Voting at the box office

[A. believer]

I just came across this blogpost yesterday, and I wanted to share it with people here. I don't know how busy this forum is, so please spread the word.

What are you doing May 19th?

 

[Mandrake]

Meh. Other than the fairly pedestrian writing I haven't got a problem with the DVC.

 

[A. believer]

Meh. Other than the fairly pedestrian writing I haven't got a problem with the DVC.

I'm not sure what it means when a professing Christian doesn't have a problem with revisionist history for the masses designed to undermine the truth of the Christian faith, but I want to believe that you're just unaware of the power of literature and story on a culture.

 

[Mandrake]

I'm not sure what it means when a professing Christian doesn't have a problem with revisionist history for the masses designed to undermine the truth of the Christian faith, but I want to believe that you're just unaware of the power of literature and story on a culture.

On the contrary, working and studying in religious studies has given me the opportunity to observe how a certain collection of myths and historical writings, which are no doubt to some extent revised, has influeced the development of a fairly large western religion. I don't care about the Da Vinci Code because it's a fictional book that only the most hopelessly ignorant could possibly mistake for fact, and I'm sick of having christians get worked up about it.

 

[A. believer]

On the contrary, working and studying in religious studies has given me the opportunity to observe how a certain collection of myths and historical writings, which are no doubt to some extent revised, has influeced the development of a fairly large western religion.

Obviously, I'd take issue with your assumptions here.

I don't care about the Da Vinci Code because it's a fictional book that only the most hopelessly ignorant could possibly mistake for fact, and I'm sick of having christians get worked up about it.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but in the current post-modern climate of today, most people don't base their beliefs on facts, but on impressions and feelings. Probably the overwhelming majority of readers of the DaVinci Code don't believe that the book is fact. It's much more subtle than that. Rather, they seem inclined to see it more in terms of "it's as good a story as any--no more or less plausible than the Scriptural view." But the idea of conspiracies in the church, of alternative views of Jesus, etc., all fit nicely into their skeptical paradigm, and confirm them in their delusion that truth is unknowable.

But you sound much too sophisticated to be getting all worked up about such concerns.

 

[Mandrake]

Obviously, I'd take issue with your assumptions here.

I suppose you can, but the reason that your assumptions are better eludes me

Maybe you haven't noticed, but in the current post-modern climate of today, most people don't base their beliefs on facts, but on impressions and feelings.

You realize, of course, that his applies equally to just about everyone living in the west right now. If you ask the average person why they believe in Christ, they'll likely say that it's because it feels right, and not because they've done extensive research.

Probably the overwhelming majority of readers of the DaVinci Code don't believe that the book is fact. It's much more subtle than that. Rather, they seem inclined to see it more in terms of "it's as good a story as any--no more or less plausible than the Scriptural view." But the idea of conspiracies in the church, of alternative views of Jesus, etc., all fit nicely into their skeptical paradigm, and confirm them in their delusion that truth is unknowable.

But in that case the issue is not with the book at all, but with the fact that people can't be trusted to read anything outside of the christian world lest they be somehow influenced by its demonic sway. Conspiracies in the church and alternative views of Jesus have existed for a couple thousand years or so, and I don't see them going anywhere. The postmodern world may be more receptive to them than some prior cultures were, but the answer is not to say that everything outside the orthodox is from the devil. Rather it is to encourage critical thinking and rationality, and see where a legitimate examination of the facts leads.

But you sound much too sophisticated to be getting all worked up about such concerns.

Well in that case poor little sophisticated me will just head off for a glass of cognac and leave the vulgus to their petty concerns.

 

[BarbB]

Well, I'm not as sophisticated as Mandrake and my faith is a pretty visceral faith. I will not be heading to the theatres. I will be using the stupid movie as a jumping off point for discussion of the lies in the story. And I will now have Tom Hanks and Ron Howard on my lengthening list of "don't bother with" actors and directors.

 

[A. believer]

Well, I'm not as sophisticated as Mandrake and my faith is a pretty visceral faith. I will not be heading to the theatres. I will be using the stupid movie as a jumping off point for discussion of the lies in the story. And I will now have Tom Hanks and Ron Howard on my lengthening list of "don't bother with" actors and directors.

I don't blame you for avoiding the movie, but did you read the article? According to Barb Nicolosi (a "Hollywood insider"), you can make a much more practical statement not just by passively avoiding the movie, but by actively and deliberately going to see another openingmovie on the opening weekend of the DaVinci code. She recommends that everyone see some animated family movie that's opening the same weekend. I can't remember what it's called, but she mentions it in the article I linked. Apparently, if enough people do that, it will have an effect on the percentage ratings of the DaVinci Code which will, ultimately, help discourage studio funding for more of the same anti-Christian garbage. It's an intriguing concept.

 

[A. believer]

I suppose you can, but the reason that your assumptions are better eludes me

Well, since you'd already rejected my assumptions before we conversed, and since I haven't presented any justification for them on this thread (and I don't intend to), I guess that's not surprising.

You realize, of course, that his applies equally to just about everyone living in the west right now. If you ask the average person why they believe in Christ, they'll likely say that it's because it feels right, and not because they've done extensive research.

I think I pretty much said that myself, didn't I? But in the case of putting one's faith in Christ rather than in any alternative, it doesn't take a doctorate to justify it. Rather, it's the only morally appropriate response to the revelation we've received.

But in that case the issue is not with the book at all, but with the fact that people can't be trusted to read anything outside of the christian world lest they be somehow influenced by its demonic sway. Conspiracies in the church and alternative views of Jesus have existed for a couple thousand years or so, and I don't see them going anywhere. The postmodern world may be more receptive to them than some prior cultures were, but the answer is not to say that everything outside the orthodox is from the devil. Rather it is to encourage critical thinking and rationality, and see where a legitimate examination of the facts leads.

This isn't a discussion on the source of the misinformation, but rather on the wisdom, or lack thereof, of supporting the cultural forces that perpetuate such rot. If we can have a say in what kinds of stories will be told by the way we spend our money, then it's just a matter of being good stewards of the resources with which we've been entrusted.

Well in that case poor little sophisticated me will just head off for a glass of cognac and leave the vulgus to their petty concerns.

Very well.

 

[Mandrake]

Well, since you'd already rejected my assumptions before we conversed, and since I haven't presented any justification for them on this thread (and I don't intend to), I guess that's not surprising.

Perhaps I shouldn't have continued with the "assumption" line. A reasonable textual examination leads to the inevitable conclusion that the old testament has been assembled from multiple sources and adapted to suit a particular message. What I'm saying is that I'm not making random assumptions, but drawing well thought out conclusions.

I think I pretty much said that myself, didn't I? But in the case of putting one's faith in Christ rather than in any alternative, it doesn't take a doctorate to justify it. Rather, it's the only morally appropriate response to the revelation we've received.

So the feelings of one segment of society have merit because they've reached the right conclusion, and as a result need no justification, but all others do, since they have reached a different (wrong) conclusion based on exactly the same reasoning, require further research. Makes sense to me.

This isn't a discussion on the source of the misinformation, but rather on the wisdom, or lack thereof, of supporting the cultural forces that perpetuate such rot. If we can have a say in what kinds of stories will be told by the way we spend our money, then it's just a matter of being good stewards of the resources with which we've been entrusted.

I was likely once again not clear enough. I think that things like the Da Vinci code and other productions that assert things that I believe to be false are actually beneficial because they demand that one evaluate their arguments and reach a reasoned conclusion. Those people who don't actually think about them, irrespective of the source or conclusion that they draw from it, are using poor logic and illegitimate reasoning,and deserve nothing but to be deceived. Just as much misinformation comes from sources that we would traditionally like to trust, and if we lack the ability to distinguish the good from the bad then we will never be able to say whether what we believe is reasonable or rubbish.

 

[Jipsah]

She recommends that everyone see some animated family movie that's opening the same weekend.

I can't do it. One more movie with a New-York- accented talking animal in it would render me homicidal.

 

[A. believer]

Perhaps I shouldn't have continued with the "assumption" line. A reasonable textual examination leads to the inevitable conclusion that the old testament has been assembled from multiple sources and adapted to suit a particular message. What I'm saying is that I'm not making random assumptions, but drawing well thought out conclusions.

"Well thought out conclusions" based upon your presuppositions which, contrary to what you seem to be implying, are not neutral. So your conclusions are consistent with your starting assumptions, and my conclusions are consistent with mine. Fancy that.

So the feelings of one segment of society have merit because they've reached the right conclusion, and as a result need no justification, but all others do, since they have reached a different (wrong) conclusion based on exactly the same reasoning, require further research. Makes sense to me.

It's not that trusting in the triune God needs no justification, but that it is the only consistently justifiable position to take. Unbelief isn't an intellectual problem, but a moral problem. God has sufficiently revealed Himself.

I was likely once again not clear enough. I think that things like the Da Vinci code and other productions that assert things that I believe to be false are actually beneficial because they demand that one evaluate their arguments and reach a reasoned conclusion. Those people who don't actually think about them, irrespective of the source or conclusion that they draw from it, are using poor logic and illegitimate reasoning,and deserve nothing but to be deceived. Just as much misinformation comes from sources that we would traditionally like to trust, and if we lack the ability to distinguish the good from the bad then we will never be able to say whether what we believe is reasonable or rubbish.

We all "deserve nothing but to be deceived," because apart from God's saving grace, we're all willfully self-deceived. We want to be autonomous, and we subvert reason to convince ourselves that we are autonomous.

 

[A. believer]

I can't do it. One more movie with a New-York- accented talking animal in it would render me homicidal.

Well in that case, I guess I'd have to agree with you that staying home is the better option. Or perhaps there's some other movie opening that weekend that might be worth seeing.

 

[Mandrake]

"Well thought out conclusions" based upon your presuppositions which, contrary to what you seem to be implying, are not neutral. So your conclusions are consistent with your starting assumptions, and my conclusions are consistent with mine. Fancy that.

Actually, I started out very conservative, out of a Baptist church which presupposed the aboslute literal truth of every word ofthe bible. It wasn't until I got a couple of years into my degree and did some serious historical-critical work with the biblical text that I was forced to change my opinions due to the overwhelming evidence. My conclusions may or may not be "neutral," but with several years of university level research behind them,they're certainly well thought out, no matter how much you might like to dismiss them out of hand.

It's not that trusting in the triune God needs no justification, but that it is the only consistently justifiable position to take. Unbelief isn't an intellectual problem, but a moral problem. God has sufficiently revealed Himself.We all "deserve nothing but to be deceived," because apart from God's saving grace, we're all willfully self-deceived. We want to be autonomous, and we subvert reason to convince ourselves that we are autonomous.

I know that you're coming at this from a calvinist perspective, and that this argument makes sense from that point of view, but since I'm outside the reformed tradition I'm bound to have a different idea of it. I think that thinking rationally will lead to secure and unshakable knowledge, while mere opinion with no reasoning behind it is bound to be either insecure or bigoted (which I would characterize as a consequence of said insecurity). It's probably the Platonic influence,but I guess that's life.

 

[A. believer]

Actually, I started out very conservative, out of a Baptist church which presupposed the aboslute literal truth of every word ofthe bible. It wasn't until I got a couple of years into my degree and did some serious historical-critical work with the biblical text that I was forced to change my opinions due to the overwhelming evidence. My conclusions may or may not be "neutral," but with several years of university level research behind them,they're certainly well thought out, no matter how much you might like to dismiss them out of hand.

You may have presupposed the "absolute literal truth of every word of the Bible" (although, I'm not quite sure what that means, since Scripture obviously relies on some non-literal literary devices) but you obviously absorbed some modernist assumptions in regard to Biblical criticism somewhere along the way. I have no trouble in dismissing "the Bible borrowed from other near-Eastern literature" theories because I understand the arbitrariness of the assumptions from which they operate.

I know that you're coming at this from a calvinist perspective, and that this argument makes sense from that point of view, but since I'm outside the reformed tradition I'm bound to have a different idea of it. I think that thinking rationally will lead to secure and unshakable knowledge, while mere opinion with no reasoning behind it is bound to be either insecure or bigoted (which I would characterize as a consequence of said insecurity).

I don't advocate not thinking. In fact, I admire and learn from some rigorous thinkers. I do recognize, though, that putting one's faith in the goodness and mercy of the triune God revealed in Scripture is justifiable at a pre-rational level. God's goodness is evidenced in everything, and God doesn't turn people away until they can adequately intellectually justify their faith. We believe so that we may understand.

It's probably the Platonic influence,but I guess that's life.

Calvinism is quite self-consciously un-Hellenistic, so I don't know what you're talking about here. And I'm from outside the Reformed tradition as well. I entered into the tradition because I recognize it as the only tradition that relies entirely on Biblical premises.

 

[Mandrake]

Sorry again, I've been influenced by the platonic and later rationalist schools of thought. And, of course, I've worked with modern biblical criticism, and think that it makes sense of a lot of problems that I and others have had with the text in the past and permits a fuller understanding of the underlying logic of the biblical worldview. I'm not entirely sure which arbitrary assumptions we rely on in working with the text, but I suppose that's irrelevant. You reject the framework of my school of thought, and I reject yours. Oh well. Good luck with the da vinci code. I'm not going to go see it, but because I think it's a poorly written book that's likely to make a boring movie. I'm actually a bit surprised that I've ended up defending it, because I think that Dan Brown's a dreadful author. Oh well. Life's mysterious like that sometimes.

 

[constance]

Over the Hedge, huh? We've all but given up on theaters, but maybe we'll take our daughter to see it.

My husband has a Ph.D. in Church History and he HATES DVC. he also hates Left Behind.

Re: DVC - We've spoken to tour guides abroad and many american tourists ask questions about things in DVC as though it's fact.

Constance

 

[A. believer]

Over the Hedge, huh? We've all but given up on theaters, but maybe we'll take our daughter to see it.

I really don't know what to expect of the movie, but the blogger seems to think it might be fairly good, and I assume she chose it because its one that pretty much everyone could see and presumably enjoy. The goal, apparently, is to give as many percentage points to a family friendly movie during opening weekend as possible, depleting percentage points away from the anti-Christian propaganda piece.

My husband has a Ph.D. in Church History and he HATES DVC. he also hates Left Behind.

Re: DVC - We've spoken to tour guides abroad and many american tourists ask questions about things in DVC as though it's fact.

Hmmm. How pathetic! I can't help but think that people taking it as fact is a manifestation of the basic human tendency to believe as one wants to believe. Western culture is still affected enough by it's Christian underpinnings to feel a deep need to discredit its truths in their own minds, and anyone who can help them to that is alright by them. Even Christianity's most ardent opponents (actually, probably, especially its most ardent opponents) are operating under the fear of the possible truth of Christianity and the eternal ramifications of that on themselves.