The Da Vinci Code

new and improved

02-09-06

i don't see what's wrong with me saying i find the premise of the book disgusting, that's how i feel about the idea dan brown put down on paper, and if i chose any other word for it i would be lying, the idea is repulsive to me, my sister has read the book despite having the same upbringing as me, i simply couldn't pick it up because it would feel like blasphemy just to hold the book, let alone read it's content ( it may or may not be silly to you, but i think it's rather easy to understand my reasoning ).

why i don't think it was rude to express my feelings is because the people that have enjoyed the book are presumably not christians and have no feelings on Jesus Christ, i on the other hand do .our feelings differ and i don't see why different feelings would be insulting or rude.

i reserve the right to have a dissenting opinion on certain matters and the right to express that opinion, i don't find it rude when people tell me they disliked a certain movie i liked, that's their opinion and i respect it. and even though i haven't read the book, i know enough about it's plot and the idea it was based upon to conclude i not only dislike it, but find it repugnant. noone should be offended by that.

and i don't think threads should be reserved only for people who like the subject. we don't live in la-la land, people have differing opinions, not everyone thinks or feels the same, and we should all have a right to express our views.

i wasn't personally attacking anyone who has read the book nor have i said that those people are disgusting. it's the idea of the book that i'm criticising.

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

adidasss

new and improved

02-09-06

Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah

In this particular instance, I'd bet half my shoes that the person in question did not sit through a summary of over 2 sentances.

The bible verse I had in mind was "Judge ye not unrighteously, lest ye be so judged." and the footnote in the King James version I had said that "unrighteously" was better translated "in ignorance". Bible translations aside though, I think we can agree that to pass valid judgement on something, one should be willing to find out what the thing is - and to accept someone else's summary or explanation is to adopt their perception, rather than forming your own.

Ok. Cool.

I think it's reasonable to form an opinion about whether or not to look into it further. But not reasonable to present judgement on something, based on someone else's interp. For instance: if I see The Forgotten and I lambast it as a steaming pile of crap, you may very well read that and decide not to see it. But if you go around telling everyone that you think the film is a steaming pile of crap... not so reliable, your word, because you didn't see it.

Yes, I have doubts. Based on the other conversation we had about Dan Brown, I doubt your understanding of the nature of the book. It's action/adventure fiction, and if you read the book, that's clear.

so what you're saying is that only after i have read the entire book i can conclude whether or not i find the idea of Jesus having sex and making children repugnant?hmmm.......nope, i do believe i can say that right now.....

SamsoniteDelilah

Standing in the Sunlight, Laughing

02-09-06

Originally Posted by adidasss

No, I'm saying that if you're going to dismiss the book on the grounds that that is what it says, then you're a kook. It doesn't, in fact, say that. You've judged the book on an oversimplification.

If you want to dismiss the notion of Jesus Christ having fathered children, you're welcome to do so, but I suspect you're doing it in the same spirit with which you denounced the book: without having looked into it at all.

What if he DID? It's not impossible.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

adidasss

new and improved

02-09-06

Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah

my belief system is not based on evidence, that's why it's called faith. i chose to believe that Jesus Christ was a divine creature, you chose to believe he wasn't which enables you to consider other theories on his life and existance. i choose not to consider any other possibilites, in my mind, they simply don't exist. i don't understand what your motives to undermine my faith would be. i'm not trying to convince you that Jesus was God, why are you trying to convince me of otherwise?

Sleezy

In the Beginning...

02-09-06

Originally Posted by adidasss

I don't think she's trying to undermine your faith or convince you of something you don't subscribe to. She's simply saying that if you're going to contend that something is true, you invariably contend that something else is false. If you choose to believe these contentions, she says, that's fine. But the point is, if you're going to argue that your beliefs are true with other people, there is an expectation that you substantiate what you're saying. Granted, you only claimed the film's premise was repugnant, not untrue - but it's a fine line.

In other words, you can believe what you want, but be careful you don't go telling other people that they're wrong and you're right without having some kind of evidence. If your belief system is not based on evidence, then you have no basis for arguing what is true and what is false.

Ophelia

Registered User

02-10-06

I caught the trailer in the cinema last week. If I said it sparked the least bit of interest in me I would be lying.

__________________

adidasss

new and improved

02-10-06

Originally Posted by Sleezy

I don't think she's trying to undermine your faith or convince you of something you don't subscribe to. She's simply saying that if you're going to contend that something is true, you invariably contend that something else is false. If you choose to believe these contentions, she says, that's fine. But the point is, if you're going to argue that your beliefs are true with other people, there is an expectation that you substantiate what you're saying. Granted, you only claimed the film's premise was repugnant, not untrue - but it's a fine line.

In other words, you can believe what you want, but be careful you don't go telling other people that they're wrong and you're right without having some kind of evidence. If your belief system is not based on evidence, then you have no basis for arguing what is true and what is false.

i think you went a bit astray with this post, you said it yourself, i never tried to convince people who have read the book and enjoyed it that it's repugnant, i merely expressed my opinion on the idea of the book....there was no arguing here, i was just trying to explain to people why i feel the way i do.....

Sleezy

In the Beginning...

02-10-06

Originally Posted by adidasss

Right, which is why I mentioned that I noticed you weren't trying to argue the book's validity. Since I don't know you, though, I wanted to make sure you understood what I said about not being able to argue your beliefs without evidence, and I can see that you do.

Thursday Next

I never could get the hang of Thursdays.

02-11-06

The book was bad. I don't think I'm being too prejudiced in predicting that the movie will be as bad or possibly worse.

MCRRox

Registered User

02-12-06

Personally, I think that casting Tom Hanks as the main character...was a bad choice. Once an actor does so many movies in a genre, that genre sticks...and comedy is Tom Hanks genre...(at least in my perspective) Ive read the book...and it was good overall, but the ending was bad (as others have said). But I'm someone that thinks that almost all ending are bad...so it really doesn't mean anything.

FilmPirate

Spare No One

02-12-06

Originally Posted by MCRRox

Yeah I agree. Tom Hanks is going to botch it. I hope not, but he probably will.... And the ending was a little fruitless. I wanted more than an assumption.

Yoda

Administrator

05-16-06

Well, the movie hype is in full swing, and debate continues about the role the book has in regards to religion. A disheartening poll has been released to that effect:

Reading "Da Vinci Code" does alter beliefs: survey
By Paul Majendie

LONDON (Reuters) - "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.

People are now twice as likely to believe Jesus Christ fathered children after reading the Dan Brown blockbuster and four times as likely to think the conservative Catholic group Opus Dei is a murderous sect. "An alarming number of people take its spurious claims very seriously indeed," said Austin Ivereigh, press secretary to Britain's top Catholic prelate Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor.

"Our poll shows that for many, many people the Da Vinci Code is not just entertainment," Ivereigh added.

He heads a prominent group of English Roman Catholic monks, theologians, nuns and members of Opus Dei, who commissioned the survey from leading pollster Opinion Research Business (ORB) and have sought to promote Catholic beliefs at a time when the film's release has provoked a storm of controversy.

ORB interviewed more than 1,000 adults last weekend, finding that 60 percent believed Jesus had children by Mary Magdalene -- a possibility raised by the book -- compared with just 30 percent of those who had not read the book.

The English group demanded that the "Da Vinci Code" movie, being given its world premiere at the Cannes Film festival on Wednesday, should carry a "health warning".

The group, which stopped short of following the Vatican line of calling on Catholics to boycott the film, accused Brown of dishonest marketing based on peddling fiction as fact.

The novel, which has sold over 40 million copies, also depicts Opus Dei as a ruthless Machiavellian organization whose members resort to murder to keep the Church's secrets.

The survey underlined the astonishing popularity of Brown's novel -- it has been read by more than one in five adults of all ages in Britain.

Ivereigh complained that Brown and film studio Sony Pictures "have encouraged people to take it seriously while hiding behind the claim that it is fiction. "Our poll shows they should take responsibility for their dishonesty and issue a health warning."

In the survey, readers were asked if Opus Dei had ever carried out a murder. Seventeen percent of readers believe it had, compared with just four percent of non-readers.

Opus Dei spokesman Jack Valero said he was astonished.

"Since we were founded in 1928, Opus Dei has promoted the highest moral standards at work, spreading a message of Christian love and understanding," he said. "Yet the Da Vinci Code has persuaded hundreds of thousands of people that we have blood on our hands."

When you tell people your book is factual, they tend to believe you, I suppose.

chicagofrog

history *is* moralizing

05-16-06

Originally Posted by adidasss

read it's content

you mean: ITS (genitive!!)

right?

because the people that have enjoyed the book are presumably not christians and have no feelings on Jesus Christi

false assumption, even if it's sadly true that in this century, most Christians appear to be conservative and exoteric. some, theoretically, can/could be devoted Christians and still like at least the game of playing with different theories, in books or movies or else.
like some Muslims can/could (possibly) not condemn any satire on Mohammed or threat to kill Salman Rushdi.

i reserve the right to have a dissenting opinion on certain matters and the right to express that opinion

you know what i opine myself, i'm with you on this.

i don't find it rude when people tell me they disliked a certain movie i liked

*cough* *cough*, uuhhh, even Lola Rennt??

i know enough about it's plot

(sic)

nor have i said that those people are disgusting. it's the idea of the book that i'm criticising

if one really really likes it and actually considers possibilities you reckon are "blasphemous" (citing you), what do you call him/her then?
either he/she's blasphemous, or it's not his/her fault, cuz he/she's a moron who doesn't understand the implications?

__________________
We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

7thson

AMC Ape

05-16-06

Originally Posted by FilmPirate

Yeah I agree. Tom Hanks is going to botch it. I hope not, but he probably will.... And the ending was a little fruitless. I wanted more than an assumption.

I do not think Hanks will do a bad job here at all. He can definitely go beyond the comedy role, at least in my opinion. Look at Saving Private Ryan, Road to Perdition, and even Castaway. Granted the film may not be that great but I do not think it will be because of Tom hanks.

__________________
�The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.� � Sir Richard Burton

adidasss

new and improved

05-16-06

Originally Posted by chicagofrog

you mean: ITS (genitive!!)

right?

false assumption, even if it's sadly true that in this century, most Christians appear to be conservative and exoteric. some, theoretically, can/could be devoted Christians and still like at least the game of playing with different theories, in books or movies or else.
like some Muslims can/could (possibly) not condemn any satire on Mohammed or threat to kill Salman Rushdi.

you know what i opine myself, i'm with you on this.

*cough* *cough*, uuhhh, even Lola Rennt??

(sic)

i don't call those people christians. a real christian will not seriously consider this idea...
and bless you for trying to correct my spelling/grammar....

Caitlyn

MoFo Patrol

05-16-06

Originally Posted by adidasss

i don't call those people christians. a real christian will not seriously consider this idea...

It's been a really really long time since I called myself a Christian� but I do recall being taught it was not up to man to judge who or who was not a Christian�

__________________

You never know what is enough, until you know what is more than enough.
~William Blake ~

AiSv Nv wa do hi ya do...
(Walk in Peace)

Caity's DVD Collection |Top 100

adidasss

new and improved

05-16-06

really? is that some commandment i overlooked?
i think it's very simple, christians are people who believe that jesus christ is god, this book says otherwise, people who seriously entertain the idea that jesus had sex with mary magdalen and that they had children cannot call themselves christians because they doubt the fact that jesus is god.simple logic i would say...

7thson

AMC Ape

05-16-06

I certainly think it is possible to believe both. Saying that I do not believe the Da Vinci Code is true, but I would tell you that it would not suprise me to have been deceived by the Catholic Church or any large religuos group for that matter about anything. I mean without getting all preachy or arguing interpretations about the bible, realistically if Jesus Christ was God in the flesh then he had the proper equiptment to get a woman pregnant. Like I said I do not really believe it, but hey those that do should not automatically be condemmed. I am just saying this to pass along my thoughts not judge yours.

On another note: isnt the old saying, any publicity is good publicity, hold truth still? The complaints by the Catholic Church about boycotting the film only makes people want to go see it more.

adidasss