The Da Vinci Hoax: A Tour de Distortion

Breakpoint with Charles Colson ^ | March 8, 2006 | Charles Colson

[Sensei Ern]

It seems Chuck is getting a little off focus. Last week, he was taking aim at MySpace, implying that the only people over 30 on there are pedophiles, and now he is wasting time worrying about a story that is just bunk.

Will he next week claim that Snickerdoodles are killing our kids? Or, will he claim that the reason we do not see angels in the Hubbel telescope pictures is because NASA deliberately did not put an ectoplasm detector in the satellite?

There are worse things to focus on, like churches losing their building through Eminent Domain actions by city councils.

[puroresu]

Hollywood will fall in love with any nonsense that mocks Christianity. They loved producing "The Last Temptation of Christ" and nurtured it like a baby, but Mel Gibson had to produce "The Passion of the Christ" with his own private money because no one in Hollywood would touch such a pro-Christian film.

Dan Brown's apparently plagiarized anti-Christian schlock was a natural for Hollywood.

The main problem is that it's pushed as being the truth. I've had a co-worker and a student assistant both tell me that the story is technically fiction but it's "based on the truth". They insist that Brown conducted years of research and "proved" that Christ didn't die on the cross, married Mary Magdalene, and that Christianity has been fake from the very beginning. But instead of writing a "boring" non-fiction book about his findings, he decided to produce a more "exciting" story that's fictional but based on the true story he uncovered. The book is promoted in a manner that lures people into believing that it's based on the truth, and I'm sure the film will be pushed in the same way.

Needless to say, a film "exposing" Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other religion as being a "fraud" wouldn't be touched by Hollywood with a ten foot pole.

[Sensei Ern]

I would have to read it to be sure of the context, but two things were going on at that time.

One was that the geneology of the Jews was most important to follow the blood lines from David to the Messiah. This became worthless since the Messiah, Jesus had come.

THe second was that some were doing spiritual geneologies...I was saved under Paul's teaching, I was saved under Peter's teaching, I was saved under Apollos' teaching. That is also of no value since it did not matter who was preachig. The Bible is the authority, not the apostles and teachers. This stuff goes on today in how some postulate that they went to a certain college for spiritual education.

[Sensei Ern]

It seems it has always been that way in Hellyweird. I watch Turner Classic Movies, TCM, quite a bit. Many of the old films seem to identify some Hindu guru, or an Islamic Sheik as this great spiritual leader, neglecting the Bible altogether.

[theFIRMbss]

>[Cry Wolf] was a refreshing twist from most other movies of its type, and kept us guessing up until the final surprise

I watched Cry Wolf twice, the second time to enjoy the red head actress once I knew the end. Have you seen Book Of Shadows? There's a twist ending, but unlike Cry Wolf, when the surprise is revealed, the story goes on longer than Cry Wolf, the actors really work out their strange characters. Book Of Shadows is one of my favorite bad films that's still fun to watch.

[ArGee]

I have told you my position and my reasons, and your continuing refusal to accept what I say as sincere is not very decent of you.

That's because when I challenge your reasons you simply restate them.

Frankly, I think you would be better off feeding some hungry, teaching the Bible to some kids, or visiting someone in the hospital rather than wasting time protesting a pop-fiction book with momentary appeal.

There is time in my life for both.

But its counterproductive.

I disagree. Telling the truth is never counterproductive.

Shalom.

[Arkinsaw]

That's because when I challenge your reasons you simply restate them.

No, you questioned whether they are really my motivations. I restated them because they are.

There is time in my life for both.

Then you'd be just as well off playing tiddly-winks with the spare time rather than wasting it debunking fiction.

I disagree. Telling the truth is never counterproductive.

Ah, thats a wonderful cliche. But not logical. Sometimes it's more productive to keep your mouth shut than let the truth run out of it. When you know the truth about US military dispositions, is it always more productive to tell it? If someone asks you the best area to get a hooker and some drugs in your town, and you know, is it productive to tell the truth? And finally, if someone makes a blasphemous movie is it better to shout the truth if it will create controversy that will intrigue people to go see it and put money in the pockets of the blasphemers?

I can name countless times its better to keep your mouth shut rather than tell the truth. Your cliche scores no debate points.

[Sans-Culotte]

I think the problem is more with believers getting off track by reading this book than non-believers.

Actually, I do not expect believers to be misled. But the people on the sidelines, with a sort of quasi-belief; people who are "not quite sure" what they believe, will swallow it. I know, because I hear them talking about it, and defending Dan Brown to nth degree.

If you start hearing people in your church yakking on about how eye-opening The Da Vinci Code is, then the book will have turned out to be a way to tell sheep from goats, because there is no way the book is compatible with traditional Christianity.

[No Fool]

I think it's amazing that people who criticize the Bible and say it is irrelevant will take this 5 year old book and accept it, quote it, make it gospel...try to use it to debunk a 2000 year old book.