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 ...
Its just a movie. A work of fiction. Take a stresstab!
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.
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.
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.
Thank you! My fairy tale is better than yours.
Bottom line...they're all fairy tales.
Thank G-d for Don Feder.
LOL
That post is yet more evidence that Dan Brown's readers accept The Da Vinci Code as "gospel truth".
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.
Well, it's true.
I'm going to see it twice.
What if Jesus did have a baby with Mary Magdelene? How does that affect his alledged divinity? Only Mary his mother need be the virgin, correct? I haven't seen or read the "code" so perhaps I'm missing other things that are considered to be blasphemous.
Well, that may be but we can't keep quiet and just let disrespect for Jesus go unchallenged.
It is not fair to Jesus that none would speak up for Him.
There will always be those who will disrespect religion but when there are people who call them on it, it tells others that someone cares. If no one speaks up, it tells others that no one cares and that Jesus is not worth defending.
You might be surprised at how many people are worried that this stupid movie will cause so many to believe all biblical teaching is false. And the result? They may never receive eternal life because they choose to believe a stupid movie. That is their fault but it is a shame over a stupid book.
Isn't THE DA VINCI CODE really about mohammad?
Ping!
From the same idiots who brought you this movie. That's exactly the line they're pushing, and there are folks out there gullible enough to believe it.
Denying the historicity of the Four Gospels is a waste of time. There are too many contemporaneous references. The later "gospels" (and there aren't 'a large number', just 5-6) are of much later provenance (mostly the Gnostics in Egypt) and push a religion that is unrecognizable as Christianity.
You said it better than I did.
LOL! You go Don.
Nothing in the book changed my Christian beliefs. If some folks are swayed by the Da Vinci Code perhaps their beliefs were not very strong in the first place.
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.