewpoint that everyone knows that a movie is a movie and not been bothered by such depictions? If everyone was as sophisticated as to view a movie as merely a movie, maybe you'd be right. But not everyone is, or was.

Actually, I think that the protesters are a good role model for us. Here's a group of people, mad about something, who decide to confront what they see as a bad idea with a better one. They meet misinformation with better information. Sounds pretty much in keeping with the best aspects of our democracy to me. So even if you don't agree with their viewpoint, instead of viewing them as sorry souls, I'd suggest that they be viewed as acting in the best traditions of public discourse as envisioned by the folks that founded our nation.

[Skeptic10787]

Yes, it is pitiful. Yes, I still do see them as sorry souls, even though I understand your point of view.
I watched the movie, and I know several other people who watched it, and not a single person I know actually walked away thinking the movie was anything but a movie (and a good one at that).
Yes, the protesters are threatened by a mere movie... you just said so yourself. It's a movie, plain as day. You choose to go to the theater, you choose to pay, you watch it on that big white screen, and you're either entertained or not. Sounds a lot like a movie to me.
People aren't losing faith in christianity because they watched a movie... they're losing faith because they can't trust their church anymore. They're losing faith because their religion can't provide answers to modern day life. They're losing faith because christianity is based on blindly believing claims in the ancient past, and blindly believing that claims for the future will happen. Christians have far more to worry about than a darn movie.
Just as you have your right to protest, other people have their right to give their opinion. Take example of The Passion. Just the opposite. The mainstream christians stuck by the movie and defended it, saying it was just a movie... just mel gibson's opinion...  so I'll ask you, since you brought it up, why do you feel an opinion outside the norm should not be allowed? You say the opinions of the protesters have an alternative statement, I say the movie provides an alternative statement... cut it down the center and you'll notice that 99.8% of the public really doesn't care at all.

[WmRoy]

D Man,

Well I guess you are sort of put to rest any argument that it's a harmless work of fiction.  

If it's so harmless why do we have posts like yours.  I realize it probably hasn't caused your ill feelings towards the RCC, but it certainly seems to have added a little gasoline to your fire.

What if DVC is incorrect?  What if the RCC is correct?  Then what?

For once I agree with you BJJ!!

D Man, this is to much even for you!!

[nabob]

Well, your experience with people who have watched the movie or read the book is much different than my own. Perhaps the fact that you have not experienced people considering the movie as anything but a movie leads you to believe that no one does. Or perhaps you discount the very idea that anyone could believe that the movie is anything but a movie because that is how you view it. Either way, I think you have to at least allow the possibility that others might not view it in the same light as you do. As evidence, I suggest you view some of the posts in this very thread - they attest to people who don't come away from this movie viewing it strictly as a work of fiction.

Check out D Man for example. Or SAWgunner. Lots of people come away from movies thinking the movie was not just fiction or a cool story. I think the existence of such posts on this thread might indicate that your experience is not universal. As such, it is not so unreasonable to have people trying to correct an image that such a movie might leave. After all, your experience is not the only one out there, wouldn't you agree?

I don't know why you have such hostility towards Christianity but I'm guessing that this colors your evaluation of the effect of the movie to a great degree.

I don't believe I've ever stated that an opinion outside the norm shouldn't be tolerated. In fact, I've stated just the opposite - meeting a bad idea with a better one, meeting inaccuracies with fact. That's a position in favor of MORE debate, not less. I can't imagine how you get from that to a viewpoint where I somehow am looking to shut off debate. Seems to me I've come out pretty strongly in favor of free speech for all. Protests are part of that speech.

[Skeptic10787]

Well, your experience with people who have watched the movie or read the book is much different than my own. Perhaps the fact that you have not experienced people considering the movie as anything but a movie leads you to believe that no one does. Or perhaps you discount the very idea that anyone could believe that the movie is anything but a movie because that is how you view it. Either way, I think you have to at least allow the possibility that others might not view it in the same light as you do. As evidence, I suggest you view some of the posts in this very thread - they attest to people who don't come away from this movie viewing it strictly as a work of fiction. Check out D Man for example. Or SAWgunner. Lots of people come away from movies thinking the movie was not just fiction or a cool story. I think the existence of such posts on this thread might indicate that your experience is not universal. As such, it is not so unreasonable to have people trying to correct an image that such a movie might leave. After all, your experience is not the only one out there, wouldn't you agree?

I'll agree with you on this. At no point did I indicate that my opinion was the only one that mattered. Although I don't doubt that there are some people out there who do believe the theory because they watched the movie, I'll contend that many weren't involved in religion to begin with and therefore don't understand the significance of what they saw. You may see this as bad, but I see it as neither a loss nor a gain on either side of the debate. On the other hand, I believe that people who are involved with christianity should have the right to hear different opinions that might not be mainstream, and make the decision for themselves. I also feel that anyone who decides to believe an alternate theory should have the right to believe it without being labeled as evil or unintelligent, which is what a majority of the protesters are doing.

I don't know why you have such hostility towards Christianity but I'm guessing that this colors your evaluation of the effect of the movie to a great degree.

Hostility? That's a strong word. I'm not an athiest, and I don't consider myself hostile, but rather an individual with many unanswered questions, and won't accept blind belief as an answer. I am a baptized episcopalian, and I went to church up till the point when our priest was charged with stealing from several church funds... then our new priest ended up in rehab for alcohol abuse... then the priest that organizes our diocese youth group activities was investigated and removed after accusations of several inappropriate relationships with teenagers  ...so yes, I have a pretty big trust issue with church leaders due to those experiences. That's not all though... the questions I bring up are questions I've had even as a young child. Back as a child, it was far easier to be scared into submission by threats of humiliation and going to hell for even indicating that type of question. Even at 7 and 8, I would sit in sunday school and wonder why the other kids had no problem believing stories that just didn't make sense. Now that I'm an adult, I'm free to make decisions for myself, ask the "unaskable" questions, and voice my opinions.

I don't believe I've ever stated that an opinion outside the norm shouldn't be tolerated. In fact, I've stated just the opposite - meeting a bad idea with a better one, meeting inaccuracies with fact. That's a position in favor of MORE debate, not less. I can't imagine how you get from that to a viewpoint where I somehow am looking to shut off debate. Seems to me I've come out pretty strongly in favor of free speech for all. Protests are part of that speech.

I'll agree that you haven't taken the stance that an opinion outside the norm shouldn't be allowed, but it is certainly the main idea of a majority of the people who disagree with the movie, including several in this group. There will never be peace in this country as long as the mainstream christian population views every opinion they disagree with as a threat. If christianity is that unstable, it has a lot more to worry about than a movie.

[nabob]

No argument from me that people should hear all sides of a debate. That's what public discourse is all about. People who don't want a particular opinion to even be heard, to me, don't quite understand what debate is all about.

John Adams once said:

Be not intimidated...
nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties
by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency.
These, as they are often used, are but three different names
for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.

So I think that being polite about debate is less important than making certain one's opinions are known. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive - one can certainly make one's opinions known and be civil about it as well. However, if in the name of politeness, delicacy or decency, free speech is being curtailed, then free speech comes first. If people don't like being labeled, then to me, that's part of what comes with being if favor of free speech: sometimes that speech isn't very nice. I don't like it when atheists label me as stupid or deluded and I'll ask that they stick to discussing issues instead of making ad hominem attacks. I'm sure that sort of thing we both don't like to see.

However, in the end, I think an ad hominem attack shows just how barren an opposing viewpoint is. If the best someone can do to address an issue is to attack the person, then they don't have much to say and I think that the more they talk, the more foolish they are shown to be. So I say, if people are trying to shut down opinions about this subject of the Da Vinci code by labeling people who see it as evil or stupid, then let them talk away - they are only harming themselves.

I don't see Christianity in any trouble. It has its ups and downs just as it always has. I guess I'd also disagree that Christianity as a whole is somehow represented by the people busy protesting. I see most Christians as not protesting because they just view this as a movie, so judging all Christians by the actions of these few is, to me, not reasonable.

[jkir]

When the book came out (I did find it a fun read) I took it as "historical fiction", some ideas from history used to make a fictional story a better read.

I haven't seen the author say to what level he considers his book's ideas truth or fiction (perhaps he has said). Anyway, I think those that have taken the high road of their truth v. his fiction may have given him more exposure than they anticipated.

I think that because he questions the Catholic Church, the Church has seen fit to totally debunk the book/movie. I think their "over reaction" has probably given more credence to the book's legitimacy than if they had simply said the Church finds the book/movie  offensive and full of untruths. Remeber, any publicity is good publicity as far as the author/publisher/producer is concerned

[TribReady]

It's funny how we "debate" this based on the miniscule amount of knowledge we have.  It's all second-hand and what someone else thinks or says.
This topic has been thoroughly rejected by historians and ancient scholars, yet we think a writer with no background, training, degrees, etc in history or archaeology suddenly has the "truth". 
Historical fiction would be like Gone with the Wind, where atleast some of it could be verified and some of it be historically credible.
The Gnostic writings of the 1st and 2nd centuries are the basis of this entire thing and like stated, have been put away long ago by scholars.

Read the book, have some fun, but it's fiction. Leave it at that---but don't be offended if someone calls out the author or those purporting its truth and authenticity.

[Skeptic10787]

Argh. This thread is supposed to be long dead.

IT'S A BOOK! IT'S A MOVIE! The numbskulls who are causing such a stink have only made more people want to watch the movie, contrary to their intentions. Why are they worried? Why do they think this movie is a threat? If god is as powerful as christians claim, a movie should cause no harm.
Christianity is dying for a reason, and I can assure you it has nothing to do with a movie.

[S.S.]

The whole thing is so silly that it is kind of funny to me ...
How someones imagination could cause such a stir in the world...
But, L. Ron Hubbard wrote something as stupid as DIANETICS and it has started one of the most foolish religions in history.. Scientology! Hollywood has "FOUND RELIGION" with this one. People can be duped into anything I guess 

[Mac11700]

Christianity is dying for a reason, and I can assure you it has nothing to do with a movie.

I beg to differ with you ...Christianity isn't dying at all...It's just that some of truth is finally coming out that the Catholic church has fought to silence and destroy since it's inception has now seen the light of day...and is being openly discussed by various scholars...All one has to do is to realize there have been volumes of material destroyed so that the church could maintain it's position of authority and control over the people. They have and will discredit anyone or anything that cast any doubt on their doctrine...In the past...they had dissenters burned at the stake for going against them...Today they just portray them as the lunatic fringe.... Power & wealth have ruled this world from the beginning of time...as with anything else...follow the money trail and see where it leads you...You might be surprised..

Mac

[Skeptic10787]

I'll agree with everything you said, with the exception of the denial that christianity is dying. What you mentioned is only part of the big picture. I can assure you the catholic church is not the only christian denomination with leadership problems.
The fact is plain and simple. The number of true believers of christianiy becomes lower and lower each year... somewhat due to the scandals and leadership issues, but mostly because people are finally realizing that they have the right to think for themselves and make their own judgements instead of blindly believing what they're told. Believers have an easy out... just blame it on satan, but it's really just the failures and inconsistencies of the church itself. Christianity obviously wasn't prepared for it's "truth" to be challenged.