Redstate

Civil War historians would be smart enough to notice and understand the words NOVEL and Fiction in your Gettysburg book!

Look! Like the book, hate the book, boycott the film, get others to do so, is all fine but trying to say that your faith or Christianity in general is somehow going to be damaged by this says much more about state of your faith than anything else!

If people change their mind about their faith or choose another based on this book and film they most likely weren't fully committed or accepting of accepted beliefs in the first place.

If it was a book as popular as TDC and were it a major motion picture, I'm confident they'd make their opinions known.

You are correct that it does say something about such faith.  Yet that's just what it's doing.  My main concern is with those who are not already convinced of the truth of the Bible who are gobbling up the misdirection.  It is happening.

And I don't see that we should ignore those with faith that can be altered by a work of fiction.  Many Christians were at that point sometime.  Doesn't mean I want to throw them to the wolves or that I don't care about the state of the truth in their lives.

Because it introduces an idea, it doesn't matter that the basis of Browns fiction are gospels of the bible written in the second centuries.  It doesn't matter that Brown doesn't point out that the gospel used has words missing due to the condition of the original source.  It doesn't even matter that it is fiction and unabashedly so.

It introduces a new idea into peoples mind.  Most people don't ask or even care about whether Jesus sired children till you bring the subject up.  It isn't a question they ask themselves in their unconscious mind.  But once you bring it up, they do think about it.

The bible doesn't give a straight answer whether Jesus was married or not, or that he sired children.  It never says he was married or had children, but it never says he didn't.  And even if it did say flat out that he didn't have children, the idea that there were other gospels, even if they were written centuries later  adds doubt to people's minds.  Some people believe that the bible is infalliabtle truth, that everything it says is good and right.  If a gospel is written 200 years later is inaccurate, why can't the 4 cannonical gospels which were written at the earliest 40 years after Jesus's death be inaccurate?  They can be leaving out details or make mistakes or remembering what a person wants to remember instead of Jesus's precise words.  Most people don't know that there existed about 30 gospels instead of the 4 cannonical, and there existed many various differents branches of christianity during its first centuries.  It wasn't until centuries later that these branches and gospels were considered heathen or at the very least unverifyable.  Brown's work introduce them to a world they didn't knew about before (even though Brown's work is fiction), a world they didn't even conceive.  And like all people that are introduced to a brand new paradigm, doubt and uncertanity follow.

Doubt isn't the death of Christianity, nor is it the antithesis of religion or spirituality.  New ideas though causes a religion to metamorph.  The world Brown introduce people to isn't a new world or history, its just a world and history that they

are unfamiliar with.

Note: I aint praising Brown's work, and have no interest in ever reading it.  Such genres bore me, and I have heard enough complaints about Brown from friends who have similar tastes of reading as me, to not touch his work with a 11 foot pole.

I am the last person to get in the way of you saving people as long as they want to be saved!

It seems as though you're not giving people enough credit to decide on their own what to believe or not believe. But I could be wrong!

about the kennedy assasination, and sadly you will get the lies from Oliver stones movie JFK recited back to you.  Are they ignorant of history?  yes.  Calling them ignorant doesn't help.  In an earlier time it would have been called propaganda.

Brown it appears is trying to entertain, he's not once tried to encourage a group of followers into believing his book is factual

The same cannot be said about stone

Oliver Stone's version of Kennedy's assassination and Dan Brown's version of Church history both twist the facts to fit an agenda...to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of those who may not believe the official version of history.

The major difference is, there are people still alive old enough to remember the facts about the Kennedy assassination. There is no one left alive now who observed Jesus on earth.

In Jesus' time and in the centuries thereafter, there were no Faxes or E-mails or televisions or even radios or telephones. Messages moved (at best) at the speed of horses or sailing ships. So it was possible for somebody to spread either a garbled or deliberately slanted message (remember, there were Pharisees bribing the Roman soldiers to say that the apostles had stolen Jesus' body) to an area where no truthful witnesses had come, and people would believe the lie, and they would write down what they heard.

The Church, from its foundation, knew that people would be spreading lies about Jesus--the Romans hated the Jews, and some of the Jews had been misled by the Pharisees into having Jesus crucified. They mistrusted Paul at first, who had approved while watching the disciple Stephen get stoned to death. They hesitated to write much about their faith, because some people mistook them for cannibals when they talked about eating the body of Jesus in the Eucharist.

So, when the apostles felt it was safe to write down the events of Jesus' life (as some of the original apostles were getting old, and a record needed to be written), they were very selective about which writings could be accepted as truthful, according to what they remembered about Jesus. Already by the early second century, Christian tradition had coalesced around the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and many other known writings were rejected if they conflicted with these four Gospels.  

Most Christians have, over the centuries, trusted the judgment of the apostles over which writings about Jesus were accurate. There has been a recent hoopla in the media over a so-called "gospel" of Judas, but the second-century bishop Irenaeus already warned Christians not to believe it. Saint John's gospel calls Judas a thief and a traitor--why should we believe Judas?

Dan Brown is to Jesus as Oliver Stone is to JFK, only we don't have living eyewitnesses to Jesus' life on earth as we do to the JFK assassination. Dan Brown is trying to use a second-century rumor mill to destroy people's faith, hoping that people will consider the rumor mill as credible as the Church. Since we don't have living eyewitnesses to Jesus, we have to trust the judgment of those who lived in Jesus' time, and they made their choice, for the documents we now call the New Testament.

That it was the church who was spreading the lies after the fact and the gospels (or at least some portion thereof) they rejected the accurate truth?

Apparently, "AA" has swallowed Dan Brown's bait, hook, line, and sinker.

It has been well-documented historically that many of the original apostles were willing to die violent deaths rather than renounce their faith. They wouldn't have done that for something they knew to be a lie.

The apostils all died well before the 4 gospels were penned.

People could just as easily die for faith in Dan Brown's story; that says nothing one way or the other about the truth of said faith. Whether they thought it a lie or not means nothings, people have qutie the ability for self delusion and maintaining faith in what is demonstrably false (see the number of people who believe in UFOs or Big Foot; there are even plenty who swear they have seen them)

We can't let these people continue doing this. This movie should be BANNED.

for this comment!

I'm sure this will be his last post.

...don't find themselves attached to long-standing, respectable community members...

whom?  I'm not trying to champion some sort of relativism here, but c'mon, since Luther we've had thousands of different visions of Christianity.  One need only think of the vast differences between Catholics and Baptists (especially concerning how  Revelations is understood).  It's not as if "Christianity" is some sort of monolithic term (many Christians, I imagine, look askans at the snake handlers).  I'm not claiming that I endorse Brown's particular conception of Christianity (as a Catholic I don't), but it seems very difficult to speak of "Christianity" unproblematically since the protestant reformation.  Unfortunately I think todays popularity of Gnostic texts (such as the Gospels of Thomas, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc) and the astonishing success of Brown's book are reflective of broader cultural, social, and politically changes we're undergoing, which reflect a desire, on the part of many, to reconceive religion or to present a new religious vision.  As much as I dislike it, I suspect that mainstream forms of Christianity might very well be on the losing end of this struggle...  If religious history (inclusive of pre-Christian thought) is any indicator.

fictionalizing (e.g.,falsifying) history for political purposes. Shakespeare did it in his historical plays to burnish the Tudors' reputation, Vergil did it for Augustus, and Aeschylus' portrait of Darius in The Persians is a crude caricature at best. (Not that Brown or Stone have anything like the talent of these guys)

It's just pure conjecture. And indeed, internal evidence from the Synoptics suggests they were written before 64 AD  since they give no hint of the Jewish war, the great fire in Rome or the Neronian persecution. Acts even holds a distant respect for Nero, and that is inconceivable if it were written after the persecution and Paul's martyrdom.

I'm not sure that it makes a hill of beans if Jesus married or not, except in the Catholic tradition of celibacy. But since there is no overt case made in the "accepted" scriptures having anything to do with, or dependant upon the bachelorhood of Jesus, I find it hard to believe that one of the authors never mentioned it. There was no need to not mention it, and certainly no need to hide it.

But in any case, if you find no basis for literal truth in the Word of God as we know it today, Catholic or Protestant, why do you bother?

The central message is simple and clear enough for anyone to understand. Mankind blew it... God condemned mankind to an eternal separation from his presence... God provided a Way for man to reconcile... It is a free gift, requiring only that you accept it or reject it. No conspiracy, no theological hand wringing required.

years of Biblical interpretation under its belt that goes well beyond "literal interpretation", including a sophisticate hermeneutics or interpretative doctrine including allegorical interpretation, historical interpretation, symbolic interpretation, etc.  My point didn't revolve around the question of whether there's one true interpretation of the Bible, but rather that de facto there are many different interpretations of the Bible floating about in the social space that often radically diverge from one another.  For instance, Catholic understanding of Revelations is incredibly different than the sort of interpretation you might find among Pentacostals, where the latter demonination often takes Revelations as a literal description of events that will occur at some point in the future, fire-breathing dragons and all.  As a Catholic, of course, I'm commited to the Catholic interpretation of the Bible.  As a pragmatist that recognizes that there are many non-Catholic interpretations of the Bible that diverge greatly from one another in terms of what the Bible is believed to say, teach, and demand of us, all of which believe they are absolutely correct or true, I recognize that my Catholicism, not being a government institution capable of enforcing a particular reading or interpretation of the Bible (nor believing it desirable to do so), I believe it's best to tolerate these divergences.  Here I think the Enlightenment experience of the Founding Fathers speaks to their enormous wisdom.  It was the attempt to police these different interpretations that led to the horrors of the Inquisition and so many wars in Europe.  While I do not disagree with the right of Christians to boycott this work (I don't plan to see it), I do think it's inaccurate to suggest that there's any consensus in America as to what Christianity is.

while your wife is talking to you.  The sentence regarding pragamatism would better read "Insofar as Catholicism isn't a governmental institution with the power to enforce a particular reading of the Bible in the United States, and insofar as there are, de facto, many different denominational interpretations of just what the Bible says, I think it better to tolerate these differences."  I, for instance, am strongly opposed to certain literalist interpretations of the Bible as I think they often lead to absurdities and tend to undermine belief, but I don't feel the need to legislate a particular reading of the Bible.

differences are negligable as you seem to suggest.  Literalist interpretations of the Bible, for instance, are pushing a good deal of the anti-evolution position where education is concerned, whereas the Catholic church has no problem endorsing the legitimacy of evolution (how I ardently wish this were the case throughout the many sects of Christianity).  Likewise, Catholic interpretations of life issues are at the forefront of many stances on things such as stem-cell research.  Religious folk on the left tend to be unpeturbed by gay marriage and GBLT issues as they read the Gospels differently and do not emphasize the books on law such as Leviticus (seeing Jesus as having freed us from the stultifying and sin producing law in favor of a love beyond legalisms and based on spirit not the letter, as is described in one reading of Paul's Romans), whereas many fundamentalists see these passages as crucial and emphasize a particular reading of how Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to end it (a reading of "fulfillment" I find suspect in terms of Paul's profound meditation on the psychodynamics of how subjects relate to the law:  "would I ever have thought to covet my neighbors wife if the law hadn't forbid me not to?", i.e., the problem with legalism is that it creates a desire for what it prohibits).  My point is not that all these readings are true or correct, but that we find them in our country and they produce rather profound differences as to just what is understood by "Christianity".  Therefore I see it as disingenious to suggest that those deeply influenced by the gnostics are commiting heresy or being mislead when no one can seem to agree with what it is to be a Christian anyway (outside their specific religious practice).

From his interview on CNN (emphasis mine):

SAVIDGE: Obviously, you were just looking at the Last Supper there. When we talk about da Vinci and your book, how much is true and how much is fabricated in your storyline?

BROWN: 99 percent of it is true. All of the architecture, the art, the secret rituals, the history, all of that is true, the Gnostic gospels. All of that is -- all that is fiction, of course, is that there's a Harvard symbologist named Robert Langdon, and all of his action is fictionalized. But the background is all true.

His claim is that the entirety of the background is true, and he just introduced a couple of characters for the sake of storytelling.  This is going way beyond entertainment, especially when, as I said, he's really blurring the distinction between "historical" and "fiction".  When he claims that 99% of his book is true, and especially when that's patently false, this is no simple entertainment motive.

The Last Crusade?

He chose poorly

at the time when I was first watching that movie, and the scene was over and the knight deadpanned that line, I about lost it while thinking..."Gee, I'd have never guessed" :)

to just do a diary....

Da Jesus Code?

I guess, as a Catholic, I'm just a bit sensitive to these issues of what constitutes a "Christian" as I've so often been told, by my fellow conservative fundamentalist Christians, that Catholics aren't really Christians and that they somehow worship Mary (a common refrain my wife often hears at work).  Despite the hundreds of years of history we have in building the Christian church, we're often excluded from being Christians to the extent that Baptists go nuts over the thought of their daughter marrying on of us.  On these grounds I think the differences are greater than you suggest, and am leary of the merging of church and state that I see going on about me.  This whole experience, as a Texan, in relation to my fundamentalist fellow Christians makes me a bit more circumspect about these blanket declarations as to what Christianity is and is not.

"The Da Vinci Code" has undermined faith in the Roman Catholic Church and badly damaged its credibility, a survey of British readers of Dan Brown's bestseller showed on Tuesday.

and

Almost one in five Canadians believe that Jesus Christ's death on the cross was faked and that he married and had a family, according to a new poll that challenges the cornerstone Christian belief in the resurrection.

Let me see if I've got this right.  The Christian Church in England and in Canada (and most of Western Europe) have, for at least the last two generations walked away from teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and embraced a "social gospel" of good works and political liberalism.  We're not talking about a single denomination, we're talking about ALL of them.  (There are some individual "points of light", but they are typically persecuted by their denominations.)  The Church didn't need Dan Brown to depart from teaching the deity of Christ or of His saving Grace.  They willingly walked away because the Gospel Message of the Bible is too "condemning" or too inconvenient or not accepting of alternate lifestyles or whatever.

Along comes Brown, writes an work of fiction, and people are concerned that his fictional message wlll "take people away from their faith".  Heh.  Like they had any faith to begin with.

People all over the world are searching for meaning for their lives.  The "Christian Church" in most of Europe, Canada, US mainline denominations long ago abandoned the idea that "God has a plan for YOUR life."  The problem here isn't Dan Brown, he's just an entertaining writer (haven't read TDC, don't intend to, but he's sold 45MM copies).  The problem isn't Ron Howard or any of the actors.  They are all just capitalist pigs trying to make a buck.  Frankly, I wish Ron had called me for a supporting role - I could use the $$.

The problem here is THE CHURCH.  Bill Gaither wrote a song a long time ago, the first line is "Let the Church be the Church, let the people rejoice!"  The Church has, by and large, stopped being the Church and the people have stopped rejoicing because nobody in their right mind rejoices over a political institution that won't CHANGE anybody's life.

Go get some cheap cheese to go with that cheap whine.

I am not Catholic. From my vantage point, the core message of the Catholic Church vs. Protestant is the same. For a non-Catholic, sitting in the pew at Mass, I must say there is a bit of the reverse going on. I cannot remember the last time I took communion, as I am prohibited from doing so in the Catholic church.

Except for that, I can hear good bible based sermons from the Priest, perhaps not quite as I am accustomed to from the E-Free church, but generally in line with what I believe.

There is a bit too much emphasis on the Catholic Church, and being Catholic... or I could probably join. As it is... I could not make that allegiance, as I feel that the emphasis should be centered more exclusively on Christ.

But in any case, the Catholic Church and I are in agreement on Abortion, and most other social issues. I believe that Mary deserves utter respect, and I don't believe that Catholics worship her. She was chosen by God for a unique purpose, unequaled by anyone before or since.

I don't believe that I am hell-bound, because I am not Catholic. And I don't believe Catholics are hell-bound because they are. I believe that regardless of the pew you sit in, you must ultimately reconcile yourself on a one to one basis with God, and I believe that reckoning will come regardless of what any structure of man has to say about it.

the Da Vinci Code has provided a unique opportunity to have some very, very rare discussions about religion.  People here really know very little about Christian history, and most could care less, but with the D code creating so much controversary, I ended up with heaps of opportunity to discuss that "old time religion" in depth.

Trust me, God still works in some wild and wacky ways.

than the Gospel of Jesus Christ and God's grace.

And amen:)

BTW, this might interest you.  There's an article in the NYT about the religious left and their attempt to organize.  Their hope is to get the ear of congress in the same way as the religious right.  When this gathering was told that they couldn't be spiritual leaders if they didn't know anything about scripture, this didn't go over well.

It's quite an eye-opening read, and humorous.

Or don't. It matters not.