Printable View
http://newsbusters.org/node/5387
One could only imagine what would happen. If course it never will since Hollywood knows its a lot safer to insult Christianity than it would be to insult Islam. There would probably be an even bigger backlash if they made an accurate documentary on the life of Muhammed (peace be upon him). So what do you think? In this day of age of inconsistant political correctness, do you think anyone in Hollywood would have the stones to make such a movie?:inquisitive:
I think it is a good that we can mock a religion, and the believers are grown enough to take it. And sometimes, the Christians aren’t so soft with movies (or song) about Christ and religion...:inquisitive:
Of course not, but fear has little to do with it. The culture-war Hollywood wages against Christianity is because Christianity is the dominant religion in the West. Were we Muslims, or had a majority of muslims even, then by all means, they'd be making "Mohammed lied, and so did your Imam".
You know what I find funny about the DaVinci Code? I read it, and there's nothing new presented in it. Yet Dan Brown insists on saying things like "Well, since I wasn't there, I can't claim for a fact that it really happened that way, but it's more valid than any other theory out there". Uhm, no it's not. There's actually Roman records of Jesus's crucifixion. They referred to him as 'religious insurrectionist'. As far as I know, Dan Brown, or any of the countless people before him to suggest the idea, have yet to offer one iota of evidence that Jesus, a relatively insulated Jew, hopped in a sailboat with his wife & kids and sailed 1000 miles across the open Mediteranean and set up shop in Southwestern France. None. There's no evidence to support the claim that at the Council of Nicea a small majority did not support Christ's divinity. In fact, 378 bishops voted that they did, 2 voted that they did not. What's more, the Apostles Creed dates all the way back to St. Peter's early ministry in Rome ~70AD, and it also most certainly affirms Christ's role as divine son of God and our savior.
I was getting really upset about the DaVinci code myself, then it dawned on me. It's really terrible rubbish. If people will be swayed by it, then they'll be swayed by anything. Absolutely anything. The next thing you'll hear is that in fact, Jesus was only a prophet, sent to tell us of the coming of the divine mole, who, by virtue of his blessed bicuspids, would begin to gnaw away at the roots of the hedges of sin. And people will believe it!!!
What I'm saying is that if people are dumb enough to believe the DaVinci code, they're going to believe just about anything. It's not so much the lying that bothers me, but the really piss-poor effort that Dan Brown put into it that bothers me. At the end of the day, it insults my intelligence that this is supposed to be a 'credible rebuttal' of the gospels. :dizzy2:
It's published as fiction. He gets to say whatever he wants, and if enough people are interested in reading it, he gets to pocket a good deal of "chink" into the bargain.
Somehow, my faith survived reading it.:laugh4: :laugh4:
Now, if it had been published as history, then we'd all have a joyous laugh over the quality of the scholarship involved. He wouldn't survive 2 hours in our Monastery, much less a few months under the glare of agitated historians.
It's published as fiction, but he's always too clever by half with his coy wink and "We call it fiction because we 'have' to" and the other morning, on MSNBC, Ron Howard saying "the world isn't ready to recognize it as anything but fiction", as though it's not really fiction, but there's a tacit agreement to keep it there, for now.
Dan Brown has made it clear that he considers his writings to be a thesis. He's not stating for certain that's exactly what happened, but he believes, and he presents his ideas as the most logical conclusion to the so-called 'evidence' he has access to. Might be nice if he would share some of it with the rest of the world.
But you're right Seamus. If your faith could by shaken by the likes of a poor storyteller like Dan Brown, you never really had it to begin with. I now have the perfect answer for some of the members of my church when they say the DaVinci code is a devilish plot. No, it isn't. The Father of Lies wouldn't have his name associated with such a pathetic effort. Were he involved, the quality of story-telling would be much better.
Just to clarify, the book does not say Jesus wasn't crucified, it says that Mary M had Jesus's baby (concieved before his execution) and took it to France.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
The book is easy to read, moves along quickly, and put forth some interesting theories. But it is clearly fiction, has several plot holes, and could have been written better. There are a few grains of truth, and Brown uses these along with other unknowns to spin a tale. The problem lies with people accepting it as fact. Baaaaaaaa.
The other problem I have with Dan Brown and Ron Howard...
Forgive me, Seamus... if you want to make an expose' about all the wicked deeds of the Roman Catholic Church, there's plenty to choose from that actually happened, some that carry into modern day. If you want to make a movie about secret coverups and abuse of auhtority, and a Vatican coverup, just do a biography on Cardinal Law.
The early reviews say the film is long, boring and confusing. I don't think anybody needs to worry about Brown's book or film creating a crisis of theology among the faithful.
So Don, what do you think would happen, if it were to happen, if this sort of movie was made about Muhammed?
Right now, with the current global climate? I imagine it would be much the same as the Danish 'cartoon controversy'. Most muslims didn't get particularly freaked with that, and most probably wouldn't with a "Islam is a lie" movie either. Those that did have a hair trigger anyway, and fly off the handle over much less. Don't see how a movie would make them THAT much more angry then they already were, as they were pretty angry over those cartoons.
I think your average muslim living in Syria or Turkey would view it much the way your average Christian views the DaVinci code... the least they could have done is done a convincing hatchet job.
BP, I've never seen either movie, so I can't comment on them with any certainty. But from the IMDB pages, neither appears to propose that Islam is a pack of lies, altered from it's original form by unscrupulous men who even today lie and murder to keep their secrets. This IS the fundamental premise of the DaVinci Code.
Maybe if the Da Vinci code was well-written and though-out you would have reason to take offence. Can you imagine what would hapen if we took every moron with a camera seriously?
Of course it should also be considered that due to lack of an organizational structure like e.g., the Catholic Church and the Vatican, Islam does not provide the same kind of subjects for conspiracy theories like Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
But generally you are of course right - a similar movie on Islam would very likely lead to a much harsher reactions by some fundamentalists than we see in the case of the Da Vinci Code.
In the end it all boils down to the fact that most Christian countries already experienced a long history of questioning authorities - but this is less an issue of difference between Christianity and Islam than a difference in history and development of societal structure (that is only partly influenced by religion)
Islam doesn't have any important central authority that could play a role similar to the Catholic church's one, nor can you find so many conspiracy theories that have been around for a long time, therefore making their internalization easier.Quote:
But from the IMDB pages, neither appears to propose that Islam is a pack of lies, altered from it's original form by unscrupulous men who even today lie and murder to keep their secrets. This IS the fundamental premise of the DaVinci Code.
EDIT:
This is a very important point being made, and it can help the understanding several of the alleged "christian-muslim" differences of late.Quote:
but this is less an issue of difference between Christianity and Islam than a difference in history and development of societal structure (that is only partly influenced by religion)
It's also a very common theme in Olivier Roy's latest works (that's a reading suggestion heh).
Ego tu absolvo, in nomine Patri, et Fili, et Spiritus Sancti.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Sadly, Cardinal Law's sins may have been absolved (I do hope he has sought reconciliation), but Mother Church is likely to be doing the penance for a while yet.
Now that is amazing, where have you been hiding this original Roman record. Court proceedings I presume taken down by the procurator's scribes. You must share this with the wider world, I'm sure scholars would be all over you like a rash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
:inquisitive:
Did you guys hear that Rushdie has a new book coming out this year? It's called Buddha, You Fat Bastard.
~;p
I had begun to think I must have done something to offend you RP, as your snide responses to my posts have been sorely missed. Nice to see I pressed your button again and got you to yet again share your keen wit with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
It would appear on further review, you're 100% correct, and I am a bold-faced liar, an igornamus, or both. The 'records' I was referring to were actually a history, written by Josephus, who while a chronicler for the Roman empire, did not actually enter offiicial Roman legal records. Beirut, Ser Clegnane, I suggest a week or two of banning me for spreading falseshoods. So glad Red Peasant was on the mark to catch me and prevent me from further spreading these lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100)
Nothing extrodinary I guess. The Da Vinci Code is not a theological treatise, or a mockery of faith. It is a conspiracy plot thriller. It presents the Catholic church as an evil religion, far removed from it's original intent, presided over by fanatic old men wearing dresses and bend on world domination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Pretty much the same rubbish that is spouted on a daily basis about Islam.
Possibly the most repeated bit of irony in history! :laugh4:Quote:
Muhammed (peace be upon him).
I think that's a misquote. It should read Praise Be Upon Him, I believe, which isn't as hyleerious.
Hey DC, you seem a great guy, but I get an *itch* when I see these kinda things randomly thrown into posts.
Pax.
Don Corleone, that isn’t a real testimony. At worst it seems to be a late report of somebody after Christ and not from a man living at the same time.
At seeing the style, it is probably a Christian text. I am not convinced. And most of the historians think this text was added by the monks when they copied the original… Nothing special, the monks always added (or modified or deleted) some or parts of the texts they copied to reinforce the faith.
About a film speaking of Mohamed, well, I saw a documentary on History Channel and I still waiting for the muslin unrest and riots. Again, the Muslim religion does not forbid to represent the prophet, but to give in a face. You can find representation of Mahomet, but without a clear face.
I did write about the Da Vinci Code and I still don’t see where the problem is. A guy, collecting here and here some legends and real fact (Dagobert did exist but according to the French history died of dysentery after a life of slaughter, greed and debauches), living 2 sons after him who will become the Lazy Kings, who will be kicked out by the Carolingians. The only real legacy of this king is a song written during the French Revolution (C’est le Roi Dagobert qu’a mis sa culotte a l’envers, etc).
We can also argue about the picture made of Phillip, the King of Iron, and the man guilty of the slaughter of the Templars. He wanted to unite the Kingdom, the Templar were a menace against his authority.
The alleged collusion between Phillippe and the Pope is a non sense; Phillip put limit on the power of the inquisition, he denied the Pope Boniface VII to be the “Imperium Mundi” the Emperor of the World. He built the Etats du Royaume, kind of medieval House of Representatives, based on the 3 orders; those who pray those who fight those of work, like the St Augustine’s doctrine. He sent his army to attack the summer palace of the Pope and accuse this one of heresy. Boniface died few weeks after and the Popes will live in Avignon for some time.
He forbid private wars, free the serfs of the Royal domain, limit a right of justice of the land lords, he gave the right for all the serfs of France to buy their freedom. He created the Bourgeoisie du Roi, the bourgeoisie of the King which gave the right to a person or a town to become a direct subject of the King.
The endorsement by the Da Vinci Code of all the clichés and his lack of real knowledge of the ACTUAL French Society (never heard of the first name of the French Police Officer) made me doubt of the reality of his expertise.
However, as I said before, that made me to go for the Gnosis and I read a lot about the Gospels, St Irene and all the others. :2thumbsup:
Your point about additions and deletions over the years may be apt. However, does this not then invalidate pretty much everything (on a host of subjects, not just the life of Joshua bar Joseph) in the Western canon prior to 1400? If so, what are we left with aside from modern archeological evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
It's too late, and Im too lazy to look all of this up again- but I think he's wrong anyway. Afaik, there are a few suspect words in the passage Don quoted, but I believe it's widely accepted by historians. There are passages on Jesus written by Josephus that some suspect were modified significantly- but I don't believe that was one of them. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The thing that really struck me as silly about the DaVinci code was that it contends Jesus was mortal, not divine. So, if that was true, he was just another man with some great ideas. Why the hell would a super-duper secret society go to so much trouble to protect and nurture the bloodline of someone who's no more special than you or I? If he wasnt divine, as the book contends, what's the signifigance?:dizzy2:
Y'know, if the bible said Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child, Dan Brown would write a book saying how its all a lie and he never married and had kids. Thats just the way the world is. Whatever the bible says on any subject, people will try to prove that the opposite is what actually happened.
*shrugs shoulders*
On topic, we know exactly what happens when you make a Rushdie code, because he did it. Some idiot issues a fatwah and the British taxpayer gets a bill of millions of pounds for 24 hr Special Branch protection.
So far as I know this hasn't happened to Mr Brown, and the worst he needs protecting from is snotty reviews in the London Review of Books.
So to those who say the majority of mulisms would react as do the majority of Christians, I say, yes, but its the minority you need to worry about.
And to DD, I say, and your point is?
People have nurtured Royal bloodlines to use as a figurehead, think how much better a figurehead would be if people believed it was a descendant from God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I wanted to know your opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
The they didn't believe he was God, and they had no intention of ever revealing it.... making it a pretty pointless exercise. Besides, if they had some agenda to use his descendants for some sort of power-grab they'd be just as bad as the Catholics that the priory looks down on with such disdain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
There are just so many silly contradictions in the book. They claim the supression of Mary Magdelane in the Church is a supression of the sacred feminine..... excuse me? I thought Jesus and Mary were supposed to be normal people- what's sacred? They regularly refer to it as the "sacred" or "holy" bloodline when according to their own theories, it's nothing of the sort.
Just a suggestion, but maybe you should all quit wasting your time with a silly little thriller that will be completely gone in 5-10 years, and try reading "The Last Temptation of Christ." That, or seeing the movie. Slightly better story. :2thumbsup:
“If so, what are we left with aside from modern archeological evidence?” You mean apart the fact that Christianity still exist? Well, we depend on texts written after the Christ’s death, and most of the texts we study were written and biased. But we have other authors speaking of Christianity. I can’t remember the names, but one spoke about the “mud of the Euphrates”, and another one complaining about “again a Jew Sect”.
We also know that the conversion didn’t work so well at the beginning, because we have some records in Greece, showing a decline of the few converts in this country. Christianity was in concurrence with the cult of Isis and Mithra.
We also know that Jesus as preacher was part of an intellectual Jewish movement (the Esseinians, first builders of kind of religious community in Qumran) which was unhappy of the Priest of the Temple and their interpretation of the Dogma. They were practising chastity, had the benediction of the bread and the wine, baptised, and didn’t eat any animals except fish, exactly what did the early Christians and then the Catharses.
“I believe it's widely accepted by historians” Not really. This passage is highly suspect, on contrary. It doesn’t match with the rest of the text, in content and style.
Flavius Joseph himself is questionable about his biography. What he pretended to be and studied is hardly believable. Well in fact it can’t be true. More, living under the reign of Nero, it is difficult to imagine he will write such thing about the Christians.
Flavius Josephus wrote first work, the Jewish War, in Aramaic, and presented it to Vespasian between 75 and 79. An assistant translated it into the language of scholars of his days, Greek. So, you can see there is a lot a possibilities to transform and modified the texts, and even more after, during the development of Christianity, when the only people doing that were the one who had a big interest to show that Christ was a reality.
Indeed. It makes the DVC look like Harry Potter for grown-ups. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
Allow me to refer to wikipedia:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Of course, I dont have access to the survey the author references. :shrug:Quote:
Over the last century, the consensus seems to have changed, and the subjective nature of many of the arguments used in the 19th century has been recognized. Judging from the 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.
Take from it what you will, but I find it much more likely that a reference to Jesus was embelished in later transcriptions rather than wholly fabricated and arbitrarily inserted.
As you said: “In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia”. Hardly an independent body, is it?
My understanding is the text was “wholly fabricated and arbitrarily inserted”. Why Flavius would speak about a obscure preacher, who got the most dishonourable death you can imagine in the Roman world, officially the death to the rebel against Rome, him as a former rebel but now in the way to become a recognised member of the roman society? That should be a death wish under Nero. All this entire work was made to show he is a good Roman Citizen and in the middle of a text, without any link with the rest of the text, in an absolute distinctive style, in he inserted this paragraph… No way. It is a medieval cut and past exercice.
You've confused me there... the Encylopedia notes that the passage has suffered from numerous interpolations- Im puzzled on why you seem to be attacking that as biased. The survey mentioned has nothing to do with the Catholic EncyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Let's go back to the well again shall we?Quote:
My understanding is the text was “wholly fabricated and arbitrarily inserted”. Why Flavius would speak about a obscure preacher, who got the most dishonourable death you can imagine in the Roman world, officially the death to the rebel against Rome, him as a former rebel but now in the way to become a recognised member of the roman society? That should be a death wish under Nero. All this entire work was made to show he is a good Roman Citizen and in the middle of a text, without any link with the rest of the text, in an absolute distinctive style, in he inserted this paragraph… No way. It is a medieval cut and past exercice.
You're free to think what you want on the passage's authenticity, but dont claim your view is the one widely accepted by historians without evidence.Quote:
The ragged structure of Antiquities involves frequent disruptions to the narrative, not least because it was mainly composed by a number of scribal assistants. Linguistic analysis has not proven conclusive when compared with other passages in Josephus which likewise exhibit unusual features. The supposed confession of Josephus relies on the standard text. But a recent study by Alice Whealey has demonstrated that a variant Greek text of this sentence existed in the 5th century—"He was believed to be the Christ." The standard text, then, has simply become corrupt by the loss of the main verb and a subsequent scribal "correction" of the prolative infinitive. In any event, the audience for the work was Roman, and the Romans always referred to Jesus as "Christus", which would make this merely an identification. Finally, it has been pointed out that every line of the passage can be objected to, or supported, by one argument or another.
I saw the movie. It was meh. There were to many French people. Tom Hanks' hair was bad. English people are silly and and albinos are insane. Thats what I took away from the movie. 6/10 Oh and I now know how to curse in French
I saw the movie. It was meh. There were to many French people. Tom Hanks' hair was bad. English people are silly and and albinos are insane. Thats what I took away from the movie. 6/10 Oh and I now know how to curse in French
I saw the movie. It was meh. There were to many French people. Tom Hanks' hair was bad. English people are silly and and albinos are insane. Thats what I took away from the movie. 6/10 Oh and I now know how to curse in French
if someone made the "rushdie code"....that would mean that:
-there would be 1 more book/movie I´d have no interest in reading/seeing
...I think I could live with that.
“but dont claim your view is the one widely accepted by historians without evidence.”I never did. However, it is not true, to my knowledge that it is widely accepted y historians. In fact, historians ay that most of Joseph Flavius, even the real one, written by him, are exaggerations and even some lies.
“There were too many French people.” Oops, sorry, you just realised that France is populated by French….
I would see the movie, Dave, I might even take a date and make out in the front row and squirt mayonasse packets on the people behind me. But I don't think hollywood would have a warm reception for it, it would have to be independent which means it would likely not be carried at many movie houses, not even Paul Newmans (speaking of mayo!)
I thought I was the only one that use to do that. I also take a whoopi cushion for some "backdoor" simulations!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
I think that DD just feels 'disempowered'. He wants to go on a crusade/holy war, issue a few fatwas, molest and kill some 'non-believers', etc. Don't worry DD, maybe your fantasy will come true one day ... but hopefully not when I'm around of course ~;)
The one and only thing that will make me absolutely offended and riled up is that Buddha apparently was not fat. The "biography" in the religious texts, though naturally untrustworthy as any other of its nature, never stated or even put any concerns about the Buddha being fat. In fact, it claimed that he almost starved himself to death at one point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Damn Chinese and their fat Buddhas! :laugh4:
[Of course I'm not offended. Just having fun.]
Yes, that is true. It should be before we're around though, so we can make it into a game later. I mean, there are great Medieval games, great ancient games, great World War II games, but no good games at all revolving around such wars after WWII!Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
If they did a film based on the questionable content on a certain new-Christian website which we could call Chick publications; the uproar that transpired with Danish cartoons would be peanuts in comparison.
This would be much more controversial than the retracted verses of the Qur’an.
I haven't read the DVC, I suppose because it just seems to me like yet another conspiracy theorist paperback, with a flashy cover and not alot else. This holy grail/mary magdelane/templar thing has all been done before, as documentary. The only thing Dan Brown has done differently, as far as I'm aware, is turn the whole thing into a typical sensationalist novel, with the objective of keeping the reader enthralled by an unfolding mystery (conspiracy theory)?
The major difference between Rushdie and Brown would be that Brown's book is now a movie, wheras Rushdie is hiding from the modern day hashishin.
So, the message seems to be, write blasphemous works about Christianity, then make a movie of those works, and you'll be rich and famous. Criticise Islam or draw a picture of an important Islamic prophet, and you stand a good chance of being killed.
The question is, is it right to caricature any religion, write blasphemous novels and even make movies about it? Or do some people need to accept that we live in a modern world where these ideals and beliefs are no longer sacred?
Chick publications are the greatest. The greatest one ever was the book where the christian man and his son are visiting a mosque in Iran, and the dad tells the islam worshipper-guy about Jesus and how mohammmed is a false idol and the Islam guy converts to christian right then and there instead of, you know, capturing the dad and son and beheading them.
I second that - Chick Tracts are brilliant ... hours of fun are guaranteed ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
wow their definantely hard line!
I read that too, but the one I am thinking of is called "The Prophet"… another Catholic skeleton in the closet of religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump