Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE DA VINCI CODE - BLASPHEMY HITS THE BIG SCREEN
Don Feder dot com ^ | May 19, 2006 | Don Feder

Posted on 05/23/2006 2:55:11 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past

THE DA VINCI CODE - BLASPHEMY HITS THE BIG SCREEN

By Don Feder
Posted May 19, 2006

The Da Vinci Code -- which opened today -- might be subtitled "Religion for Morons" or "Gnosticism Meets The New Age."

It's fantasy posing as reality. The Sony Pictures film is blasphemous, defames the Catholic Church, and promotes neo-pagan Goddess worship.

I find it offensive, and I'm not even a Christian.

Director Ron Howard (who specializes in visual candy) assures us that Opie's opus will be true to the novel - a pretentious, overwritten piece of trash that makes Bridget Jones's Diary look like one of the 100 Greatest Books Ever Written.

The plot of Dan Brown's mega-best seller (45 million copies sold) goes like this: Jesus married Mary Magdalene, who bore his children, who became the Merovingian monarchs of France, whose descendants are running around Europe today - being chased by Opus Dei or Mormon missionaries or Martians or someone.

Again, according to The Code, The Catholic Church has for centuries concealed the truth about Jesus to maintain its power. Mary Magdalene represents the "sacred feminine" - which supposedly predates monotheism - and which wicked patriarchalists have spent millennia trying to suppress, the better to deny man's sexual nature and subjugate women.

The book (and presumably the film) even has a ritualistic orgy, where communicants dance with orbs and the grand master of the book's mysterious order gets frisky with a plump, middle-aged lady. The scene is described on page 311: "'The woman you behold is love!' The women called, raising their orbs again. The men responded, 'She has her dwelling place in eternity.'" (All I want is lovin' you, and music, music, music?)

(Excerpt) Read more at donfeder.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 45millionsuckers; banmoviesidontlike; davinci; davincicode; donfeder; emotionalhysteria; feder; frothingatthemouth; godgaveusfreewill; hitdoghollersloudest; hysteriaoveramovie; insanefreepers; itsonlyafictionmovie; mohammedtoonmoment; nutjobs; opiesfolly; ronhoward; talibornagain; theocratsoutraged
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last
A big thank you to Don Feder for this most excellent column. Please click on the link and read the rest of it. It's well worth your time.
1 posted on 05/23/2006 2:55:14 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1635292/posts


2 posted on 05/23/2006 2:57:33 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges

Oops. I confess, I didn't check. Well, that was posted on the 19th so maybe many people missed it.


3 posted on 05/23/2006 2:58:36 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
And every movie that encourages people to worship material things, use God's name in vain, glorifies murder and mayhem, promotes casual sex and adultery, is not blasphemous?

I mean I'm no fan of this movie, but the attack on this specific movie compared to all the other garbage that is not attacked is getting ridiculous.
4 posted on 05/23/2006 3:13:37 PM PDT by HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath (Jesus always reads His knee-mail. (Hall of Fame Hit-N-Run poster))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Oh worthless me. I went to see it and enjoyed it, it is a pretty good scavenger hunt on the same order as "National Treasure". It needs to be taken with a grain of salt as it is just a MOVIE.


5 posted on 05/23/2006 3:18:27 PM PDT by snowman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath

READ MY LIPS......It is a fiction movie, based on a ficton book.....I can't belive all the hype...it is FICTION..it is a fictional movie, it is a fiction book....calm down, take a deep breath....


6 posted on 05/23/2006 3:20:02 PM PDT by Meadow Muffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

We should also remember that the church threw out a large number of gospels and one man decided which ones.


7 posted on 05/23/2006 3:21:13 PM PDT by snowman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath

Well, go ahead and "attack" the other movies too. I think it's a sad position to demand no one ever criticize Hollywood. Or that if we criticize one particular movie for specific reasons, we must criticize all the flaws of all the other movies. What's that about?


8 posted on 05/23/2006 3:22:01 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: snowman1

I never said you shouldn't go if you want to. Surely you agree that the rest of us have the right to NOT see it.


9 posted on 05/23/2006 3:24:20 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

It is offensive and if this was about Moses being a gay butcher, there would be a price to pay.
If this was about Mohammad (piss be upon him) there would be tolerance towards the making of the movie.

IMO Christians are more secure about themselves and don't mind the garbage that much, because they know it is bunk and figure all involved are ignorant fools.


10 posted on 05/23/2006 3:26:22 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowman1
We should also remember that the church threw out a large number of gospels and one man decided which ones.

An absolute fallacy...

11 posted on 05/23/2006 3:27:14 PM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM: The perpetual insulting of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Meadow Muffin
READ MY LIPS......It is a fiction movie, based on a ficton book.....I can't belive all the hype...it is FICTION..it is a fictional movie, it is a fiction book....calm down, take a deep breath....

If someone wrote a book, filled with all kinds of false accusations against your best friend, wouldn't you defend him/her, even though it was "fiction"?

12 posted on 05/23/2006 3:29:48 PM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM: The perpetual insulting of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Your right but remember it's fiction.


13 posted on 05/23/2006 3:30:37 PM PDT by snowman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: snowman1

"It's just a movie" ... and those are just souls in the balance being led astray. Met any Christians lately?


14 posted on 05/23/2006 3:31:07 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

No I'm right look it up. It's historical fact.


15 posted on 05/23/2006 3:31:48 PM PDT by snowman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: snowman1
No I'm right look it up. It's historical fact.

No you are wrong, about just as wrong as all of the so-called "facts" in this book/movie and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".

16 posted on 05/23/2006 3:33:03 PM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM: The perpetual insulting of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: snowman1
Well, Don Feder addresses the point about it being fiction. I will post his comments below.

As a Goddess-worshipping, neo-pagan, Brown seeks to reverse the Bible's process of taming man's erotic nature (by channeling it to fidelity and family), once again divorcing the sexual from the spiritual - freeing man's hedonistic urges from Judeo-Christian constraints. That Brown has so many admirers among Hollywood libertines is unsurprising.

But why all the fuss? After all, it's only a movie, right?

The novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand was once asked why she primarily wrote fiction, instead of works of philosophy. Rand explained that it's far easier to convey ideas through fiction than non-fiction - witness Dante's The Divine Comedy, witness Uncle Tom's Cabin, witness Ben-Hur, The Screwtape Letters and To Kill a Mockingbird .

Novels and films aren't footnoted. The author or screenwriter can create a thoroughly convincing universe that powerfully projects his message. From The Birth of a Nation and Triumph of The Will to Thelma and Louise and Brokeback Mountain, films have told us how to think about the world around us.

Most movies present the world according to Hollywood (and the word became flesh - lots of flesh) - that the sex act is good in and of itself, that people should follow their feelings (which invariably will lead them to right conduct and happiness), that prayer is like throwing a penny in a wishing well, that God is within us, that God is love, that God makes no demands of us and that the followers of traditional religion are a bunch of uptight, puritanical, hypocritical killjoys.

Debunking Christianity - which is The Da Vinci Code's mission - advances this worldview.

All too many people read novels or see films and think they're experiencing reality. Their understanding of the complicated history of settlers and Indians comes from Dances With Wolves. They are informed about the crusades by Kingdom of Heaven. Their understanding of the theory of global warming comes from The Day After Tomorrow.

According to a Barna Group survey, 24% of those who read The Da Vinci Code said it aided their "personal spiritual growth and understanding." In other words, one in four of its readers believe the book's thesis (as opposed to its storyline) is true. Our "personal spiritual growth" isn't aided by what we believe to be a lie.

17 posted on 05/23/2006 3:35:12 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Come on be serious if anyone that see's it and is led astray because of it tells me a great deal about their mental attitude in the first place.


18 posted on 05/23/2006 3:35:18 PM PDT by snowman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Meadow Muffin

The conversation back and forth of this movie made lots of folks curious to see it. If those against the movie had just shut-up the movie would not have had so many viewers.

Reminds me of when I was a young girl in the 1950s, when a book was published that may have been "risque" the talk was that it was banned in Boston, which of course made folks buy the book. lol


19 posted on 05/23/2006 3:35:40 PM PDT by Burlem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: snowman1

You are most definitiley wrong. It was in fact the Christian community beginning with the very witnesses of Christ while He walked amongst them who placed a stamp of approval upon which letters and gospels were acceptable, and they based that upon one sure thing, 'does the letter or gospel focus upon Him and Him crucified and risen for our salvation and justification?' When you make such a statement try to stand, you had better be ready to post what you assume to support your lie.


20 posted on 05/23/2006 3:36:43 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Thank you for posting this. The writer's points are very well stated.

This article is especially aimed self-identifying Christians who's only retort seems to be, "It's only fiction".

21 posted on 05/23/2006 3:37:08 PM PDT by Irish Queen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Burlem
The conversation back and forth of this movie made lots of folks curious to see it. If those against the movie had just shut-up the movie would not have had so many viewers.

Should we just shut up when Christ is being attacked?

22 posted on 05/23/2006 3:37:48 PM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM: The perpetual insulting of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: snowman1

You apparently do not understand the meaning of 'coming to a knowledge of Him' and 'faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God'. What you spittle out is the notion that 'any gospel will do' and you appear to believe leading others into apostasy is an innocent strole.


23 posted on 05/23/2006 3:38:39 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: snowman1
On the four Gospels from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

. The formation of the Tetramorph, or Fourfold Gospel Irenæus, in his work "Against Heresies" (A.D. 182-88), testifies to the existence of a Tetramorph, or Quadriform Gospel, given by the Word and unified by one Spirit; to repudiate this Gospel or any part of it, as did the Alogi and Marcionites, was to sin against revelation and the Spirit of God. The saintly Doctor of Lyons explicitly states the names of the four Elements of this Gospel, and repeatedly cites all the Evangelists in a manner parallel to his citations from the Old Testament. From the testimony of St. Irenæus alone there can be no reasonable doubt that the Canon of the Gospel was inalterably fixed in the Catholic Church by the last quarter of the second century. Proofs might be multiplied that our canonical Gospels were then universally recognized in the Church, to the exclusion of any pretended Evangels. The magisterial statement of Irenæus may be corroborated by the very ancient catalogue known as the Muratorian Canon, and St. Hippolytus, representing Roman tradition; by Tertullian in Africa, by Clement in Alexandria; the works of the Gnostic Valentinus, and the Syrian Tatian's Diatessaron, a blending together of the Evangelists' writings, presuppose the authority enjoyed by the fourfold Gospel towards the middle of the second century. To this period or a little earlier belongs the pseduo-Clementine epistle in which we find, for the first time after II Peter, iii, 16, the word Scripture applied to a New Testament book. But it is needless in the present article to array the full force of these and other witnesses, since even rationalistic scholars like Harnack admit the canonicity of the quadriform Gospel between the years 140-175.

24 posted on 05/23/2006 3:40:11 PM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM: The perpetual insulting of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Meadow Muffin
This article is especially aimed self-identifying Christians who's only retort seems to be, "It's only fiction". Perhaps this will be the last time you feel compelled to say the obvious, "It is a fiction book, ..."

A phrase repeated too often becomes trite.

Examples:

"But it was only about sex."

"Bush lied."

"The culture of corruption."

and (insert drumroll here) "It only fiction."

25 posted on 05/23/2006 3:49:18 PM PDT by Irish Queen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Good comment.


26 posted on 05/23/2006 3:50:47 PM PDT by ClancyJ (To cause a democrat to win is the most effective way to destroy this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: snowman1

Why do you care that we condemn the movie? If it is only a movie, why are you even commenting?


27 posted on 05/23/2006 3:53:08 PM PDT by ClancyJ (To cause a democrat to win is the most effective way to destroy this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: snowman1

Thrown out gospels?

Never heard of such. Go to your local store and you will find a Bible. That is the Word of God. Not some supposedly lost or hidden "code".


28 posted on 05/23/2006 3:54:20 PM PDT by ClancyJ (To cause a democrat to win is the most effective way to destroy this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: Burlem

Shut up? Sure that would prevent any of the boycotting. People always go see something that derides religion or gives them an opportunity to discount the church.

But what would it say about the church members and Christians if they never even spoke up about Jesus being mocked, insulted, lied about? It would say they just don't care that their Lord is disrespected.


30 posted on 05/23/2006 3:57:43 PM PDT by ClancyJ (To cause a democrat to win is the most effective way to destroy this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: snowman1
We should also remember that the church threw out a large number of gospels and one man decided which ones.

Well you are kinda-sorta right, the New Testament is an edited compilation but it was not based on what was thrown out but rather what it would include.

Up until around 400 AD the Christian/Catholic message was a collage of writings, letters and books of various followers and messengers of Christ, there was no New Testament.

Around the turn of the 5th century, a collection of those writings etc. were assembled to create what we know as the New Testament.

What was included and excluded was decided by a council, not by one man.

Contrary to cynical belief, the decisions regarding what gospels to keep was based less on the message and more on veracity, a prime example are the books of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, the tales of each of those books corroborate each other in many areas, thus they were accepted as gospel.

Revelations was originally excluded by the council and was added to the NT years later.

Conspiracy theorists like to contend that the excluded or "gnostic" gospels were omitted because they contain information unfavorable to Christianity but there has never been any evidence to support such claims.
31 posted on 05/23/2006 4:02:10 PM PDT by HEY4QDEMS (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
The Dan Brown novel generator

Every time you click "refresh" it creates a brand new Dan Brown novel!

32 posted on 05/23/2006 4:04:46 PM PDT by Alouette (Psalms of the Day: 119:1-96)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1st-P-In-The-Pod; A_Conservative_in_Cambridge; af_vet_rr; agrace; ahayes; albyjimc2; ...
FRmail me to be added or removed from this Judaic/pro-Israel/Russian Jewry ping list.

Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.

33 posted on 05/23/2006 4:10:48 PM PDT by Alouette (Psalms of the Day: 119:1-96)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; A CA Guy; Meadow Muffin; snowman1; HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath; ...
I saw the Divinci code and I thought it was really good. No one said it was a documentary AND It very much had a sureal-like quality, very fanciful. It's very apparent that Ron Howard understood the story to be fiction and he conveyed that through the way it was shot.

For example, At points in the movie when the actors were speaking of the past, we saw hazy reenactments play around them. In one scene, Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou as their respective characters walked into a church, accompanied by a procession of knights... because Tom Hanks (as Robert Langdon)was telling a story about the knights.

In another part while Hanks was trying to crack a code, a sort of virtual simulation appeared in the scene representing what was going on in his head.

The movie had a very pretend quality, it never professed to be realistic.
34 posted on 05/23/2006 4:10:56 PM PDT by LauraleeBraswell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
It's a fantasy that blasphemes Christianity and that is the issue, despite how many ghostly knights they fictionalize on screens for you.
35 posted on 05/23/2006 4:12:49 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Commentary on Brown from the priest of the Orthodox parish I have been attending while away from home on sabbatical: "It's not even good gnosticism."


36 posted on 05/23/2006 4:14:15 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
I worked with my daughter on a term paper about the Quadriform Gospel during her senior year of High School.

One of the most fasinating things I've ever done.

She got a B, she usually got A's. Now she's in college and won't let me help because she "want's to keep her grades up". LOL
37 posted on 05/23/2006 4:15:34 PM PDT by HEY4QDEMS (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Meadow Muffin
However, the con artist author of this poorly written work of fiction claims it's all true; check his fact page for starters, and he's convinced 45 million gullible dupes to line his pockets. If William Proxmire were still alive he'd bestow upon Brown a Golden Fleece Award.
38 posted on 05/23/2006 4:18:07 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
Lauralee, does the movie poo poo the divinity of Christ? Does the movie raise goddess worship to an equal level with salvation through the Cross? Do you think there are vulnerable souls who have yet to 'come to a knowledge of Him' who will be led astray by the fanciful lies which will go unchallenged in the mind of those not educated in the ways of the Frenchman who created the grail lie and planted it in the French Archives and created the priori of scion, all in the fifties, and tried to place himself in the position of being heir to the French throne? Aside from that, what sort of Christian would I be if I remained silent while blasphemy is spewed around the world, while movie makers spit on my Lord and His Grace?
39 posted on 05/23/2006 4:19:54 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Meadow Muffin
READ MY LIPS......It is a fiction movie, based on a ficton book.....I can't belive all the hype...it is FICTION..it is a fictional movie, it is a fiction book....calm down, take a deep breath....

Would world wide reaction be the same if the religion in question was Juadism or Islam? I think not. It seems as if Christianity is the worlds fair game whipping boy.

40 posted on 05/23/2006 4:24:25 PM PDT by Don Corleone (Leave the gun..take the cannoli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Its just a movie. A work of fiction. Take a stresstab!


41 posted on 05/23/2006 4:24:49 PM PDT by Astronaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Astronaut

I wonder how Freepers would feel if it was a movie telling lies about Ronald Reagan . . . Oh wait, that already happened and everybody cheered when it went away at CBS.

Sigh.


42 posted on 05/23/2006 4:37:02 PM PDT by agrarianlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Well, as he indicates on his website, he's to the right of Attila, and even Pat Buchanan. His hit piece here supports that. It was a good fun book. That's all. No history, no dogma other than his fictionalized accounts. Screaming about heresy, lies and blasphemy will not affect anyone outside of the Christian Right, and to my knowledge, none of them have either read the book or plan to see the movie.


43 posted on 05/23/2006 4:57:33 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath
I think the outcry is significant. . .but for a reason that I don't think I've heard anyone articulate. It has to do with the image of Jesus as a married man. . .that somehow is thought to be, inherently, an affront to his divinity. It reveals that Christian culture is fundementally at odds with human sexuality. ..sexuality is estranged from the divine as a result of certain theological assertions: Jesus was born of a sexless conception, thus was "pure" and the son of God.

In truth, the Gospels never link the miracle of Jesus conception with his sinless state. The sexless nature of his conception was indicated "as a sign" that he indeed was the hoped for Messiah that Isaiah had spoken of.

It is true that the Gospels do not reveal any evidence that Jesus ever had a wife or children. However, it is equally true that the Gospels neither definatively assert that Jesus never intended to marry or that there would be no great meaning to that blessed event. Jesus never stated that he was disqualified for marriage.

Why, then, if there is no assertion, no evidence for either position, do we so forcefully and unequvically insist that our Jesus would have nothing to do with marriage and sex? It is because of the assumed linkage between sexual intercourse and sin. Sexual intercourse, even in marriage, mind you, is considered a step away from the divine.

The irony is that it is this unclarity in traditional theology that stands as one of the contributing factors of the decline of the family (and the rise of aberrent sexual models). . .Many Christians today are not offended by Jesus being associated with the ideal of marriage and family. . .the DaVinci Code opens the door to that discussion and it is a vitally important one.

When we see Jesus on the cross, if we speculate that he may have not only offered his blood, but also his spouse, his children and all the loves of a perfect family life that never was, we not only are magnifying the sacrifice of Christ but we are also magnifying the value of the family. Thus, when we take up the commitment of marriage and family we do so in the knowledge that this holiest of sacrements is rooted in the shed blood of Christ. Society would only be strenthened by that assertion.

44 posted on 05/23/2006 5:02:03 PM PDT by McBuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: puppiesandcream
It's fantasy posing as fantasy. What's the big deal?

Thank you! My fairy tale is better than yours.

Bottom line...they're all fairy tales.

45 posted on 05/23/2006 5:03:11 PM PDT by wireman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; Alouette

Thank G-d for Don Feder.


46 posted on 05/23/2006 5:23:07 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . `al korchakha 'attah chay, `al korchakha tamut . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
Do you see the commentary a movie such as this one ignites? Fairy Tales so easily dismissed? ... Now think of the soul who is questioning, probing, asking for spiritual guidance.
47 posted on 05/23/2006 5:49:17 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Opie's opus

LOL

48 posted on 05/23/2006 6:17:00 PM PDT by mikrofon (C'aint Be!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowman1
We should also remember that the church threw out a large number of gospels and one man decided which ones.

That post is yet more evidence that Dan Brown's readers accept The Da Vinci Code as "gospel truth".

49 posted on 05/23/2006 6:27:51 PM PDT by Sans-Culotte (I hereby re-christen the Republican Party as "The Flaccid Party")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ

Clancy you and frogjerk basically said the samething, I think the movie is offensive even though it is just a movie and Brown states such, but the rhetoric in defending Christians caused more people to see the movie, making money for Brown.

The same thing happened when Fahrenheit 9\11 by Michael Moore, was discussed seemingly forever, moviegoers paid Moore handsomly, his movie was offensive as well, although in a different way.


50 posted on 05/23/2006 6:36:55 PM PDT by Burlem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson