Head First: Everyone in Cannes Must Be Catholic.

Friday, May 19, 2006

Everyone in Cannes Must Be Catholic.


I saw "The Da Vinci Code" this morning. I'm leaving for a weekend getaway this afternoon, and I didn't want to wait until next week, so I caught the early show (10:15am) at my local cineplex. Contrary to what I had read, this movie did not suck (not a lot, anyway). No, it wasn't a great art film, and it certainly wasn't Tom Hanks' best performance, but it was still a fun ride. I didn't really notice whether Audrey Tautou acted well or not (when you're that cute, does it really matter?). As advertised, Ian McKellen was brilliant, and the albino killer-monk was scary as hell.

The short version of my thoughts on the movie's implications (yes, I do have a short version):

The book was a novel. The movie was, well, a movie. I suspended my disbelief for two and a half hours and enjoyed a hell of a good story. I even found myself rooting for them to find the tomb of Mary Magdalene. But when the movie was over, guess what? My beliefs were intact. Jesus is still the Son of God. He died and resurrected. He made everything new. He saved my ass. I don't doubt that one tiny bit.

But I have to tell you this. As I was leaving the theater, I rounded a corner and (I am not making this up, I swear) found myself standing face to face with a 6'4" albino guy talking on a cell phone. It scared me so bad, I think I peed myself a little.

84 comments:

Anonymous said...

You don't feel like it is blasphemous?

Kc said...

Okay I'm going to see this film on your recommendation and if I stumble it's on your head!

(I love irresponsibilty. It feels so liberating.) ;-)

ninjanun said...

Dorse, that pic you posted scared me!

Where did you find that?

dufflehead said...

blasphemy:
1. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
2. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.


contempt:
The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn.

well, here's the criteria for being blasphemous.
we'll probably see it this weekend and can compare notes as to whether the movie meets these criteria or not.

my guess is that it doesn't.

Anonymous said...

A contemptuous (the feeling of redarding someone worthless)writing concerning God. basically what this movie is doing to the diety and name of Christ...

jeff said...

What's the big deal if Jesus was married??

Marriage isn't illegal or immoral. Having kids within the bonds of marriage isn't wrong.

Jesus was FULLY man. He layed down his diety to come to earth. Why can't we just let him BE a man??? If he was some Godly diety floating around the earth, then he WASN'T tempted like we are, as the scriptures state. If he used his Godliness to give him ANY advantage, he was no example to us. He had to be fully man. And that's all this book attempts to prove.

As a 100% man, he could do no mighty works without the anointing of the Holy Spirit and prayer. Isn't that how we're supposed to live?

But you may ask, "what about his blood"? If he were married, his pure blood would have been mixed with Mary Magdalene's sinful blood, thereby ensuring the fact that his offspring would simply be human.

I've read the book (unlike most dissenting christians). The only thing the story proves is that DaVinci believed Jesus was married. Big flippin' deal!!

Yes, a character in the book makes the statement that "the greatest story ever told" is a lie. Does that make the entire book blasphemous?? If so, then the bible is also blasphemous, because a character in it refers to Jesus as "the prince of devils".

If I may answer your question anonymous, no. The DaVinci Code is not blasphemous. It's an opinion that raises some interesting questions (and did not cause me to waver in my faith, either). Beyond all that, it's a very entertaining story that is actually as much about art history & codebreaking as it is Christ and Mary Magdalene.

If Jesus were walking the earth today, he'd probably go see it. I'm pretty sure he's not insecure in who he is. Are we?

Rick said...

Okay, you made me laugh out loud on this post. The albino on a cell phone is the funniest thing I heard all week. I am still laughing... Thanks for making me have a huge belly-laugh.I'm still laughing...

dufflehead said...

maybe this will help anonymous out

http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20060518

ninjanun@hotmail.com said...

Holy Crap, that's funny!

dorsey said...

anonymous, I tend to be of the opinion that the diety and name of God cannot be diminished by Ron Howard, Dan Brown, you or me.

I understand why you're concerned, and it sounds spiritual and all, but you're assuming that God has less power than He does.

Zeke said...

Ah, at your age you pee yourself a little every time you bend over, Dorse.

;)

JimmyBob said...

Why is everyone spelling deity...diety?

OK, this is so not like me to do this, but I can't resist. Maybe you guys are starting to rub off on me.

Perhaps church leaders, like the talking heads I heard on Christian radio this morning, are so upset about this movie because it might cause them to do a little teaching and honest research?!?

I mean, I heard one commentator say that he thought the film was dangerous because young impressionable seekers would easily believe the lies and reject the Bible and Christ. Why would those who hold the Words of Life be afraid that some Hollywood movie could stop their message? It makes you wonder if they really believe in the power of the Gospel or if they are too lazy to proclaim it with authority. Some of them would probably abandon the faith after reading a week's worth of The Edge of Faith blog (I checked it out Dorse. Pretty depressing place. EddieO is now a self-proclaimed, deconverted anti-Christ).

I was thinking of taking our graduating seniors from our church to go see the movie (after dinner, of course). It would make for some great conversation on apologetics, history, and archeology.

My only critical thought of the movie and advertising for it is this: Can you imagine how the American left would respond to a movie made about the fraudulent life of Mohammad? Especially if the marketers went out of their way to make it known that their work was based on factual research and that it would change everyone's view of Islam forever?

It will never happen. We'd be too afraid of terrorist retaliation and then never hear the end of how we brought it upon ourselves.

In the case of The DaVinci Code, I don't think there's the slightest chance there will be violence (lunacy is possible) but I also don't think we'll hear any of the producers saying "We brought this on ourselves" about the Christian reaction to the film.

jeff said...

Some of them would probably abandon the faith after reading a week's worth of The Edge of Faith blog (I checked it out Dorse. Pretty depressing place. EddieO is now a self-proclaimed, deconverted anti-Christ).

Jimmy. I agree with your post. Christians are coming off totally insecure in their comments against this movie.

However, take it easy on the Edge of Faith guys. While I disagree with their contentions, I do know that they spend more time reading & studying the bible than do most christians. In fact, I'd rather have those two 'eddies' on my side than most 'christians' I know. :)

JimmyBob said...

Jeff, since you have been there and talked with those guys, can you clear things up for me. Are they really Christians anymore? To me it looks as if they are dedicated to tearing down Christianity now. So, all their Bible reading is for that purpose. They try to come up with reasons why Christianity is a farse. As EddieO puts it The Case Against Christianity.

Why would you want that kind of person on your side? Maybe I'm missing something. Are they doing that just to get Christians to think deeper about their faith OR have they been genuinely deconverted?

Jill said...

I probably won't see it but I am very insecure. And I've gone to church for years,sigh. How do u know the Word is true if u hear people have been changing it? If Jesus is the Word, how can u be sure u know him if u can't be sure of the Word?

dorsey said...

That's the part the Holy Spirit plays in all this. Jesus said that no one can come to Him unless the Spirit draws them. It's the Holy Spirit who convinces your heart of the Truth, not Tom Hanks.

dufflehead said...

just saw the movie . . . good movie.

they still haven't gotten a puzzle mystery movie right, though. simillar to national treasure, there was just something missing . . . maybe that i didn't have an opportunity to be involved in solving it? that would be a nice pay off (this is why i'm trying to be a game designer)

jill, good questions, i admire your honesty about insecurtiy.

i agree with dorsey, it's about the Spirit. i do want to make one minor clarification. the Bible is not the word of God. Christ was. "the word" is easily taken out of context.

this is turning into an extremely long comment so bear with me, i'm almost done.

you can do all the research in the world and still never arrive at truth through reading what someone else wrote about something. no ammount of history or appologetics or whatever will get you there. case in point "A People's History of the United States" (which i'm not finished with but completely reccommend) vs any text book on american history.

so the "thought" take on the movie was that two sides are represented, those that found Christ completely divine and those that found Christ completely man. in the end, is it simply one or the other or both? you decide.

Rich(luthsem) said...

The reviews are bad but I'll probably check it out.
Thanks for the review Dorsey

jeff said...

Dorsey said:
It's the Holy Spirit who convinces your heart of the Truth, not Tom Hanks.
But wasn't it Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump who said, "I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze. But I, I think maybe it's both."

Of course Forrest also spoke very convincingly of the church... "Stupid is as stupid does".

maybe you should change that to "It's the Holy Spirit who convinces your heart of the Truth, and sometimes, Tom Hanks."

Allison said...

Damn it, dufflehead. There are eight (count 'em, eight) years of archives for PVP. Do you have any idea how many hours you've just sucked out of my life?

Yeah, yeah, yeah -- I know, it's my choice to do it. But it's so darned funny.

Allison said...

Oh, a real comment...right.

I fall into the camp of those who roll their eyes when people cry "blasphemy!" at DVC. As Dorsey so rightly said, it's a (badly written, but highly entertaining) novel. And a movie. So what?

Sojourners had a good piece on this one a few days sgo that's worth a read and pretty well expresses my view.

JimmyBob -- fwiw, you're drawing a strawman of "the American left." If you're going to mock a large portion of the country, please at least mock reality, not a finger-painting of reality!

Anonymous said...

No one seems to be addressing the fact that this is a movie about CHRIST!!! Our King, false teaching about Him, come on brothers and sisters, stand for Jesus and His truth, wait, He is the truth!

dorsey said...

Although I allow anonymous comments (I'm having second thoughts), I generally don't respond to them. Don't take this as an attack, but I consider such comments to be a little cowardly. Why don't you just BE as bold as you pretend to be? You're challenging us to take a stand, yet you hide. How are you not acting fraudulently?

That said, I'd like to respond to your comment. First, having seen the film (I'm assuming you haven't. Correct me if need be), I don't consider that it was as much a film "about Christ" as it was a thrilling story about the power of belief and how far men go to protect their own power and hypocrisy.

But even deeper than that, from how many pulpits is a false Christ preached every Sunday? How many sermons have I heard that suggest that Jesus only wants me to vote for pro-life candidates, or that Jesus wants us to love everyone, except homosexuals (or we can love them, but certainly have no contact with them, except to show them they're wrong)? I hear about a Jesus who wants me to be good so that He can bless me. I hear about a Jesus whose love is so conditional that I wonder who can be good enough?

Ron Howard claims no belief in Christ. Why should we demand that he present us an accurate Christ when our own "spiritual leaders" don't do it? Don't you consider it worse for Christ to be distorted by one who claims to be His follower? Or worse yet, one who claims to be His anointed?

I'm sorry, but I am growing to see all this defensiveness from the church as another opportunity to point fingers outward and avoid honest self-examination. It's (albeit largely unwitting) spiritual sleight-of-hand.

jeff said...

No one seems to be addressing the fact that this is a movie about CHRIST!!!
No, this is a movie about Opus Dei, Robert Langdon, codebreaking and Leonardo DaVinci's beliefs.

If you're so vehement about proper representation of Christ, why are you not also speaking out against books like the "Left Behind", which paints questionable biblical interpretations? Why not speak out against "Passion of the Christ"? It had a lot of b.s. in it.

Our King, false teaching about Him
What, specifically, is the false teaching about Him? How do you know it's false? When you read the book or saw the movie, what stuck out to you as being false? If you didn't read the book or see the movie, there's no need to talk about it. Instead, we'll all just tune into Pat Robertson or another Christian talking head, because you are apparently only mimicking what you heard these types say.

come on brothers and sisters, stand for Jesus and His truth, wait, He is the truth!
If He is the truth, then all this falsehood you speak of shouldn't be so threatening to you. Why so insecure in your "truth"?

dufflehead said...

well said, brothers marshall

Jill said...

How do you know if you're being led by the Holy Spirit?
Jeff, what b.s. was in the Passion of the Christ?
Thanks.

JimmyBob said...

Allison - What the heck? Where have you been? Did your reality check bounce? Did you pay attention after 911? Who blamed America for the attacks? Did you pay attention after Denmark made some cartoons about Mohammed? Who pointed out that it was their own fault for the retaliation? Did you pay attention to the made up stories about American soldiers flushing copies of the Koran down the toilet? Who made those stories up and who was all upset about that? Don't act like my honest criticism was without thought or reason. Get real!

Seriously, do you think that Hollywood could make a movie like I described and get away with it?

And for the record, my intent was not to mock half the country as much as their representatives and media.

JimmyBob said...

Ahh, that should have been Muhammed. I'm definitely going to get it now. I wish I had spelled Jezus wrong. I wouldn't be in any real trouble.

Allison, I don't even know you. So, I'm sorry in advance for the tone of my last post. Forgive me please?!?

dufflehead said...

jim,
i bet it was fox news that said all of that stuff. i don't watch fox news.

the only news source for me is the Daily News. and www.democracynow.org.
and www.cnn.com.
and news.bbc.co.uk.

i don't remember seeing those things you pointed out on any of the news sources i keep up with. . .but i am getting old . . .and fluffy . . .

and alison, if you need more laughs go check out
www.penny-arcade.com
www.megatokyo.com
www.fuckthesouth.com

dufflehead said...

jill,
that's probably one of the best questions i've ever heard. i've never thought to ask it myself. "you just know" i think would have been the answer i would have gotten.

anybody got a decent answer for jill? i'm stumped. the best shot i can make at it would be that you find this Christ guy worth checking into further, probably start to wonder if there was something more that could be done to make this world a better place . .. but those are probably really weak answers.

JimmyBob said...

Dufflehead, OK, I admit I watch FOX News and listen to Conservative talk radio frequently. But, I also watch CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN and PBS occasionaly. So, maybe I'm biased when it comes to Left/Right comparisons, etc.

In fairness, the Bush Administration did condemn the cartoons when they first came out, along with Bill Clinton. So, maybe that was a bad example. However, you cannot deny that the left sees and articulates reasons why many Muslims hate the West and America on a regular basis (think Michael Moore, John Kerry, Al Gore, and Ted Kennedy for example).

And how many think we would actually make a movie about the fraudulent life of Muhammed? OR, who thinks we should?

jeff said...

jill said:
Jeff, what b.s. was in the Passion of the Christ?
When I say "b.s.", of course I'm speaking of "broadcast symphony", referring of course to the wondeful soundtrack... (just kidding)

Many of the details in P-o-t-C were certainly "extra-biblical", if we're using the same rationale as DaVinci Code. Mel Gibson got much of his imagery for the flick from the recorded vision of an allegedly questionable nun named Anne Emerich.

My question is how is that different from a moviemaker getting info from the gnostic Gospel of Philip?

Granted, I don't agree with the premise of DaVinci Code. I'm just tired of this insecure Christianity that speaks of power, faith and strength, then never displays it.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot... you know you're being led by the Holy Spirit when you get goosebumps :)

dufflehead said...

i don't think muhammed's life was fradulent. in fact, i think there would be an interesting bit of research in correlating the timeline of muhammed showing up on the scene and the acts of the Christians at the time.

and i'm still pretty sure that "the left" didn't say that "they brought this on themselves". from what i can tell, that's not the way "the left" thinks. but, i'm always open to being proven wrong so, if you can find some quotes, i'd be glad to change my opinion.

Recovering said...

Dorsey,
I'm totally with you on the anonymous comments...I constantly consider whether I should allow 'em or not.

I agree with your assessment of the Da Vinci code. My wife read the book (I'm not a fiction fan) and I haven't seen the movie yet but I find it downright silly how worked up most Evangelicals get.

This is the perfect vehicle to bring up Christ and share your faith in a completely natural way. All we Christians have to say is "So have you seen the Davinci Code...?" and - Bang! - a great opportunity to share the Gospel.

We should be thanking Ron Howard for giving us such a golden opportunity.

Allison said...

OK, I admit I watch FOX News and listen to Conservative talk radio frequently.

I'm shocked -- shocked, I tell you.

As an NPR-listening scourge of the people you trust to tell you the truth, I fell comfortable saying that they (the conservative talking heads) are largely full of it where "what the left thinks" is concerned. They inspire fear of "them" with their rhetoric, because a common enemy can be a unifying force, even if only temporarily. Besides that, excitement brings viewers/listeners. (FWIW, I consider Air America Radio to be just as inflamatory and annoying.)

However, you cannot deny that the left sees and articulates reasons why many Muslims hate the West and America on a regular basis...

Two points on this.

First, assuming that Michael Moore speaks for me would be like my assuming that Fred Phelps speaks for you.

Second, there is a big difference between understanding (and articulating) the reasons that terrorist extremists do something and condoning their actions. By understanding where the terrorists were coming from, perhaps we can work to prevent future attacks. Then again, maybe not -- but at least we will have tried.

DH: from what i can tell, that's not the way "the left" thinks. but, i'm always open to being proven wrong so, if you can find some quotes, i'd be glad to change my opinion.

I'd add a request that the quote be specific, and not sourced from Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hanity, or other people commenting on what the left thinks. A direct quote from a "lefty" would be much more persuasive.

Allison said...

Oh, and JimmyBob...nice to meet you! (where are my manners?)

DH - thanks for the additional links. I can see my billable hours swirling down the toilet already. At least I'll be laughing all the way!

JimmyBob said...

I'm gonna let you guys win that American Left argument for now, because I'm just plain tired of researching. I'll concede that all my comments were based on news stories I've read and heard. And I will admit I don't agree with much of the Left's views. So, I'll try to refrain from giving my opinion like that in the future without citation. Sorry for the crap I put you through.

My prediction is that Hollywood will never make a movie about the fraudulent life of Muhammed (not that his life was fraudulent, to correct an earlier misconception about what I said). They will never touch that. I won't go into the why's because I'm too lazy.

Nice to meet you too Allison!

dufflehead said...

hollywood bases it's movie choices on demographics.

a movie about muhammed wouldn't bring in as many people, i'll bet.

plus, i'm guessing a lot of people know next to nothing about islam and therefore wouldn't be interested. unless, of course, the fundamentals go up in arms about a "movie about a fraudulent life" (still really don't know what that means . . .why don't you put up a post about it on your site?) and the rest of the people want to see it just cause they get a kick out of watching evengelicals squirm.

evengelicals really having become the easiest way to advertise movies, after all.

Steve said...

Here's my two cents....

Hollywood is about making money. Plain and simple. We talked about this around the Passion of the Christ movie.. and Chronicles of Narnia... and now here we go again....

It's all about the money and the reason this movie was made was because Hollywood knew that it could make over $200 million in the first weekend...even if it sucked. (I haven't seen the movie, but read the book and really liked the story, the way it was told... it caused me to turn the pages... it made me look up some pictures and stuff of Da Vinci's - it was over the top but I knew it would make a huge movie when I read it).

If Hollywood could make an entertaining movie surrounding Muhammed (sp?), and have tons of people see it and make money... I am sure they would regardless. Can't you see Robert Langdon running around the desert, searching for kryptic msgs in the Koran, flying in a sexy Middle Eastern lady to help him solve the mystery....sounds like a best-seller in the making. Why not?

Zeke said...

My prediction is that Hollywood will never make a movie about the fraudulent life of Muhammed (not that his life was fraudulent, to correct an earlier misconception about what I said). They will never touch that. I won't go into the why's because I'm too lazy.

I would say the reasons (in addition to the fact that there's probably no audience for a Mohammed movie from Hollywood) are that 1) there's little that's politically appealing to filmmakers about making a movie about Mohammed--it's not likely to impress their peers the way some other politically-charged, edgy films have--and 2) it could get them and their families killed.

So to repeat: no money, no prestige, threat to life and limb. Pass.

Anonymous said...

After weeks and even months of hype, attack and general discussion, the DaVinci Code still looms heavy over evangelical Christians everywhere. Its big screen appearance is both abhorred and yet sought after depending on the individual’s opinion you seek. D. Brown, the author of this piece of fiction has already taken effort to produce his next piece of heresy, titled “The Michelangelo Code.” This dazzling sequel surpasses its predecessor moving straight into the big screen, bypassing fiction readers nation-wide. The movie picks up where it left off. After ripping through Orthodox Christian principals and undermining the very fabric of Christianity, Mr. Brown’s film will seek to undermine the religion Islam and all of its tenants. Through the illuminati society, the secrets preserved in Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel painting reveal that Islam’s famed prophet Mohammad was nothing more than a psychotic chauvinist, trying to spread his teachings in an attempt to further his cult. Further investigation shows that Mohammad dabbled in molestation through necrophilia. This big screen hit is set to brace theaters in late July of 2007. Now, obviously this is not true, nor would it ever be. The reason:

Subtly or openly attack Christianity and the world will think it’s great.
Subtly or openly attack Islam and you better watch your car!

Nobody would ever dream of something like this making it big. Somehow respect for all religions, except Christianity, has become a universal rule. It is sad that things have come to that, but that is the way it is. As a result you could never make a movie like the one mentioned above. Somehow though, they've made a movie mocking Christian principals. I'd like to just say, for those of you who look towards a fiction book/movie and lose faith in the Good Book (Bible) I pray sincerely that you will reconsider what you have heard or seen. If this Michelangelo movie were made it would scream “FAKE”, and yet this same DaVinci code ought to do the same. I shouldn’t be surprised though for the Bible does declare:

2Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears

BruceD said...

Maybe, "After ripping through Orthodox Christian principals and undermining the very fabric of Christianity"... all that will be left is Christ. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.

Bruce Garrison said...

Dorse,

I think your anonymous needs to get a hobby. Can I suggest "lawn bowling" or perhaps "darts" along with a decent pint of Guinness? (I'm thinking that ain't going to happen.) I was listening to a discussion regarding the DaVinciCode on BBC Radio last week. One Catholic journalist absolutely obliterated all who stood in her way. She was hilarious and had quite a brain. There was also a cultural historian who was not a believer but who acknowledged that almost all historians, at least here in the UK, have already acknowledged that the Davinci thing is a load of crap. He said the church's insistence on fighting this battle had only lowered the church in his eyes, because to any one with half a brain it is fairly obvious that there is no battle to fight. The film critic for the London Guardian said from Cannes that the primary reason why the reviews were so bad is that it seemed that Ron Howard somehow got the idea into his head that he was making a profound film, while everybody else had already decided that there wasn't any truth to it, but they might as well go along for the ride, since it was a pretty decently spun yarn. Not quite what I would call "attacking the very fabric of Christianity".

jeff said...

Hey Bruce, I don't think anonymous has that much time on his hands. But it appears he knows how to cut/paste.

Regarding what you said about the validity of the film, I spent Sunday afternoon watching Discovery Channel documentqaries on the subject, and most all of them stated that DVC was hardly true... that none of the arguments could be supported by any fact. Interesting that "non-christian" media so easily comes to that assumption. I think the public will too.

Beyond all that, I finally saw the movie yesterday evening. The only thing uncomfortable about the entire event was the way my wife kept jabbing me, when I would doze off...

What a snore-fest!! I enjoyed the book, but the movie was not very good. It was fun seeing all the interesting places I'd only read about. But in attempting to fit every plot turn & twist into 2 1/2 hours, most of the interesting facts and details were lost in the pace and the French accents.

My suggestion is, join the controversy... read the book.

Bruce Garrison said...

Hey Jeff,

Yeah, it seems that the non-Christians have this figured out more than the Christian crowd. My cynical side asks just how many "crack the DaVinci code" books are being sold in Christian bookstores. I have to think it's a little like Y2K--jump in, write a book, and make some cash while the getting's good. Interesting to hear that the movie so completely held your attention. That was the general view of most of the reviewers over here. The book was a fun read, but I think Tolstoy and Faulkner are safe at the top of my favourite author list. But hey, anything that makes Dorsey pee himself sits way up high on my list. (I have seen that happen before, but the details will be withheld in the best interests of his blogging following.)

One last thought. Has anybody given any thought to the fact that "Ice Age" and "Ice Age 2" may be directly in contradiction to the creation accounts and even as we speak be ripping at the very fabric of Christianity as we know it? Why hasn't there been any more fuss about that? Now there's a profound question for you.

Society's Elite said...

"Has anybody given any thought to the fact that "Ice Age" and "Ice Age 2" may be directly in contradiction to the creation accounts and even as we speak be ripping at the very fabric of Christianity as we know it?"

Has anyone ever thought that the Left Behind movies could do the same?

Nellie Bellie said...

Haven't been here in awhile...Good thoughts all. I haven't read the book or seen the movie but I have decided that I am going to ground myself in the Word and be prepared to proclaim it. Bruce G, I thought the same thing when I saw Ice Age for the first time...I teach second grade and I am always discussing creation with my students.

JimmyBob said...

My faith was challenged a little today. I was listening to the fill in on Rush while driving to lunch. He was asking the question why Christians AREN'T upset and crazy over the DaVinci Code. Maybe the world is more shielded than we thought to all our Christian squabbles.

Anyway, he said maybe the reason for Christians being OK with this movie is that their faith isn't very strong...and perhaps their love and devotion to Jesus isn't either. They entertain it because they have doubts of their own. Then, he asked if anyone would find it acceptable if Hollywood made a movie about their father and told false information. The answer would be "No way!"

His implication is that if God (Jesus) means that much to a person and they are that special, wouldn't they be upset if anyone made a movie telling lies about them? Because Christians are not bothered, they must have doubts.

I felt challenged by that. But I still feel it's an opportunity to discuss Truth.

Society's Elite said...

When Jesus was being beaten and crucified, He still found it in Him to cry, "Father, FORGIVE THEM, they don't know what they're doing."

Maybe we can learn something from that? To me, that's TRUTH that I would be drawn to.

Oh, and just like a friend John once said, "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."

Kris said...

REPENT! going to movies of any kind are sinful, especially if you wear makeup and flip-flops in public.

dufflehead said...

i would love for someone to point out to me anything false about Christ in the movie. i guess i must have missed it.

dufflehead said...

and, to add to this thing, there was some realy history in that movie that i didn't know about.
pretty cool stuff like where friday the 13th came from.

dufflehead said...

the only the rush limbaugh challenges in my is my patience

"It's like i'm taking crazy pills!"

ninjanun said...

Anyway, he said maybe the reason for Christians being OK with this movie is that their faith isn't very strong...and perhaps their love and devotion to Jesus isn't either. They entertain it because they have doubts of their own. Then, he asked if anyone would find it acceptable if Hollywood made a movie about their father and told false information. The answer would be "No way!"

His implication is that if God (Jesus) means that much to a person and they are that special, wouldn't they be upset if anyone made a movie telling lies about them? Because Christians are not bothered, they must have doubts.


What a manipulative turd Rush Limbaugh is! Thankfully, I don't get my marching orders from him. He's an inflammatory shill whose message is paid for by the extreme Right-wing fascists of corporate america. Anyone who takes him seriously is, well, not to be taken seriously themselves. He's a lying liar who tells damned lies.

Doubt is not the opposite of faith, certainty is. It's all right there in Hebrews 11.

eddie{F} said...

JimmyBob

Please tell me in no uncertain terms, where did either eddieO, or eddie(F) proclaim ourselves to be anti-Christ’s? I think you have the wrong eddie in reference in any event, but what in the hell does it even mean to be an anti-Christ? Is every person rejecting your Jesus an anti-Christ? If so, then please make peace with the fact that there are 4 billion of them on the planet. Your religion is not as special as you think it is. I appreciate “some” stuff “Jesus” said, but so do I many other philosophers.

And Jeff, the feeling is mutual. Even if we disagree on Jesus, I appreciate you as a real authentic human being who takes me on with no feelings spared. I can deal with honesty far better than I can do with run of the mill Christian hypocrisy. I appreciate that, and I will cover your back, as a friend!

later dude!

Zeke said...

Something tells me that Christians have been proclaiming "the latter days" and quoting 2 Timothy (turn from sound doctrine, itching ears, etc.) for about 2,000 years now. Just keep repeating it and eventually, like a broken clock, you'll be right.

JimmyBob said...

Eddie(f), nice to meet you. I think I did have the wrong Eddie.

To answer your question, when I read, "A god would have confirmed itself with plenty of undisputed supernatural evidence. Scientists would be baffled at the sheer amount of evidence for its existence, and the supernatural would occur all around us, such as Jesus ACTUALLY moving a mountain which we could corroborate through science and archeology, or God answering prayers as he promised he would according to the Christian Bible. If a god needed to leave us a written book, then he would have written it himself without using the hands of the beings he supposedly calls fallen and corrupt. A responsible God would take care of its own writing instead of leaving it up to fallible human beings.

But because the Jesus Myth is none of this, the only other conclusion we can reach is that the Bible is merely the prattle of men. A better book is the least we can ask from a God who requires us to believe his story or face torture because we rejected him due to the total lack of evidence for his supposed visit to our planet.

Dad was disappointed, but I know he will get over it, because all crap works together for good for those who loves the Jesus myth. Oh the irony of using their own Bible on them when they least want to hear it,"
I got the feeling you were against belief in Christ, or anti-Christ.

Add to that several instances of your BibleGod sarcasm and this response to a blogger named Tom Reindl, after he asked a question about you taking away the hope of Christians, "Uhm, who says I want to take away “hope” – what “hope” do you have in any event, other than the BS you make yourself believe? I am simply challenging your myths - that's all - what you do beyond that is YOUR business," and the picture becomes even clearer that you not only reject, but are anti-Christ.

And yes, I see that Eddie(O) responded to someone named Rich(luthsem), with this remark "sorry, but just because you are incapable of answering the tough questions you get fielded here doesn't necessarily mean that i have dogmatic beliefs against your religon. but if it makes you feel better, you can blame me for your inadequacies." So, I can partly accept that maybe you "act" like your against Christianity as an enhancement for tough questions.

Why would you be concerned that I said that?

I can accept that 4 billion are not Christian. I checked the statistics. Christianity only flourishes where it is allowed. Unfortunately, many Christians are being slaughtered for their faith. However, they still seem to account for a third of the earth's population.

Your religion is not as special as you think it is. I appreciate “some” stuff “Jesus” said, but so do I many other philosophers.

Who is "Jesus?" How can you appreciate anything he said? I thought you didn't trust the Bible.

Dude, I don't really know you yet. I've read alot of your comments, but that hardly means I know you (this is a virtual world after-all). So, let's forget the personal insults.

What I appreciate about you is that you aren't afraid to ask the "tough" questions (not that the questions you asked me were tough). I don't like your conclusions, but you're not asking me for my opinion, so I'll shut up now.

Herobill said...

I am growing to see all this defensiveness from the church as another opportunity to point fingers outward and avoid honest self-examination. It's (albeit largely unwitting) spiritual sleight-of-hand.

Once again, as you said, you're at your best in the comments section, Dorsey! Very good point.

eddie{F} said...

Hey Jimmybob, thanks and good to get acquainted with you too. This might just turn out very interesting, it certainly seems like it could be.

I got the feeling you were against belief in Christ, or anti-Christ.
You got the feeling? Listen, please call me a pagan, the devil, THE anti-Christ or Elvis – I don’t care - but just don’t tell me what I call myself. My issue is not that you need to label me as the anti-Christ, my issue is that you state that I am “self proclaimed.” I am not a self proclaimed anything. I hope you understand the subtle difference.

and the picture becomes even clearer that you not only reject, but are anti-Christ.
Yes, I don’t buy into the myth of Christianity, and I reject it as a religion, but I have no issue with what the next person opt to believe or not. In the context of our blog, we discuss the issues that don’t make sense for us, and Tom and other people come THERE to talk to us. I don’t go around to Christian blogs and tell them they are idiots for buying the BS of Christianity, but it’s like my “house,” and there I have freedom to say what I want. Tom and others understand it from that perspective and we always leave room for one another to say what is on our minds. It doesn’t mean I hate Tom, et al., and when I reject your religion, I don’t reject you as a human being. I have known Tom for a long time, and we met when I was a Christian, and I appreciate guys like him, Jeff and Rich who “give” it to us with no feelings spared. They can take it and dish it out.

So, I can partly accept that maybe you "act" like your against Christianity as an enhancement for tough questions.
Needless to say, you have not followed every single dialogue between us and Rich. Rich is all over the map, and we are trying to get to the bottom of what he believes, so I DO understand that the context will not make sense for you.

Christianity only flourishes where it is allowed.
Sorry JB, but that’s a false statements. Obviously Christianity doesn’t “flourish” in countries where other RELIGIONS dominate, but there ARE countries where Christianity CAN be practiced and where it’s rejected and where it doesn’t flourish.

Unfortunately, many Christians are being slaughtered for their faith.
And so are members of Fulan Gong. Your point being?

However, they still seem to account for a third of the earth's population.
Exactly, TWO thirds of the earth doesn’t think your religion is that special.

Who is "Jesus?" How can you appreciate anything he said? I thought you didn't trust the Bible.
“Jesus” in quotes, the mythical character depicted in the Gospels. And no, I don’t trust the Bible any more than I trust the DaVinci Code, but it doesn’t mean I cannot appreciate some of the philosophical value the inventors of Christianity came up with. Or is one only allowed to appreciate some of it if you are a Christian? Hopefully your world is not that myopic.

So, let's forget the personal insults.
Sorry, I am lost: where have I insulted YOU personally?

c-ya!

ninjanun said...

Hey Jimmybob,

Why don't you go talk to the eddies on their own blog, instead of making assertions about them, what they believe, and what their motivations are over here?

JimmyBob said...

Eddie(f) and Ninjanun, point taken.

Eddie(f), at least you could have thanked me for the plug.

I won't take up any more of Dorsey's space on the defense of Christianity, but I do think your comments to me here only strengthen the validity of my "assertions."

dufflehead said...

actually you've only been defending your version of Christianity

JimmyBob said...

actually you've only been defending your version of Christianity

Technicalities to an atheist.

dufflehead said...

so now you're claiming i'm an atheist?

pharisee.

eddie{F} said...

Eddie(f), at least you could have thanked me for the plug.
Uhm, you insult me and then I need to thank you? OK then, thanks for strengthening my assertions as to why I am not a Christian - sorry I mean – thanks for the plug.

I won't take up any more of Dorsey's space on the defense of Christianity, but I do think your comments to me here only strengthen the validity of my "assertions."
If you have the religious fortitude, then I can start a post on our blog, and we can have a go at examining your “assertions.” Just let me know, and what angle you want to swing at it from, and whalla. Hopefully I can “depress” you over there, and needless to say, since I am the anti-Christ, that we will fortunately not end up on each other’s “side” – ha!

cheers!

JimmyBob said...

Dufflehead, relax. I wasn't calling you an atheist. I was speaking in regards to Eddie(f). "Versions" of Christianity don't matter to atheists. Christianity itself is what's in question. "Versions" are only in question in places like this blog by believers.

Eddie(f), cool. Sorry for insulting you, man. And, for the record, I didn't call you "The" anti-Christ or a false Christ or anything of that sort. I can't promise all my time, but I would definitely talk with you. I agree, this could be interesting.

eddie{F} said...

I wasn't calling you an atheist. I was speaking in regards to Eddie(f). "Versions" of Christianity don't matter to atheists.
Boy, you are right, it can only be fun, because you sure do have a knack for putting your foot in your mouth. Your insults and assumptions are mounting, because I am not an atheist. (Strike 2)

I didn't call you "The" anti-Christ or a false Christ or anything of that sort.
It’s all “technicalities” to Christians (like you.)

I can't promise all my time, but I would definitely talk with you.
Well, right around there we already have our first issue, because you would not be the first Christian I have discussed religion with, and what typically happens is you will get “all busy” for days (researching), leaving me hanging, as soon as one of those tough questions hit you.

I frankly don’t care for such heartless discussions, so the ball is in your court – play if you want, don’t if you can’t or don’t want to. If you commit to this discussion, then we/I will give it our best effort without disappearing when you say something we can’t answer. It’s only fair. Let us know at nomailhere [[at]] gmail dot com – either way doesn’t make a difference for us.

Consider yourself challenged …

:}

JimmyBob said...

I see. It's not religious fortitude I'm gonna need. I'm gonna need mental and physical fortitude.

I'm gonna be in for some late nights! Somebody pray for me! Ha, ha. The only thing that would be better is a face to face.

Dude, you are a riot and you entertain me! And I'm sure this will be entertaining for others too. And when I saying entertaining, don't assume that it means a "heartless" diologue.

JimmyBob said...

Eddie(f) - By the way, if you're not an atheist, what religion are you?

I'll email you when I'm ready.

eddie{F} said...

Dude, you are a riot and you entertain me! And I'm sure this will be entertaining for others too. And when I saying entertaining, don't assume that it means a "heartless" diologue.
No, I got it, and why I am all the more “giddy” about this discussion.

Somebody pray for me! Ha, ha.
LOL - don’t worry, I have you covered. I can still pray in the “spirit” even though I committed the unforgivable sin. Strange how “god” decided not to revoke that “gift” now that I am damned to the eternal rotisserie.

Eddie(f) - By the way, if you're not an atheist, what religion are you?
a) atheism is not a religion (it’s merely a position against theism)
b) I don’t do religion

:-]

jeff said...

For those of you who are watching this, I'll be selling popcorn for $6.50 and drinks for $5.50. (Of course, you can upsize those for only 50 cents more...)

Should be a good time for all.

(Something tells me this is what it looked like when the Romans threw the Christians to the lions...)

Oh, and back to the original topic, that DaVinci Code movie sucked!!

Steve said...

Dead Blogger Walking

JimmyBob said...

"a) atheism is not a religion (it’s merely a position against theism)
b) I don’t do religion


My question didn't imply that atheism was a religion. It was an if not/then what question.

So, can I correctly assert that you are just plain non-religious?

If that's the case I sincerly apologize for the anti-Christian remarks. After everything I read, I thought I was accurately describing things. I guess not.

Hey, do you have any advice for me personally for my message tonight? I am speaking to a bunch of teens from Matthew 11:28-30.

Jeff, laugh now, I've already seen your movie! I didn't like it, but the ending was nice. (I didn't like it, because I like you - to get back on topic).

eddie{F} said...

My question didn't imply that atheism was a religion.
OK, my mistake.

So, can I correctly assert that you are just plain non-religious?
Yes, I am non-religious, non-theistic and agnostic.

If that's the case I sincerly apologize for the anti-Christian remarks.
Like I said, you can call me anything; I just get a tad bit worked up when people put words in my mouth. Other than that I honestly don’t loose sleep about stuff like that, so don’t sweat it.

After everything I read, I thought I was accurately describing things. I guess not.
I have to be honest, after reading quite a number of your comments, you do assume quite a bit in your conversations. It’s understandable, because we deal with pixels here, but just remember, in the digital world, assume that people don’t have your point of reference, and or might be coming at things from a different angle than yours. I have to check myself constantly.

Hey, do you have any advice for me personally for my message tonight? I am speaking to a bunch of teens from Matthew 11:28-30.
Oh boy, I don’t think you want my advice on those verses, because the burden turned out all but easy to carry. I am sure Jesus will whisper something spectacular into you ear to tell them. And if that fails, fake it, that one always worked for me.
;-)

Jeff, I have neither read the book, nor seen the movie, and don’t think I would like to either. I did read Bart Ehrman’s book called “Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code” and found it a great resource in understanding some of the history of Christianity. I especially liked his knowledge about the apocalyptic Jewish sect called the Essenes, which was awaiting the return of the Jewish Messiah. Any way, long story …

JimmyBob said...

"I have to be honest, after reading quite a number of your comments, you do assume quite a bit in your conversations. It’s understandable, because we deal with pixels here, but just remember, in the digital world, assume that people don’t have your point of reference, and or might be coming at things from a different angle than yours. I have to check myself constantly."

So, I'm realizing. I need to do better, as you've pointed out.

Before I go to the Edge, can I at least get a hug from everyone? Dorse? Jeff? Steve? Surely, Bruce will hug me (I love you man!).

Steve said...

Oh I will hug ya... but a side hug only.... wouldn't want anyone to talk now would we.

dufflehead said...

jimmy, i do need to give you the cyber handshake for being big enough to retract the "what the liberals say" rabbit.

haven't checked out the edge folks, but sounds like they know where they're coming from. best advice is to know where you're coming from and to go in with the attitude of "what can i learn from this"

for me, i know where i came from but i'm neither there nor anywhere else yet. (for a better understanding, check my blog especially the most recent post)

now about the movie: how did it suck? i haven't read the book yet(which the book is always better) but i thought davinci code was a step up from national treasure. but, if you didn't like national treasure either . . .

jeff said...

Okay, first of all Pete, National Treasure was a fine piece of cinematography. It was pointless, idiotic, and totally fun. Lots of action and it didn't take itself too seriously.

DVC is just the opposite! The story is intriguing. So, if you want to even understand the movie, read the book first.

In an attempt to explain every trivial detail, the movie ends up being a long dialogue movie with little suspense.

In the book, every clue was an event. In the movie, the only 'event' was my trip to the bathroom, after drinking that $17.00, 128oz, medium Sprite!

Now, on another subject, I think I would enjoy nothing more than watching an hour of eddie(f) speaking to a bunch of teens at jimmybob's church. Just the thought makes me pee myself a little, too...

Pammu said...

Finding yorself with a tall albino right outside the theater made me laugh my teeth off.

I love the movie, and I thought the book sucked (to a certain literary extent).

The controversy isn't at all controversial. My mom seems offended that Jesus may have had sex. And so what? I mean, he of all people knew that they had to get married to do that.

anyhoo...

looks like things are on fire here. *runs off to grab a bag of cheetos*

p.s. I thought the albino was the hottest thing ever (and not to mention one of the best performances in the movie)

dorsey said...

I agree. While the book was a page-turner, it's literary merits are tenuous. There was an enormous amount of information to be communicated, and that often got in the way of the narrative. Of course, that was the same problem with the movie, only the movie was less suspenseful.

It made me think of "Left Behind." I had thought it was only Christians who had been dumbed down enough to put such 2-dimensional characters and awkward plot twists on the Bestseller List. I'm starting to see that maybe it's just America.

Herobill said...

Jeff, I'll take one order of Nacho's with extra cheeze and a large Dr. Pepper, please. And while I'm throwing my money away, I'm gonna call Vegas and try to put 10$ on JimmyBob to win an argument. Any argument. Someday. (haha)

Don't plan on seeing DVC, btw (or RV or MI3). But X3 looks pretty cool! :)

revperrin said...

Still deciding if I want to see it or not.

Karen said...

Awesome and funny blog!

armand said...

ninja nun said:

Doubt is not the opposite of faith, certainty is. It's all right there in Hebrews 11.

I believe Hebrews 11:1 says that faith and certainty are the same, not opposites.

1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.