I saw The Davinci Code

Post Reply New Topic

The church has a long history of making a big deal out of fictional works. Both the christian bible and the da vinci code are fictional. Yes, it is dumb to make such a big deal out of these fiction books, but most things about religion are dumb / insane, so it is unsurprising.

It is like asking, "Why does that mental patient claim that aliens abduct him every night?" Because he is a mental patient. Psychologically disturbed people do and say crazy things. It is dumb and crazy, I agree.

I liked the book, though I'd have to say it was only as popular as it was due to its apparent controversy. But why it is stirring people up so much, I have no idea. You'd think Dan Brown was a scholar positing some new theory as opposed to making up a work of fiction, the way people react to the book.

IMO this book is not controversial, simply a well-researched yarn that's loosely based on historical details. It's hilarious what passes as controversy these days.

Edited.

Last edited by ilikedragons on 25 May 2006, 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This is what I mean, it is innocuous.
I think it is convenient for the church that this sort of thing stirs up controversy, eventually everyone tires of all the hype, it's only a movie afterall, and then back to business as usual.
I'm not suggesting that there is some sort of grand conspiracy behind this, I just find it interesting how this sort of thing works. But maybe the people who make a big deal out of something like this do it because they know it's an easy target. Whereas the real, earthshaking revolutionary stuff, they just ignore.

Yeah, my town has had picketers galore since the opening. I think that's crazy.

I still haven't seen Passion of the Christ yet, mostly because I'm afraid of how emotional I'd get.

I will see this, and I will tell you why. I can't comment/critisize what I haven't seen for myself. I really believe that with most things that is the best way to handle them. Bashing a film I haven't seen based on what others tell me is silly. I have to make a call based on my own thoughts and feelings.

My Mom said the book was fantastic, and she's one of the strongest Christians I know. But she said the support for it made no sense. I wanna see for myself. I'm just loony that way.

Yes, and it is also hilarious what passes as truth these days. Such as the idea that there is a god.

Trouble is, if you want to maintain that as a stance, you have to be prepared to include a very good proportion of the population in that categorisation.

(I know it's not an unheard-of position on this forum!)

The majority of the planet still believe in some sort of deity, and an even larger proportion in some sort of spiritual existence.*

On the specific of the film and the book, there is some sign that it represents the level of evidence, or of emotional resonance, that a fair number of the population take as real, opinion changing, evidence. Now that, I agree, is scary.

"Of those who had read the book, almost one in three (32%) thought the Priory of Sion - a twentieth-century hoax by a French monarchist - was a real medieval organisation, a figure which fell to just six per cent among non-readers."

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_ ... inci.shtml



*the implications of not believing in such are complex, and probably for a different thread.
I'm not saying what people should believe, just noting what makes them believe.

The support for the story is flimsy at best. I say it is a well-written book ONLY because it does what stories set out to do in the first place: entertain. It employs all sorts of tricks to keep you turning the pages, which is why I think the movie is kind of exciting, especially if you don't know what is going to happen next.

That being said, however, this book (in my book) does not qualify as great simply because it takes all sorts of rumors and legends and subjective interpretation of historical fact, then mashes them all together in hopes of creating a lucid conspiracy theory (okay, it sort of succeeds on that level). It is just a story.

What is disturbing are the reactions of those who read/watched the movie and accepted it as absolute fact. It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without actually accepting it (I think Aristotle said that), and because this story just compounds and combines theories and myths, absolute acceptance is absurd, dangerous, and, I think, indicative of a larger problem. But that is just my theory.

My Mom loves adventure and mysteries. I just finished watching this, and I can see why she liked the book.

I thought the movie was blah, personally. I don't know if that's just due to all the hype, though, thinking it was gonna be SO great.

I really loved National Treasure - same kinda theme (even have those naughty Templars!), and it kept my attention a lot more. Heck, I'm not even a Nick Cage fan! It just had more cool stuff, and when I researched some of that film, they didn't "expand" as much as Mr. Brown has seemed to do here.

It did pass the time while my kids are at school - and I didn't have to do laundry. That's all I can say. I would not go telling others about it, saying its great. I've seen many better films.

True. I was aware of that when I said what I did.

Paradox. If I believe the world's population is essentially irrational, this is uncomfortable.
But to believe that the majority of people are basically logical beings does appear to go against the evidence and would be, itself, an irrational belief.
(At least that would join me to the majority)

I think the bridge is the legal fiction. In voting you assume, for the purposes of counting, the lie that all opinions are equally valid. So here, adopting the policy that people should be treated as rational beings, even if they are not, may be a practical move.

On religious beliefs, this leads to something like Levi-Strauss' concept of "necessary myths"
where he suggests that societies need some sort of joint story to function well. And that needn't coincide with truth too closely at all. And why is truth not always the best way...?

"What do you want?"
"I want the truth."
"You can't handle the truth!" (Nicholson and Cruise, " A Few Good Men")


The need for a sheltering illusion or two crops up as a theme all over the place.
But to spot this reduces the ability to draw comfort from them.

I'm a christian and I don't care to see the movie or read the book; basically because I'm too busy and don't care about it. Originally, I thought, "Who cares? It's a story!". But then I realized that many people believe what they read and see, but then, that's their problem. At least the Christians aren't burning down anything like the Muslims did over that whole cartoon fiasco!

Yes, it is uncomfortable and disturbing. However I would rather be uncomfortable + seeing the world as it really is than comfortable + deluded. I do not want to be seen as bragging, but it does require a certain amount of inner strength and courage to choose the uncomfortable + accurate view over the comfortable + deluded view. Most people lack the requisite inner strength/courage and thus choose the comfortable + deluded view.

Truth is relative. I don't believe it is possible to know anything (and before we get into this, I don't believe that I "know" that is not possible to know anything).

That being said, my beliefs aren't very comfortable either

(For what it's worth, I operate on a principle of educated guesses.)

"It is better to be an unhappy human (or Socrates) than a satisfied pig..."
J S Mill proposed, and most who think in this area have assented, to greater or lesser degrees, but those voting with their feet (or trotters) seem to be of a different persuasion. The television schedules might serve as one datum.

There is a counter-proposal, however. Whereas Socrates "the unexamined life is not worth living" is longstanding, is it possible that "The life too closely examined is unlivable"? (George Eliot and others)

Like Wile E. Coyote over the cliff, what if the real danger lies in walking up to the real situation? (from Douglas Adams' Total Perspective Vortex, to George Bernard Shaw horrified at understanding the implications of evolutionary theory)