Has anyone seen it yet? I was mildly interested considering the controversy, the fame of the book, etc.

But from what I've heard about it(The movie), is that it's just a...bore - Slow, off-kilter, few high points, etc.

I'd be curious to hear some opinions from my fellow MMORPG.com'ers, whether you've seen the movie or not.

---

Originally posted by porgie
I think the real entertainment factor of this film was watching the christian groups go whacked over a fictional movie. 

No movie could be as entertaining as seeing that reality.  

---

Meh...it's a movie. Nothing to get anyone's drawers in a bunch over. However, Porgie, the "Christian" groups aren't going "whacked" over the fictional movie. The isssue is Dan Brown claiming his book is based on irrefutable proof that the Christian religion is a lie. Hey, a novel is one thing. But when you go on to take it out of context ( ie- fictional novel, films, etc. ) and begin to slander any major religion you're bound to stir up a hornets nest.

Of course, in the end, Brown is a moron and probably doing the first smart thing I've seen. Creating publicity through controversy. I'll give him that much.

It's all a matter of how you approach these sorts of things. If you're goal is to have fun, poke jests, or create a piece of fiction that is to be enjoyed as just that ( see Dogma and Kevin Smith ) then you're movie will probably be met with smiles. If you're goal is to purposely attack a particular group, regardless of who that group may be, just for the sake of creating attention for yourself and your project...then you have to expect members of that group to be up in arms.

I have no issues with the movie one way or the next. I think any group, be they Atheists or Christians, getting worked up over a movie in either direction is stupid. I agree with you, the Christians that are running around and damned Dan Brown for the movie are a little off kilter. No more so than the people who are running around saying "Oh my goodness! It's a movie! It must be true! I think I shall use this to slam a religion that I have a problem with as my foundation for all arguements."

Both groups need a bit of medication in my honest opinion.

To answer your question though, Al. I haven't seen the movie nor do I plan on doing so. I read the book a bit back...well as much as I could. It was mediocre writing at the very best. The plot had two speeds, dead stop and warp speed. Perhaps when it comes out on DvD I will toss it on my Netflix list but we'll see.

---

Originally posted by Malachi1975

---

Originally posted by porgie
I think the real entertainment factor of this film was watching the christian groups go whacked over a fictional movie. 

No movie could be as entertaining as seeing that reality.  

---

Meh...it's a movie. Nothing to get anyone's drawers in a bunch over. However, Porgie, the "Christian" groups aren't going "whacked" over the fictional movie. The isssue is Dan Brown claiming his book is based on irrefutable proof that the Christian religion is a lie. Hey, a novel is one thing. But when you go on to take it out of context ( ie- fictional novel, films, etc. ) and begin to slander any major religion you're bound to stir up a hornets nest.

Of course, in the end, Brown is a moron and probably doing the first smart thing I've seen. Creating publicity through controversy. I'll give him that much.

It's all a matter of how you approach these sorts of things. If you're goal is to have fun, poke jests, or create a piece of fiction that is to be enjoyed as just that ( see Dogma and Kevin Smith ) then you're movie will probably be met with smiles. If you're goal is to purposely attack a particular group, regardless of who that group may be, just for the sake of creating attention for yourself and your project...then you have to expect members of that group to be up in arms.

I have no issues with the movie one way or the next. I think any group, be they Atheists or Christians, getting worked up over a movie in either direction is stupid. I agree with you, the Christians that are running around and damned Dan Brown for the movie are a little off kilter. No more so than the people who are running around saying "Oh my goodness! It's a movie! It must be true! I think I shall use this to slam a religion that I have a problem with as my foundation for all arguements."

Both groups need a bit of medication in my honest opinion.

To answer your question though, Al. I haven't seen the movie nor do I plan on doing so. I read the book a bit back...well as much as I could. It was mediocre writing at the very best. The plot had two speeds, dead stop and warp speed. Perhaps when it comes out on DvD I will toss it on my Netflix list but we'll see.

---

---

Originally posted by Cowinspace
Movie was enjoyable, not as good as the book though. It rushed over a lot of the background sections, and some of the parts at the begining felt the same. Also the ending felt drawn out far beyond what it should have been.

---

Thanks for an actual review. I am gonna go see it tonight. My friend wanted to see it but to me from the commercials and trailers it looks "meh".

---

The isssue is Dan Brown claiming his book is based on irrefutable proof that the Christian religion is a lie.

---

I just saw the movie. It isn't that good. It is one of those movies were you can pretty much predict what is going on and the plot twist before they happen.

I think the composite sketches of the last supper Da Vinci left are irrefutable proof "The Da Vinci Code" is based on fictional ideas, with some facts mixed in.

---

Originally posted by Rufius

I think the composite sketches of the last supper Da Vinci left are irrefutable proof "The Da Vinci Code" is based on fictional ideas, with some facts mixed in.

---

Take one thing considered truth, take another considered truth and fill the inbetween with rambling fantastical nonsense that would get normal people put into a psych ward and then claim a conspiracy. Why would I pay to watch that when I already got the Internet?

Two rules about marketing:

1. Sex Sells

2. If no sex, stir up controversy

#2 is pretty much what the author did imo, the movie well Hollywood can't resist an easy controversial $$.

My main problem is when fact and fiction get blended together and then advertised as fact or are convincing enough that people believe it as fact, it can change a person. That is my main problem as a Christian with it, where Christians who have very limited understanding will believe the book or movie, as most Americans hate to read, and be swayed in their faith by a fictional lie that they think is truth.

Also I work at a movie theatre and saw the first intro minutes and I've seen better.

P.S. - Who thinks it will win an Oscar or Grammy or some worthless award for something?

---

Originally posted by delspf
from what i heard, if u didnt read the book, its a good movie

---

---

Originally posted by Emyrn

Two rules about marketing:

1. Sex Sells

2. If no sex, stir up controversy

#2 is pretty much what the author did imo, the movie well Hollywood can't resist an easy controversial $$.

My main problem is when fact and fiction get blended together and then advertised as fact or are convincing enough that people believe it as fact, it can change a person. That is my main problem as a Christian with it, where

Christians who have very limited understanding will believe the book Are you talking about the Bible? oh oops nevermind.

or movie, as most Americans hate to read, and be swayed in their faith by a fictional lie that they think is truth.

Also I work at a movie theatre and saw the first intro minutes and I've seen better.

P.S. - Who thinks it will win an Oscar or Grammy or some worthless award for something?

---

---

Originally posted by AlexAmore

---

Originally posted by Emyrn

Two rules about marketing:

1. Sex Sells

2. If no sex, stir up controversy

#2 is pretty much what the author did imo, the movie well Hollywood can't resist an easy controversial $$.

My main problem is when fact and fiction get blended together and then advertised as fact or are convincing enough that people believe it as fact, it can change a person. That is my main problem as a Christian with it, where

Christians who have very limited understanding will believe the book Are you talking about the Bible? oh oops nevermind.

or movie, as most Americans hate to read, and be swayed in their faith by a fictional lie that they think is truth.

Also I work at a movie theatre and saw the first intro minutes and I've seen better.

P.S. - Who thinks it will win an Oscar or Grammy or some worthless award for something?

---

How does a Christian condemn a movie because the author said it was fact? First I read the book and at the beginning it clearly states something like only the groups/cults and places are fact and the rest is fiction...what he stated is a fact. Can you show me some advertisements of the Da Vinci Code claiming its factual as you stated above?

Also you are talking about peoples faith which is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." possibly getting swayed by "fictional lie that they think is truth".

Also the author can write whatever he wants. It's you the Christians who are creating the controversy, it's not his problem. His book creates controversy because of you guys, but the Bible has created wars.

---

Okay, since a lot of people are arguring on BOTH sides of this debate that are obviously ill-informed I thought I would chime in again. If you have not read the book or seen the movie and plan on doing so stop now. I am going to give away a few things ( that wouldn't be that hard to figure out since the plot is extremely predictable ).

For anyone who has not read the book, yes, as Alex stated above there is a "Fact Section" claiming that all referred to documents, groups, rituals and whatnot are true. This is a careful ploy by a fictional author. How so? Well, immediately you have to think that you are reading "This is the truth" at the beginning of a piece of fiction. Oxymoronic in it's own right. But what it does accomplish is to cloud the "line" as to what the author is stating has "proven fact" to and what he is now "assumining" based upon those said fact. Some things are obvious. I don't think anyone actually believes Mary Magdalines remains are buried under the Pyramid of the Louvre.

1- Do many, if not most of the things Dan Brown claims as fact in his book exists? From what I've seen, yes. It goes without saying that this statement ONLY pertains to the items covered in the "Fact Section". The problem lies in the idea that asserting fact so adamantly early on leaves many people, on both sides of the arguement, to assume that everything from that point on is "fact" as well. True, that's the problem of the reader, not the writer. But it's a clever ploy nonetheless and in my opinion completely intentional.

2- Has Dan Brown claimed his book is true? Well, that would depend on who he is talking to. Much like J.K. Rowling and he claims or denials that the Potter series is based on real witchcraft. I've been looking for interviews online but I can't seem to find anything other than the quotes from www.danbrown.com . I have personally seen him change his claims on television depending on who he is talking to. But since I can't show evidence of that at this point we'll consider this conjecture.

3- Does the Da Vinci Code attack Christian beliefs? Here I will take a moment and comment that there's a difference between Traditional Christian beliefs and Casual Christian Beliefs. There are many who would call themselves a "Christian" because they attend church on Christmas and Easter and they believe in God. The term "Christian" is tossed around pretty casually these days. Dan Brown himself says he is a Christian. At the very most this is a modified religion BASED on Christianity. It is effectively saying, "I am going to pick out the parts I like about Christianity and toss the ones that bother me." This is a bit more than denominational beliefs because it generally removes pieces of the core beliefs ( ie- Christ is not the son of God or the way to Salvation ). I am not stating that Dan Brown believes or claims that all these points are "Fact" only that they are a direct attack on Traditional Christian beliefs.

   A- Now to rephrase: Does the Da Vinvi Code attack TRADITIONAL Christian beliefs? Yes. Pure and simple. Let me illustrate how by pointing out "claims" of the Da Vinci Code that are either incorrect from a historical stand point or a clear assumption that directly assault traditional Christian belief.

   1- The Da Vinci Code claims that the early church and the apostles did NOT believe Jesus was divine. The Da Vinci Code states that it was not until the Council of Nicaea came about that Christ was proclaimed divine. Odd, since the Council of Nicaea came about in roughly 325 A.D. and nearly 300 years before that point Paul had writen about the divinity of Jesus in his letters to the church ( eg- Acts, Romans, Thessalonians, etc ).

   2- The Da Vinci Code infers that the Womb of Mary Magdaline is the "Holy Grail" and that Jesus and Mary were married and had children. This directly attacks Foundational Christian beliefs that Christ was of pure body. A bit back many of you may recall of a movie titled "The Last Temptation of Christ" in which Christ had sex with prostitutes and men. This is nothing new. It's a typical attempt to contort an image in a major religion. This has happened at one point to pretty much EVERY major religion, not just Christianity. There have been images and newspapers that depict Christ in sexual positions or relations, there was even more recently an Oregon College paper ( I believe...I will look for the link again later ) that showed Christ on the Cross kissing another man both with erections. These sorts of things can only be taken as direct attacks against the Traditional Christian belief system. This shows that Dan Brown can be lumped in with those groups that depict Jesus as nothing more than a man with sexual urges, be the homosexual or heterosexual.

  3- A point of fact more than an attack against Christianity to show again that Dan Brown's "facts" are not all there. The Da Vinci Code attemptes to claim that Christianity was enacted as the official religion of the Roman Empire by Emporer Constantine. In fact, it was enacted as such by Theodosius. Yes, I could provide you with links to this point but you are all fairly capable. You can do so yourself. The links are in the 10,000s. True, this is not necessarily an attack against the Christian belief system but in my mind it does illustrate to me that Mr. Brown likes to comment on a religion without actually having his facts straight. Strikes me as someone who wants to jump on an Anti-Christian Bandwagon without actually reading the entire mission statement first. Much like a couple posters here on this forum.

In conclusion, The Da Vinci Code as a novel itself *IS* Anti-Christian. Whether Dan Brown is or not you can surmise yourself. I am not stating a fact one way or the next. Has Dan Brown claimed that the novel is fact? Well this is again where he gets cleverly hazy. He answers when asked how much of the Da Vinci Code is based on fact. "Absolutely all of it. Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies -- all of that is historical." That kind of answer runs itself in circles. The words "Abosultely all of it" would imply that everything is based on fact. However, he quickly switches gears to point out the parts that are based on fact which is not "all of it".

Who creates the controversy? That's in the eye of the beholder. Some would say "The Christians" do because they react to the statements made in the novel/film while others would say the originator of the statements has created the controversy. I suppose in some right that is a "Chicken or the Egg" debate. Personally, I think the person who brings the topic up is at least 60% at fault.**Before you read the following UNDERSTAND they are not my beliefs. These are just examples.** If I walk into South Central Los Angeles and scream "Black people are nothing more than slaves" or travel to Suadi Arabi and yell "All Arabs are terrorists" who creates the controversy? Me for shouting such things or people who have every right to react to a statement made directly against them? You can see where I lean.

Now, on a more direct point, Alex. You let your anti-Christian beliefs show WAY too quickly for most of your debates to be taken with any grain of salt. Your "is the earth really flat" thread shows this when you jumped on a group of people you thought "took points of the bible a wee bit too far". While in truth they were on your side making fun of those points and turning it into a tongue-in-cheek group. However, the MOST abrasive comment you made in this thread is simply what I highlighted in your quote above.

Let me clear a few things up. The "Bible" has never created a war. Personally, I've never seen the book standing on any podiums declaring war or in a War Room making strategies. PEOPLE have created wars over ideas in the Bible. That's not something that the Bible holds exclusive rights too, however. I could point out the obvious Koran here as another system of ideas that has kindled the thoughts of war in the minds of many. But let's step away from religion for a moment. Perhaps you've heard of a little piece of paper called the Constitution. it's ideas spurred on a few wars in it's time as well. Are you saying then that the Bible and the Constitution are on equal grounds? Well, does that make them bad or good?

Simple as this: No book or idea actually COMMITS war. Fanatics do. Fanatics of ANY belief be that Christian, Muslim, Confederate, Atheist, Satanist, etc.

While I am not saying that you ARE Anti-Christian you come across that way and in doing so make yourself look like a Fanatic against Christianity. No better than Jerry Falwell running around spewing his crap on the television if you ask me. I see what you are saying about Christians perpetuating ( I think this is a better way to look at it rather than giving them credit for creating ) the controversy surrounding the Da Vinci Code. That is true. If Christians just ignored it then it would fizzle out. But that's not the way of man, unfortunately. No more than you can control yourself from commenting on anything I say about you or anything Pro-Christians say in their defense regarding the book. That's how we're made. When someone attacks our ideas we defend them. HOW we defend them is what defines us as a person. Because we are who we are Christians will complain about the Da Vinci Code, you will complain about the Christians, I will complain about you, and so on. The circle goes on and on. The solution is easy but difficult at the same time. The Christians say nothing about the Da Vinci Code, you say nothing about the Christians, I say nothing about you. One day...this may happen. But I doubt it.

---

Originally posted by Malachi1975

How does a Christian condemn a movie because the author said it was fact? First I read the book and at the beginning it clearly states something like only the groups/cults and places are fact and the rest is fiction...what he stated is a fact. Can you show me some advertisements of the Da Vinci Code claiming its factual as you stated above?

Also you are talking about peoples faith which is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." possibly getting swayed by "fictional lie that they think is truth".

Also the author can write whatever he wants. It's you the Christians who are creating the controversy, it's not his problem. His book creates controversy because of you guys, but the Bible has created wars.

---

---

Okay, since a lot of people are arguring on BOTH sides of this debate that are obviously ill-informed I thought I would chime in again. If you have not read the book or seen the movie and plan on doing so stop now. I am going to give away a few things ( that wouldn't be that hard to figure out since the plot is extremely predictable ).

For anyone who has not read the book, yes, as Alex stated above there is a "Fact Section" claiming that all referred to documents, groups, rituals and whatnot are true. This is a careful ploy by a fictional author. How so? Well, immediately you have to think that you are reading "This is the truth" at the beginning of a piece of fiction. Oxymoronic in it's own right. But what it does accomplish is to cloud the "line" as to what the author is stating has "proven fact" to and what he is now "assumining" based upon those said fact. Some things are obvious. I don't think anyone actually believes Mary Magdalines remains are buried under the Pyramid of the Louvre.

Look He wanted to write a friggen book. Just because He is very interested in a certain topic (Jesus's history), doesn't mean He is automatically attacking Christians. He wants to write something....let Him write! Are we to censor ourselves so as to not "attack" Christians, even if we don't mean it? If some startling new discovey from all these studies that you guys condemn DID find something and it halted Christianity, would you be grateful for knowing the truth? It could happen but not if nobody steps out of the box or questions it. It's called blind faith to not question something, to protest a movie/book that says Jesus wasn't exactly who you picture him to be. It's like you don't want to even ponder the thought that you may be wrong and so in doing that you condemn possible truths and don't go any further with them.

1- Do many, if not most of the things Dan Brown claims as fact in his book exists? From what I've seen, yes. It goes without saying that this statement ONLY pertains to the items covered in the "Fact Section". The problem lies in the idea that asserting fact so adamantly early on leaves many people, on both sides of the arguement, to assume that everything from that point on is "fact" as well. True, that's the problem of the reader, not the writer. But it's a clever ploy nonetheless and in my opinion completely intentional.

Hmm Christians with poor comprehension...why am I not surprised.

2- Has Dan Brown claimed his book is true? Well, that would depend on who he is talking to. Much like J.K. Rowling and he claims or denials that the Potter series is based on real witchcraft. I've been looking for interviews online but I can't seem to find anything other than the quotes from www.danbrown.com . I have personally seen him change his claims on television depending on who he is talking to. But since I can't show evidence of that at this point we'll consider this conjecture.

That could certainly be true. I haven't seen him speak much. It could possibly be because Dan Brown was talking to someone in the context of the book's history. Then with another guy He was talking about the adventures of Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu.

3- Does the Da Vinci Code attack Christian beliefs? Here I will take a moment and comment that there's a difference between Traditional Christian beliefs and Casual Christian Beliefs. There are many who would call themselves a "Christian" because they attend church on Christmas and Easter and they believe in God. The term "Christian" is tossed around pretty casually these days. Dan Brown himself says he is a Christian. At the very most this is a modified religion BASED on Christianity. It is effectively saying, "I am going to pick out the parts I like about Christianity and toss the ones that bother me." This is a bit more than denominational beliefs because it generally removes pieces of the core beliefs ( ie- Christ is not the son of God or the way to Salvation ). I am not stating that Dan Brown believes or claims that all these points are "Fact" only that they are a direct attack on Traditional Christian beliefs.

   A- Now to rephrase: Does the Da Vinvi Code attack TRADITIONAL Christian beliefs? Yes. Pure and simple. Let me illustrate how by pointing out "claims" of the Da Vinci Code that are either incorrect from a historical stand point or a clear assumption that directly assault traditional Christian belief.

You could say "attack" or you could say "debate". People are going question and research. I've talked to Christians and pastors and we debated. They were very nice to me and never felt I was attacking, heck they questioned my beliefs and I was fine. I felt Da Vinci Code was pretty civilized throughout the book....no attacks.

   1- The Da Vinci Code claims that the early church and the apostles did NOT believe Jesus was divine. The Da Vinci Code states that it was not until the Council of Nicaea came about that Christ was proclaimed divine. Odd, since the Council of Nicaea came about in roughly 325 A.D. and nearly 300 years before that point Paul had writen about the divinity of Jesus in his letters to the church ( eg- Acts, Romans, Thessalonians, etc ).

   2- The Da Vinci Code infers that the Womb of Mary Magdaline is the "Holy Grail" and that Jesus and Mary were married and had children. This directly attacks Foundational Christian beliefs that Christ was of pure body. A bit back many of you may recall of a movie titled "The Last Temptation of Christ" in which Christ had sex with prostitutes and men. This is nothing new. It's a typical attempt to contort an image in a major religion. This has happened at one point to pretty much EVERY major religion, not just Christianity. There have been images and newspapers that depict Christ in sexual positions or relations, there was even more recently an Oregon College paper ( I believe...I will look for the link again later ) that showed Christ on the Cross kissing another man both with erections. These sorts of things can only be taken as direct attacks against the Traditional Christian belief system. This shows that Dan Brown can be lumped in with those groups that depict Jesus as nothing more than a man with sexual urges, be the homosexual or heterosexual.

Ahh those damn sexual urges. I guess you're leaning more towards humanity going extinct? It's completely natural, nothing wrong with it.

  3- A point of fact more than an attack against Christianity to show again that Dan Brown's "facts" are not all there. The Da Vinci Code attemptes to claim that Christianity was enacted as the official religion of the Roman Empire by Emporer Constantine. In fact, it was enacted as such by Theodosius. Yes, I could provide you with links to this point but you are all fairly capable. You can do so yourself. The links are in the 10,000s. True, this is not necessarily an attack against the Christian belief system but in my mind it does illustrate to me that Mr. Brown likes to comment on a religion without actually having his facts straight. Strikes me as someone who wants to jump on an Anti-Christian Bandwagon without actually reading the entire mission statement first. Much like a couple posters here on this forum.

I'm actually going to be doing lots of research about this stuff soon. So I can't respond, but I appreciate your facts.

In conclusion, The Da Vinci Code as a novel itself *IS* Anti-Christian. Whether Dan Brown is or not you can surmise yourself. I am not stating a fact one way or the next. Has Dan Brown claimed that the novel is fact? Well this is again where he gets cleverly hazy. He answers when asked how much of the Da Vinci Code is based on fact. "Absolutely all of it. Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies -- all of that is historical." That kind of answer runs itself in circles. The words "Abosultely all of it" would imply that everything is based on fact. However, he quickly switches gears to point out the parts that are based on fact which is not "all of it".

Well it's a VERY common way of writing a book. Really it's just a style, where you create a fictional character surrounding factual events. My grandpa is a HUGE history buff (mostly about American wars) and He gives lots of great books and they are about a fictional character in say WW1 for example. Again I have lots of books like this and they are highly thought of in the history world.

Who creates the controversy? That's in the eye of the beholder. Some would say "The Christians" do because they react to the statements made in the novel/film while others would say the originator of the statements has created the controversy. I suppose in some right that is a "Chicken or the Egg" debate. Personally, I think the person who brings the topic up is at least 60% at fault.**Before you read the following UNDERSTAND they are not my beliefs. These are just examples.** If I walk into South Central Los Angeles and scream "Black people are nothing more than slaves" or travel to Suadi Arabi and yell "All Arabs are terrorists" who creates the controversy? Me for shouting such things or people who have every right to react to a statement made directly against them? You can see where I lean.

Ok so Rosa Parks is 60% of the problem when she sat in the front of the bus and the white supremacists were just 40%? She stirred up LOTS of controversy. In the end people woke up and realized their faults because of this and many other controversial movements.

Now, on a more direct point, Alex. You let your anti-Christian beliefs show WAY too quickly for most of your debates to be taken with any grain of salt. Your "is the earth really flat" thread shows this when you jumped on a group of people you thought "took points of the bible a wee bit too far". While in truth they were on your side making fun of those points and turning it into a tongue-in-cheek group. However, the MOST abrasive comment you made in this thread is simply what I highlighted in your quote above.

I just brought up the group and thought it was funny. Not my fault that they exist.

Let me clear a few things up. The "Bible" has never created a war. Personally, I've never seen the book standing on any podiums declaring war or in a War Room making strategies. PEOPLE have created wars over ideas in the Bible. That's not something that the Bible holds exclusive rights too, however. I could point out the obvious Koran here as another system of ideas that has kindled the thoughts of war in the minds of many. But let's step away from religion for a moment. Perhaps you've heard of a little piece of paper called the Constitution. it's ideas spurred on a few wars in it's time as well. Are you saying then that the Bible and the Constitution are on equal grounds? Well, does that make them bad or good?

Well Da Vinci Code never stood up on a podium and called you all Bible thumpers. You guys are just creating the controversy over the ideas of the book.

Simple as this: No book or idea actually COMMITS war. Fanatics do. Fanatics of ANY belief be that Christian, Muslim, Confederate, Atheist, Satanist, etc.

Well you just said above that the ideas over the Bible created wars. Nobody who thinks Jesus was married and had a kid are fanatics. It's the Christians who are boycotting the movie/book who are fanatical. All you have to worry about is your personal relationship with God. Correct? The truth will prevail. If your faith is so rock solid what could a measly book do? This book can't harm God.

Hopefully God won't condemn anyone for thinking Jesus was a parent. God is a father, he'll understand.

While I am not saying that you ARE Anti-Christian you come across that way and in doing so make yourself look like a Fanatic against Christianity. No better than Jerry Falwell running around spewing his crap on the television if you ask me. I see what you are saying about Christians perpetuating ( I think this is a better way to look at it rather than giving them credit for creating ) the controversy surrounding the Da Vinci Code. That is true. If Christians just ignored it then it would fizzle out. But that's not the way of man, unfortunately. No more than you can control yourself from commenting on anything I say about you or anything Pro-Christians say in their defense regarding the book. That's how we're made. When someone attacks our ideas we defend them. HOW we defend them is what defines us as a person. Because we are who we are Christians will complain about the Da Vinci Code, you will complain about the Christians, I will complain about you, and so on. The circle goes on and on. The solution is easy but difficult at the same time. The Christians say nothing about the Da Vinci Code, you say nothing about the Christians, I say nothing about you. One day...this may happen. But I doubt it.

---

---

Originally posted by AlexAmore

---

Originally posted by Malachi1975

How does a Christian condemn a movie because the author said it was fact? First I read the book and at the beginning it clearly states something like only the groups/cults and places are fact and the rest is fiction...what he stated is a fact. Can you show me some advertisements of the Da Vinci Code claiming its factual as you stated above?

Also you are talking about peoples faith which is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." possibly getting swayed by "fictional lie that they think is truth".

Also the author can write whatever he wants. It's you the Christians who are creating the controversy, it's not his problem. His book creates controversy because of you guys, but the Bible has created wars.

---

---

Okay, since a lot of people are arguring on BOTH sides of this debate that are obviously ill-informed I thought I would chime in again. If you have not read the book or seen the movie and plan on doing so stop now. I am going to give away a few things ( that wouldn't be that hard to figure out since the plot is extremely predictable ).

For anyone who has not read the book, yes, as Alex stated above there is a "Fact Section" claiming that all referred to documents, groups, rituals and whatnot are true. This is a careful ploy by a fictional author. How so? Well, immediately you have to think that you are reading "This is the truth" at the beginning of a piece of fiction. Oxymoronic in it's own right. But what it does accomplish is to cloud the "line" as to what the author is stating has "proven fact" to and what he is now "assumining" based upon those said fact. Some things are obvious. I don't think anyone actually believes Mary Magdalines remains are buried under the Pyramid of the Louvre.

Look He wanted to write a friggen book. Just because He is very interested in a certain topic (Jesus's history), doesn't mean He is automatically attacking Christians. He wants to write something....let Him write! Are we to censor ourselves so as to not "attack" Christians, even if we don't mean it? If some startling new discovey from all these studies that you guys condemn DID find something and it halted Christianity, would you be grateful for knowing the truth? It could happen but not if nobody steps out of the box or questions it. It's called blind faith to not question something, to protest a movie/book that says Jesus wasn't exactly who you picture him to be. It's like you don't want to even ponder the thought that you may be wrong and so in doing that you condemn possible truths and don't go any further with them.

I never said for a moment that he couldn't write the book. I am all for that. He can knock himself out. I was only stating at the beginning of this thread WHAT the Christians where getting "whacked" about. I didn't say *I* was. I read the book. If I were so against it why would I do that? My ONLY opinion I have about the book as a whole is that it was sub-par writing.

As for that highlighted portion of your text that has to be one of the LARGEST assumptions I've seen in a while. Now, don't take this as an offense against your age but I've been "pondering" my religion longer than you've been alive. I have 17 years of Martial Arts under my belt which lead me to study a lot of Taoism and Buddhism. I've studied much of the Koran (as much as I can with translations) and have several Muslim friends. I've read the Book of Mormon and nearly married into a Mormon family. I declared my religion as a child, doubted it as a teen, questioned it as a young man, and at 30 I am pretty resolute in it because of what I have learned and experienced. I am neither ignorant or uneducated as a lot of people ( I am not saying you ) imply Christians are who are devout to their faith.

1- Do many, if not most of the things Dan Brown claims as fact in his book exists? From what I've seen, yes. It goes without saying that this statement ONLY pertains to the items covered in the "Fact Section". The problem lies in the idea that asserting fact so adamantly early on leaves many people, on both sides of the arguement, to assume that everything from that point on is "fact" as well. True, that's the problem of the reader, not the writer. But it's a clever ploy nonetheless and in my opinion completely intentional.

Hmm Christians with poor comprehension...why am I not surprised.

It'd kill you to make one entire debate without having to take a low-browed, insulting shot at this group wouldn't it? I highly doubt that Christians are the ONLY group of people out there who react without fully understand at times. I won't even bother pointing fingers as it would take a lot of time and a few would be pointed at myself.

2- Has Dan Brown claimed his book is true? Well, that would depend on who he is talking to. Much like J.K. Rowling and he claims or denials that the Potter series is based on real witchcraft. I've been looking for interviews online but I can't seem to find anything other than the quotes from www.danbrown.com . I have personally seen him change his claims on television depending on who he is talking to. But since I can't show evidence of that at this point we'll consider this conjecture.

That could certainly be true. I haven't seen him speak much. It could possibly be because Dan Brown was talking to someone in the context of the book's history. Then with another guy He was talking about the adventures of Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu.

I agree, the context in which everything said COULD be this issue. Sadly, since Mr. Brown isn't answering personal emails many people only have these quotes to base their concepts about him on. If he *IS* being misqouted and misrepresented I would think he would take a few moments of his time to correct the offending parties.

3- Does the Da Vinci Code attack Christian beliefs? Here I will take a moment and comment that there's a difference between Traditional Christian beliefs and Casual Christian Beliefs. There are many who would call themselves a "Christian" because they attend church on Christmas and Easter and they believe in God. The term "Christian" is tossed around pretty casually these days. Dan Brown himself says he is a Christian. At the very most this is a modified religion BASED on Christianity. It is effectively saying, "I am going to pick out the parts I like about Christianity and toss the ones that bother me." This is a bit more than denominational beliefs because it generally removes pieces of the core beliefs ( ie- Christ is not the son of God or the way to Salvation ). I am not stating that Dan Brown believes or claims that all these points are "Fact" only that they are a direct attack on Traditional Christian beliefs.

   A- Now to rephrase: Does the Da Vinvi Code attack TRADITIONAL Christian beliefs? Yes. Pure and simple. Let me illustrate how by pointing out "claims" of the Da Vinci Code that are either incorrect from a historical stand point or a clear assumption that directly assault traditional Christian belief.

You could say "attack" or you could say "debate". People are going question and research. I've talked to Christians and pastors and we debated. They were very nice to me and never felt I was attacking, heck they questioned my beliefs and I was fine. I felt Da Vinci Code was pretty civilized throughout the book....no attacks.

"So dark the con of man" are hardly words for a debate. I agree with you that it is completely possible for people of opposing ideas in this area to converse without attacking one another. However, if I were to look at you and call you a "liar" I am attacking. That is the epitmoy of a verbal attack. It's nowhere near a debate. A debate would probably sound a little more like "I think you are wrong."

   1- The Da Vinci Code claims that the early church and the apostles did NOT believe Jesus was divine. The Da Vinci Code states that it was not until the Council of Nicaea came about that Christ was proclaimed divine. Odd, since the Council of Nicaea came about in roughly 325 A.D. and nearly 300 years before that point Paul had writen about the divinity of Jesus in his letters to the church ( eg- Acts, Romans, Thessalonians, etc ).

   2- The Da Vinci Code infers that the Womb of Mary Magdaline is the "Holy Grail" and that Jesus and Mary were married and had children. This directly attacks Foundational Christian beliefs that Christ was of pure body. A bit back many of you may recall of a movie titled "The Last Temptation of Christ" in which Christ had sex with prostitutes and men. This is nothing new. It's a typical attempt to contort an image in a major religion. This has happened at one point to pretty much EVERY major religion, not just Christianity. There have been images and newspapers that depict Christ in sexual positions or relations, there was even more recently an Oregon College paper ( I believe...I will look for the link again later ) that showed Christ on the Cross kissing another man both with erections. These sorts of things can only be taken as direct attacks against the Traditional Christian belief system. This shows that Dan Brown can be lumped in with those groups that depict Jesus as nothing more than a man with sexual urges, be the homosexual or heterosexual.

Ahh those damn sexual urges. I guess you're leaning more towards humanity going extinct? It's completely natural, nothing wrong with it.

I am engages and live with my fiance. Can't see how that applies to me. I said "depict JESUS as nothing more than a man with sexual urges". Unless you are confusing me with Jesus I'm not even going to bother going any further into this comment as it's nothing more than a blind, childish attempt to inflame.

  3- A point of fact more than an attack against Christianity to show again that Dan Brown's "facts" are not all there. The Da Vinci Code attemptes to claim that Christianity was enacted as the official religion of the Roman Empire by Emporer Constantine. In fact, it was enacted as such by Theodosius. Yes, I could provide you with links to this point but you are all fairly capable. You can do so yourself. The links are in the 10,000s. True, this is not necessarily an attack against the Christian belief system but in my mind it does illustrate to me that Mr. Brown likes to comment on a religion without actually having his facts straight. Strikes me as someone who wants to jump on an Anti-Christian Bandwagon without actually reading the entire mission statement first. Much like a couple posters here on this forum.

I'm actually going to be doing lots of research about this stuff soon. So I can't respond, but I appreciate your facts.

If you are interested you'll find many college sites that state this information. I learned it myself in college and reaffirmed my information on such sites.

In conclusion, The Da Vinci Code as a novel itself *IS* Anti-Christian. Whether Dan Brown is or not you can surmise yourself. I am not stating a fact one way or the next. Has Dan Brown claimed that the novel is fact? Well this is again where he gets cleverly hazy. He answers when asked how much of the Da Vinci Code is based on fact. "Absolutely all of it. Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies -- all of that is historical." That kind of answer runs itself in circles. The words "Abosultely all of it" would imply that everything is based on fact. However, he quickly switches gears to point out the parts that are based on fact which is not "all of it".

Well it's a VERY common way of writing a book. Really it's just a style, where you create a fictional character surrounding factual events. My grandpa is a HUGE history buff (mostly about American wars) and He gives lots of great books and they are about a fictional character in say WW1 for example. Again I have lots of books like this and they are highly thought of in the history world.

I am not stating that his method of writing was wrong. It's the way the question was answered. Imagine is someone asked me, "How much of the story that Alex likes to eat cheese in the nude while watching Seinfeld is based on fact?" and I answered, "Absolutely all of it!" then added "The fact that Alex loves cheese is historical fact with much proof." My answer there is actually contradictory. I can't in right mind say "all" of it is true in one breath then point out the few parts of which I have proof. "All" means all. It would have been better to say "A lot of it is true, such as..." Yes, you could say "Well, he just didn't phrase things properly or use the right words." but people get on G. W. Bush for doing the same thing day in and out.

Who creates the controversy? That's in the eye of the beholder. Some would say "The Christians" do because they react to the statements made in the novel/film while others would say the originator of the statements has created the controversy. I suppose in some right that is a "Chicken or the Egg" debate. Personally, I think the person who brings the topic up is at least 60% at fault.**Before you read the following UNDERSTAND they are not my beliefs. These are just examples.** If I walk into South Central Los Angeles and scream "Black people are nothing more than slaves" or travel to Suadi Arabi and yell "All Arabs are terrorists" who creates the controversy? Me for shouting such things or people who have every right to react to a statement made directly against them? You can see where I lean.

Ok so Rosa Parks is 60% of the problem when she sat in the front of the bus and the white supremacists were just 40%? She stirred up LOTS of controversy. In the end people woke up and realized their faults because of this and many other controversial movements.

You're putting your cart before your horse here. Did Rosa Parks start the problem? No, she reacted to it. Someone said "Blacks must sit at the back of the bus." and she said no. Did she stir up controversy? Yes, so did the fact that someone first said all blacks must sit at the back of the bus. This is precisely why I said it's all in the eye of the beholder who starts the controversy. In Mr. Brown's case you have to ask yourself if the Christians would be offended if his book didn't degrade their 2000 year old belief. Well, the obvious answer to that is no. Since the offense is what they are up in arms about.

By your own anology, Christianity is wrong like segregation and people need to be "woken up" and shown the truth? I don't know if you believe this. I am just illustrating how easy it is to read behind the words.

Now, on a more direct point, Alex. You let your anti-Christian beliefs show WAY too quickly for most of your debates to be taken with any grain of salt. Your "is the earth really flat" thread shows this when you jumped on a group of people you thought "took points of the bible a wee bit too far". While in truth they were on your side making fun of those points and turning it into a tongue-in-cheek group. However, the MOST abrasive comment you made in this thread is simply what I highlighted in your quote above.

I just brought up the group and thought it was funny. Not my fault that they exist.

I agree, I think they are hillarious. In fact I DO blame them for the loss of Aunt Mildred.

However, when someone asked you "where does the Bible say the earth if flat" you responded that they do a search using your keywords. I did, I saw nothing depicting it as flat. I saw phrases that could be SEEN that way, but the phrase "The four corners of the Earth" is still used to this day by people who KNOW the earth is round. Nothing in the Bible actually says it is FLAT. Yet you were very matter-of-fact about this to defend your comment about them taking the Bible too literally. Again, just showing how to many this can be seen as a very Anti-Bible/Christian stance.

Let me clear a few things up. The "Bible" has never created a war. Personally, I've never seen the book standing on any podiums declaring war or in a War Room making strategies. PEOPLE have created wars over ideas in the Bible. That's not something that the Bible holds exclusive rights too, however. I could point out the obvious Koran here as another system of ideas that has kindled the thoughts of war in the minds of many. But let's step away from religion for a moment. Perhaps you've heard of a little piece of paper called the Constitution. it's ideas spurred on a few wars in it's time as well. Are you saying then that the Bible and the Constitution are on equal grounds? Well, does that make them bad or good?

Well Da Vinci Code never stood up on a podium and called you all Bible thumpers. You guys are just creating the controversy over the ideas of the book.

I haven't created a single controversy. Unless it's controversial to say "The book could have well been written by a high school english studen." I generally won't go near a book I am not interested in. If I don't "like" the book 99% of the time that has more to do with the writting than the content.

I also never said the Da Vinci Code "called me a Bible Thumper". Which would be interesting since though I am a Christian myself I am far from a "Bible Thumper". All I have stated is that the Da Vinci Code says my beliefs are wrong and my religion is a "con". If you don't think it has said that much I am really beginning to wonder if you read it or if you comprehended it as you read it.

Simple as this: No book or idea actually COMMITS war. Fanatics do. Fanatics of ANY belief be that Christian, Muslim, Confederate, Atheist, Satanist, etc.

Well you just said above that the ideas over the Bible created wars. Nobody who thinks Jesus was married and had a kid are fanatics. It's the Christians who are boycotting the movie/book who are fanatical. All you have to worry about is your personal relationship with God. Correct? The truth will prevail. If your faith is so rock solid what could a measly book do? This book can't harm God.

Hopefully God won't condemn anyone for thinking Jesus was a parent. God is a father, he'll understand.

Here I agree with you for the most part. To some thinking of Jesus having sex is offensive to others it is not. That's not the point. I agree with you that the book isn't going to do God harm. Nor my faith.

Question for you though, what harm did "One nation, under God" cause people who had to say the pledge? What harm did it cause to allow students to pray on school campus as long as it was on their own time? If you can point out to me harm those words caused, not the people who had to say them or chose not to, then I will understand your point.

Yet groups of people felt the desire to run to the State Senators, the Governors, and anyone else whose ear they could grab to complain that "those words should be removed". How are they different than the Christians who are boycotting the movie? Beyond that, how are thr boycotts ( as long as they are well mannered ) harmful? You said yourself that you had debates with priests and pastors in your life and it was a great experience. Now, how do you propose there be said debates without the Christians voicing their opinions about the film/novel? I mean, if they just sat there quietly and did nothing there wouldn't be much debate. And you said yourself debate is a GOOD thing.

Are you just against public voicing of ones opinion? If that's the case I have a group of people that meet near my house every week that protest the War in Iraq and beg people to impeech Bush that I would LOVE for you to come tell them to stop being so fanatic and stop voicing their opinions.

Just as an observation, since I have seen you argue about 9/11 being an inside job, Bush being an idiot, America being a pile of rubbish, so on and so forth, it seems to me you just don't think any groups should be able to voice their opinion if it disagrees with yours without calling them names or getting aggressive towards them.

You DO realise that by debating here with me in this thread you are voicing your opinion, right?

While I am not saying that you ARE Anti-Christian you come across that way and in doing so make yourself look like a Fanatic against Christianity. No better than Jerry Falwell running around spewing his crap on the television if you ask me. I see what you are saying about Christians perpetuating ( I think this is a better way to look at it rather than giving them credit for creating ) the controversy surrounding the Da Vinci Code. That is true. If Christians just ignored it then it would fizzle out. But that's not the way of man, unfortunately. No more than you can control yourself from commenting on anything I say about you or anything Pro-Christians say in their defense regarding the book. That's how we're made. When someone attacks our ideas we defend them. HOW we defend them is what defines us as a person. Because we are who we are Christians will complain about the Da Vinci Code, you will complain about the Christians, I will complain about you, and so on. The circle goes on and on. The solution is easy but difficult at the same time. The Christians say nothing about the Da Vinci Code, you say nothing about the Christians, I say nothing about you. One day...this may happen. But I doubt it.

---

Btw the Da Vinci code isn't the only controversial book written by man that makes outrageous claims about Jesus. Don't get me wrong, I admire Jesus, but I was just trying to make a point.

Here I completely agree with you. There have been plenty of books, topics, films, articles, and the like that have done just what you said. And everytime there have been debates from BOTH sides of the river.

In the end it's pretty simple. It's perfectly acceptable for Dan Brown to write his book and later make his movie. It's also perfecly acceptable for Christians ( whose religion is the center piece for said film/novel ) to say what they have to say about it.

Freedom of speech isn't supposed to have a biased.

---

OK ill admit I directed some of my "attacks" at you and i'm sorry because I think its pretty cool that you a Christian did read the Da Vinci Code and you seem more open-minded. Dan Brown probably was misleading, of course the same can be said for every Christian who says one will go to Hell if they sin...we don't know. Anyways sorry I did forget Da Vinci Code said your belief was a "con". Overall you had a good response. I'm fine with Christians voicing their opinions but I do feel they are going overboard with saying the book is attacking them. They can choose not to feel attacked...How can one have harm stricken upon them with God on their side? Now I don't feel God chooses sides but i'm talking through some Christians' point of view (I think).

What do they call the receiving end of an attack? Victim. Could the Christians feel like their beliefs are being victimized? Maybe if it's even subconsciously? You can clearly see them retaliating through trying stop people from seeing it: interesting article. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1633036/posts 
These Christians are so fearful which is the opposite of love. *sigh*

Malachi, maybe you and I should go an knock some Jesus into these people.

---

Originally posted by AlexAmore

OK ill admit I directed some of my "attacks" at you and i'm sorry because I think its pretty cool that you a Christian did read the Da Vinci Code and you seem more open-minded. Dan Brown probably was misleading, of course the same can be said for every Christian who says one will go to Hell if they sin...we don't know. Anyways sorry I did forget Da Vinci Code said your belief was a "con". Overall you had a good response. I'm fine with Christians voicing their opinions but I do feel they are going overboard with saying the book is attacking them. They can choose not to feel attacked...How can one have harm stricken upon them with God on their side? Now I don't feel God chooses sides but i'm talking through some Christians' point of view (I think).

What do they call the receiving end of an attack? Victim. Could the Christians feel like their beliefs are being victimized? Maybe if it's even subconsciously? You can clearly see them retaliating through trying stop people from seeing it: interesting article. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1633036/posts 
These Christians are so fearful which is the opposite of love. *sigh*

Malachi, maybe you and I should go an knock some Jesus into these people.

---

Oh I can say without a shadow of a fact that there are some "Christians" running around feeling victimised by the novel/film. I couldn't agree with you more there. That's why I stick firmly in my belief as I said above that the term "Christian" is tossed about without care nowadays.

I am with you that some Christians that feel personally attacked ( as I took above when you said "attacking them" ) and that is just too much. I think I see more clearly where you are coming from now that it's not Christianity responding to the charges of the book but individual Christians who feel it is personally attacking them. Those kind of Christians could really do me and the rest of the faith a favour and NOT call themselves Christians. I think, speaking as a figurative Devil's Advocate, that those kind of "Christians" are acting this way because of precisely what you said: fear. I am not going to say their fears are completely unfounded, many of them are probably stuck in Revelations and fearing that these sorts of things are the lead-up factors to the persecution of Christians for their faith.

You've really cleared up your perspective for me and it's refreshing and sad at the same time that you hit the nail on the head. Why do these "Christians" that are so horrifically protesting the book and movie fear things so much when the Bible teaches us specifically NOT to fear: "He who is with me is greater than he who is in the world."

There are quite a few "Christians" out there that could use a good deal of edcuating, even a little "Jesus Knocking" to boot. Those types are usually what we refer to as "Baby Christians" that are so new to the faith ( not necessarily chronologically but more so referring to their growth in the faith ) that they end up running around seeing the end of the world of demons in everything. Unfortunately, this is probably the most vocal group of "Christians".

Personally, I believe in tollerance, love, acceptance, and compassion. That's not to say I live up to that ALL the time but it's my core belief...and coincidently the teachings of Christ. In the end I think the Book/Film is great because it stirs up conversation. I think without these sorts of things now and then beliefs and faiths would go stagnant.