The Da Vinci Code

[Robinsegg]

It's on my reading list.

Here's the thing: if a movie can shake your faith, you didn't have faith to begin with.

If you're constantly secluding yourself into a world of Christian-only influences (I'm not saying you are, but it's an attitude I see on these boards) for fear that something is going to corrupt your beliefs then that's a problem with you, your faith.

I see your point. We are to be in the world, but not of it. 1 Peter 2:11-12 (NIV)

However, we also need to keep this in mind:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things.
Phil 4:8 (NIV)


Rachel

 

[Pheehp]

tho im sure it is great to think about nice things that doesnt mean you should blinker yourself to everything else. the da vinci code was a very enjoyable book (if a little too linear for my tastes) and part of todays popular culture so why cut yourself off from what lots of your friends will be talking about and it opens a great doorway to philosophical discussions - which i find highly engaging and entertaining. if anything its made christianity a promenant topic this summer so really its a plus for your religion, plus aparently opus dei received record applications during its time at the box office lol

and if you get a cinema ticket AND popcorn at any time for 7.50 i am so jealous

 

[crumbs2000]

Should Christians go to movies in which there is profanity?nudity?

You know that there is not a small amount of that in the bible, right? And worse things than those are described as well.

Like incest and rape and the many other things people find acceptable in the bible.

 

[crumbs2000]

Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. (Romans 14:20-23)

Lily, let me point you to Romans. For sure Christians don't need to be watching, listening to or partaking in a lot of the worldly things that we do. It lessens our witness. Now a lot of folks think that's being a little legalistic, but it's still the truth.

With the DaVinci Code, yes it's entertainment just like any other form of entertainment. But I would hope that Christians were not stewarding God's money to watch porn. SO likewise, why would Christians want to put money in the pockets of those who would create something that is an obvious stumbling block to millions worldwide?

Should Christians go to movies in which there is profanity?nudity?

Rather than raising the bar of holiness, today's Christians seem to be dropping it so as to accommodate their lifestyles of personal enjoyment via being entertained by that which is unholy.

I understand what your saying but I think christians tend to overemphasize the negative and not look at positives with many people's curiosity about christianity being aroused.

 

[SallyNow]

Nope. If your religion doesn't want you to think for yourself or question anything you should ditch it. People who live in a bubble can't actually make an informed decision about anything...including the decision to become a Christian IMHO. Wath or read The DaVinci Code for your own enjoyment or to satisfy your curiosity, anyone telling you not to is trying to control you. Why would you allow that?

On the one hand, yes, a person must be able to think for themselves, believe for themselves, have their faith come from their heart, not from being told to have it from someone else.

On the other hand, if a friend of mine who knows my taste says, "don't waste your money on Paperclip: The Movie, and what I've read about it seems to point that I'll be wasting my money, then I'll probably wait until Paperclip: The Movie is on TV to watch it.

Mind you, I don't see anything wrong with The DaVinci Code, provided that I (and anyone I'm seeing the movie with) keep in mind that it is indeed fictional, that pretty much everything, with the exclusion of the descriptions of the art, geography, and architecture, is the work of Dan Brown, not of reality.

Yes, The DaVinci Code is wrong, in that it has fictional descriptions of people and some places that are not real, or that even misleading. Maybe some people are complaining because somewhere deep, dark inside, The DaVinci Code feeds on their doubts. Perhaps for others, it feeds on their misinformed thoughts about Christianity. Perhaps others are angry at The DaVinci Code for its unfair treatment of the Opus Dei, as so many take the fictional account as reality (which is pitiful in this day and age of media awareness)

 

[Mayflower1]

Is it unethical to watch a work of fiction turned into a movie?

Was it unethical to watch Lord of the Rings, Spiderman, Superman, etc?

Then no, its not unethical. Ethics really has nothing to do with it. If you are to afraid to watch something because you think it might change your views, then your views are not based on a solid foundation and need to be re-examined.

Only reason to hide from something is out of fear. And only those of weak conviction need fear ideas.

I am not worried about it changing my views, none the sort. I was just concerned that it would cause me to start protesting or something!

 

[Mayflower1]

Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. (Romans 14:20-23)

Lily, let me point you to Romans. For sure Christians don't need to be watching, listening to or partaking in a lot of the worldly things that we do. It lessens our witness. Now a lot of folks think that's being a little legalistic, but it's still the truth.

With the DaVinci Code, yes it's entertainment just like any other form of entertainment. But I would hope that Christians were not stewarding God's money to watch porn. SO likewise, why would Christians want to put money in the pockets of those who would create something that is an obvious stumbling block to millions worldwide?

Should Christians go to movies in which there is profanity?nudity?

Rather than raising the bar of holiness, today's Christians seem to be dropping it so as to accommodate their lifestyles of personal enjoyment via being entertained by that which is unholy.

I like your reasoning on this. It is hard to pull me out of things like Kruger vs. Jason and suspense movies that look really controversial and everything. My thing though is I don't want to be part of the world. My relationship with God is everything to me.

 

[Mayflower1]

It would never shake my faith. My faith is unwavering. This movie though, if it is lying about my Saviour and trying to portray a lie as truth, then the movie is NOT for me. I had to think about it because it really does seem interesting and suspense is my favorite type of novel, but I don't want to watch something that just angers me.

 

[Pheehp]

im not sure ppl get what the word "fictional" means... how can it be lying about god if it is a self proclaimed fictional story. thats like saying the movie Absolute Power is lying about the president, it clearly isnt as its a fictional story involving the president.

remember fiction = not real, so it cant be lying as its untrue anyway, if you get so carried away with fiction as to believe its true then you'd prolly find xmen to hold your attention more - watch out for mystique, she could be anyone!

a lie is an untruth claimed to be true - the film and book are nothing of the sort. give it a watch/read its very enjoyable and you wont be behind on threads like this.

 

[Robinsegg]

Here's a paragraph from the wikipedia on this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Da_Vinci_Code
Dan Brown himself dilutes the suggestion of some of the more controversial aspects being fact on his web site: "The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader." [4]. However, it also says that "these real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters", "it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit." and "the secret behind The Da Vinci Code was too well documented and significant for me to dismiss." It is therefore entirely understandable why there would continue to be confusion as to what is the factual content of the book.

 

[Pheehp]

i agree entirely that the book weaves a very convincing arguement, but its still an arguement in a fiction book. i was very impressed at the way dan linked and seemed to layer his evidence through many real objects but if you think that confuses it with reality then any fiction story that includes gravity, our world as we see it, uses names of real ppl or real religions can therefore be cnfused with reality - which is absurd.

any arguement based in fiction no matter how brilliant is ficticious, unless the truth we've been told is the lie and the fiction stumbles on the truth (but in this case the writer is as oblivious as the rest of us) - but thats getting a little too matrixy for me.

 

[RealityCheck]

Here's my 2 cents.

First, I agree with a half-dozen other posters. A movie should not change your faith. Faith, after all, is not rooted in mundane facts and history, or what this book says as opposed to that book, but in truths that transcend temporal and material facts.

Second, I just HAVE to offer my personal opinion of Dan Brown and his book. Brown is no great writer - his prose is on the low road and the story is highly contrived. Nor is anything in the book "new" or "groundbreaking" - all theories about Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene, or having children, anything to do with masons and templars and such... all of this is old, old, old! These are ideas that have been around for centuries.

Of course, Brown knows that, but he also knows that most people are pretty much in the dark about any Christian history between 100 CE and 1800 CE. He may not be a great writer of prose, but he does know how to write a best-selling page-turner (by no means the same thing), and by weaving all of these esoteric bits of mystery and old cults into the thriller, he churns out a multil-million dollar book, and over half of that money comes from selling controversy.


Would I fork over the money to see the movie? No. I read part of the book and had to quit. It irritated me.

 

[Mayflower1]

im not sure ppl get what the word "fictional" means... how can it be lying about god if it is a self proclaimed fictional story. thats like saying the movie Absolute Power is lying about the president, it clearly isnt as its a fictional story involving the president.

remember fiction = not real, so it cant be lying as its untrue anyway, if you get so carried away with fiction as to believe its true then you'd prolly find xmen to hold your attention more - watch out for mystique, she could be anyone!

a lie is an untruth claimed to be true - the film and book are nothing of the sort. give it a watch/read its very enjoyable and you wont be behind on threads like this.

The thing with the Da Vinci code is he DOES claim all the Biblical and historical events as true.

 

[RealityCheck]

Here's a paragraph from the wikipedia on this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Da_Vinci_Code
Dan Brown himself dilutes the suggestion of some of the more controversial aspects being fact on his web site: "The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader." [4]. However, it also says that "these real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters", "it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit." and "the secret behind The Da Vinci Code was too well documented and significant for me to dismiss." It is therefore entirely understandable why there would continue to be confusion as to what is the factual content of the book.

Dan Brown knows a cash cow when he is the one who made it. He knows that most of the reason his book and movie have sold so well is because of the controversy, and the instant he actually provides a clear answer on what is fiction and what is not, the controversy dies and his sales drop off.

 

[RealityCheck]

The thing with the Da Vinci code is he DOES claim all the Biblical and historical events as true.

Well there is a good deal of history that he includes. There were plenty of secret societies and cults within the church for centuries. Dark Age stuff, ya know.

Of course, he embellishes a lot of that history to make his story.

If you want to know what's real and what's not, you'll have to read on your own. Get a few good books on the history of the church and medieval Europe, as well as some books on the early church founding (around the Roman Empire era).

And of course, he won't tell you what's real or not. Do you remember the Blair Witch Project? There were all kinds of sites on the net, and books published, about the "real facts" of what was nothing more than a work of fiction. But to make a buck, the creators created as much crap as possible to sell the idea that the movie "actually happened."

 

[Mayflower1]

They had that screen in front of the "Dawn of the Dead" movie that said some of the events actually happened. I was thinking, what, the people walking down the road!

 

[Pheehp]

the above poster is 100% right the da vinci code isnt a great piece of literature - tho it is quite compelling. it was well put as a "pageturner".

again i need to state that the claim of it being fact is uttered in a fictional world which is based on things that arent true - so you can assume that the truths of that world dont correspond to truths in this world. and this goes back to which world your mind lies in.

 

[Mayflower1]

If anyone has ever read "Sophie's World," it is a fictional book with REAL knowledge from philosophers. With the Da Vinci code, it is trying to echo something like Sophie's World, but they shouldn't claim the events to be true.

 

[RealityCheck]

You know it's a bizzaro world when books classed as "fiction" are claimed as "non-fiction" and the books classed as "non-fiction" are discovered to be nothing more than mislabelled fiction.

 

[bammertheblue]

The thing with the Da Vinci code is he DOES claim all the Biblical and historical events as true.

This what Dan Brown claims is true, from the foreward to the novel:
"The Priory of Scion- a European secret society founded in 1099- is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Scion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.
The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brain-washing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as "corporal mortification". Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate".

That's it! He doesn't claim the Biblical events are true or untrue. He doesn't even mention them. Basically all he says is "These two organizations are real. One of them just built a big building in NYC. And I've accurately described all the paintings, buildings, and rituals in this book". Whether or not the documents he describes are real or not is another story. He never claims they are or are not- only that he has depicted them accurately.

I can't believe I just spent this much time arguing that a fiction book is, in fact, fiction.