"The Da Vinci Code" - Hinderance or Hype?

[Funky Brewster]

They didn't have the manpower to take Jericho, but they did. God worked miracles than and works them now.

He probably never heard the story of Jericho. The marched around the city and God knocked down those walls. How many times do people need to be told that ALL things are possible with God.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...that refers back to the original post;




What is Gods purpose with this movie?

Did God give us this movie to challenge faith?

Is it simply to entertain, as has been stated numerous times, is that His purpose?

Or is it, as Dondi asks, intended as a hinderance to those seeking faith?

Also, is it accurate to say 'with God on YOUR side..." or is it "When you are on Gods side..."?

It implies humility and subserviance to say you are trying to be on Gods side.
It implies arrogance and a distinct lack of humility to say God is on your side.

Lincoln, in reference to questions regarding whether the Lord was on the side of the Union or the Confederates said something like..."It is less a question the Lord being on their side or ours and more a question of us, hopefully, being on the side of the Lord."

It's a difference with a distinction, I think.

Now there is a miss understanding.

See, there is this guy called satan. Satan used to be an angel of the highest order. The earth is satan's domain for this period of time until Jesus returns. Satan is allowed by God to test humans. Why? I don't know. Satan's prime objective is to destroy humans through lies, deception, temptation, by what ever means he can.

Humans are also created with free will. We can choose to follow God's way, or we can choose to be deceived by satan. There is really no middle ground despite what people would like.

So did God send us this movie to test our faith? I don't think so. I think He allowed this movie to be made through the free will of humans; possibly humans influenced by satan.

The distinction of "God on your side" and "being on God's side" is a good one. It is mankind's decision whether to follow God and be on His side or not. But at times in history as outlined in the Old Testament, God proclaimed that He was on the Israelites side, and it was He and His host that were actually doing the fighting even though the army of the Israelites was fighting. So it has been both, but mainly it is us on His side.

 

[mAlice]

"Geological evidence suggests a possible explanation for the miraculous elements in the Jericho story. The tumbling of the city's walls was preceded, a few days earlier, by the crossing the Jordan on dry land. Exactly the same 'miracle' has been witnessed in modern times. The Jordan valley lies on a major geological rift, subject to frequent earthquakes. Quake-induced mudslips have been known to dam the river on a number of occasions, most recently in 1927. It seems reasonable to suppose that the same phase of earthquake activity dammed the Jordan and destroyed Jericho's walls."
- Great Events of Bible Times

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/jericho.html

 

[Bustem' Down]

He probably never heard the story of Jericho.

And your probably wrong.

 

[2ndAmendment]

He probably never heard the story of Jericho. The marched around the city and God knocked down those walls. How many times do people need to be told that ALL things are possible with God.

Mark 10:27 Looking at them, Jesus said, "With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God."

Not only that but

Romans 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

 

[Bustem' Down]

"Geological evidence suggests a possible explanation for the miraculous elements in the Jericho story. The tumbling of the city's walls was preceded, a few days earlier, by the crossing the Jordan on dry land. Exactly the same 'miracle' has been witnessed in modern times. The Jordan valley lies on a major geological rift, subject to frequent earthquakes. Quake-induced mudslips have been known to dam the river on a number of occasions, most recently in 1927. It seems reasonable to suppose that the same phase of earthquake activity dammed the Jordan and destroyed Jericho's walls."
- Great Events of Bible Times

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/jericho.html

And who would have created this earthquake? This is why you can't have a debate on these subjects.

 

[Funky Brewster]

See, there is this guy called satan. Satan used to be an angel of the highest order. The earth is satan's domain for this period of time until Jesus returns. Satan is allowed by God to test humans. Why? I don't know. Satan's prime objective is to destroy humans through lies, deception, temptation, by what ever means he can.

Satan is the Great Deceiver. Wouldn't it be wild if his greatest deception was writing the Bible.
I know it's not true because those are God's words but it would still be trippy.

 

[mAlice]

And who would have created this earthquake? This is why you can't have a debate on these subjects.

 

[Tonio]

Also, is it accurate to say 'with God on YOUR side..." or is it "When you are on Gods side..."?

It implies humility and subserviance to say you are trying to be on Gods side.
It implies arrogance and a distinct lack of humility to say God is on your side.

Lincoln, in reference to questions regarding whether the Lord was on the side of the Union or the Confederates said something like..."It is less a question the Lord being on their side or ours and more a question of us, hopefully, being on the side of the Lord."

It's a difference with a distinction, I think.

Excellent observation, Larry. I would add that when any person claims to know what God wants, to me that claim sounds arrogant even when the person's intentions are good. Especially when the person claims to know what God wants for other people.

 

[Larry Gude]

Right...

Satan is allowed by God to test humans. Why? I don't know...Humans are also created with free will. We can choose to follow God's way, or we can choose to be deceived by satan. There is really no middle ground despite what people would like.

...thus the rhetorical question and the validity of Dondis original question. Obviously, any person secure in their faith, whether it be of faith in religion or not, is not going to influenced by ANY movie, even one that claims to be fact, which Da Vinci clearly does not.

Dondi is asking, I take it, about people who are in the process of deciding whether they believe or not. To me, the movie is a self proclaimed fictional work of entertainment and therefore it seems unreasonable to me that anyone in doubt of their faith would choose fiction as a part of educating themselves.

So did God send us this movie to test our faith? I don't think so. I think He allowed this movie to be made through the free will of humans; possibly humans influenced by satan.

We all are, whether to be for good or evil is the question, yes?

The distinction of "God on your side" and "being on God's side" is a good one. It is mankind's decision whether to follow God and be on His side or not. But at times in history as outlined in the Old Testament, God proclaimed that He was on the Israelites side, and it was He and His host that were actually doing the fighting even though the army of the Israelites was fighting. So it has been both, but mainly it is us on His side

Glad to see agreement that the distinction matters. To me, it doesn't reconcile that God would be on anyones side.

 

[Tonio]

To me, the movie is a self proclaimed fictional work of entertainment and therefore it seems unreasonable to me that anyone in doubt of their faith would choose fiction as a part of educating themselves.

I agree. From my reading, many Christians are concerned that the movie will affect people who are undecided about religion, that it might lead them away from Christianity and toward some other belief system. My reaction is, so what? Who said it has to be a contest among different religions to accumulate the most followers? Unless, as you suggested recently, it's really a contest for power.

Although "Da Vinci Code" questions orthodox Christian doctrine, and negatively portrays both Opus Dei and 4th-century Church elders, that doesn't make the novel anti-Christian. The fictional story offers another viewpoint about orthodox Christian doctrine, and neither the orthodox view nor Brown's view can be proven or disproven factually. Both are always going to be matters of faith and/or opinion.

 

[aps45819]

I agree. From my reading, many Christians are concerned that the movie will affect people who are undecided about religion, that it might lead them away from Christianity and toward some other belief system.

I don't understand all the concern. Isn't the whole premis of the book/movie that Jesus and Mary Magdaline were married and had kids? What does this have to do with the teachings and/or beliefs of Christianity? I can understand how it would make some religious orders look like they've been involved in a cover up, but how does this challange the basic beliefs?

 

[Qurious]

It disturbs me that people are going to question the bible just because of a movie/book which is purely fiction!!!

Sell Me On going watching the 10 commandments and wondering if Charles Heston's role was accurate in comparison to bible accounts!!!

I mean come on people...really!!!

 

[Larry Gude]

And that is the BIG point...

I agree. From my reading, many Christians are concerned that the movie will affect people who are undecided about religion, that it might lead them away from Christianity and toward some other belief system. My reaction is, so what? Who said it has to be a contest among different religions to accumulate the most followers? Unless, as you suggested recently, it's really a contest for power.

Although "Da Vinci Code" questions orthodox Christian doctrine, and negatively portrays both Opus Dei and 4th-century Church elders, that doesn't make the novel anti-Christian. The fictional story offers another viewpoint about orthodox Christian doctrine, and neither the orthodox view nor Brown's view can be proven or disproven factually. Both are always going to be matters of faith and/or opinion.

Assume the book is factual for a moment. Assume Arius was right and the Council of Nicea essentially decided his views wouldn't do. All that stuff. How would it play out over the years, defending a given view that has legitimate rivals?

If we say that in defense of a given set of beliefs, a number of rather naughty things have been done over the years to protect it and help it proliferate and that that set of beliefs, way of living, is pretty good, especially compared to other systems, well, that's not all bad in my book.

Violence in the name of good. War for peace. Everything doesn't need to fit in some perfect order and righteousness to work for me. If all of this is what lead to the US of A, well, that's pretty good and it is awful hard to see how it could have happened under any other belief system or religion.

 

[Larry Gude]

The bottom line...

I don't understand all the concern. Isn't the whole premis of the book/movie that Jesus and Mary Magdaline were married and had kids? What does this have to do with the teachings and/or beliefs of Christianity? I can understand how it would make some religious orders look like they've been involved in a cover up, but how does this challange the basic beliefs?

...as I undertand it is that it profers that Christ was not divine, that he was a man, that he did not die on the cross nor arisen.

That is the foundation of Christianity. I think that much is agreed upon.

 

[Dondi]

I agree. From my reading, many Christians are concerned that the movie will affect people who are undecided about religion, that it might lead them away from Christianity and toward some other belief system. My reaction is, so what? Who said it has to be a contest among different religions to accumulate the most followers? Unless, as you suggested recently, it's really a contest for power.

Although "Da Vinci Code" questions orthodox Christian doctrine, and negatively portrays both Opus Dei and 4th-century Church elders, that doesn't make the novel anti-Christian. The fictional story offers another viewpoint about orthodox Christian doctrine, and neither the orthodox view nor Brown's view can be proven or disproven factually. Both are always going to be matters of faith and/or opinion.

I would argue that those who are turned away from Christianity because the movie presents an view of Christianity that dispells them are probably in the same catagory as those who turn away from Islam because they believe that the terrorist actions of a few Muslim extremists represents Islam. There may be some that are on the fence in seeking some religion, but are put off by the misrepresentation. Thus they turn away from a legitimate religion based on falsehoods they see in the movie.

You are all right, this is just a fictional movie. But it is based on factual people. People who are near and dear to the Christian heart. If, for example, someone would make a movie depicting a gay George Washington or gay Lincoln, some are going to be highly irate. I know I would be upset. Imagine the Father of our Country really being the Mother Queen. It is a flagrant ploy to cause controversy.

 

[aps45819]

If, for example, someone would make a movie depicting a gay George Washington or gay Lincoln, some are going to be highly irate. I know I would be upset. Imagine the Father of our Country really being the Mother Queen. It is a flagrant ploy to cause controversy.

How would you feel about him being a stoner?
The records showing he culled the male hemp plants from his garden are available at Mt. Vernon. You don't need to do that if you growing it for the fiber.

 

[Tonio]

Assume the book is factual for a moment. Assume Arius was right and the Council of Nicea essentially decided his views wouldn't do. All that stuff. How would it play out over the years, defending a given view that has legitimate rivals?

If we say that in defense of a given set of beliefs, a number of rather naughty things have been done over the years to protect it and help it proliferate and that that set of beliefs, way of living, is pretty good, especially compared to other systems, well, that's not all bad in my book.

Violence in the name of good. War for peace. Everything doesn't need to fit in some perfect order and righteousness to work for me. If all of this is what lead to the US of A, well, that's pretty good and it is awful hard to see how it could have happened under any other belief system or religion.

The US of A was also the result of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment in Europe. The ideas spawned by those eras, including secular government and freedom of conscience, were very influential on the Founders. In my view, that influence was probably more important than the influence of Christian doctrine.

Whatever the merits of Christian doctrine or any other religious doctrine, a key idea from the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment was that no one should be compelled or expected to believe any religious doctrine. All religious doctrine opposes the idea of freedom of conscience to some degree, because doctrine is a set of beliefs that no one is allowed to question or dispute.

England was wracked with a series of wars in the 1600s that were, in part, about which religious belief system was the "true" or "best" one. That was still recent history for the Founders, and although it's a been a while since I've read the Federalist Papers, I suspect that England's experience was probably on many of the Founders' minds.

 

[Dondi]

How would you feel about him being a stoner?
The records showing he culled the male hemp plants from his garden are available at Mt. Vernon. You don't need to do that if you growing it for the fiber.

I don't have any problem with GW being a stoner, as long as it is based on factual evidence. I wouldn't even have any qualms if he was gay, if it were proven true.

 

[Tonio]

If, for example, someone would make a movie depicting a gay George Washington or gay Lincoln, some are going to be highly irate. I know I would be upset.

Suppose a director made a comedy that had Washington as a prancing, mincing queen just to get laughs. Or instead, suppose a historian made a case that Washington had a gay fling or two, and presented evidence to bolster the case. Would you be offended by both or just one?

The books cited by Dan Brown, including "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," claim to present evidence for the claim that Jesus had children. Personally, I don't think such a claim can ever be proven true or false. My point is, just because something disagrees with the Bible doesn't automatically make the thing false.