The Da Vinci Code

INDYfatigable said:

if christianity is not true, then why do so many other religions persucute its followers? because they know it is the truth, they simply do not want to admit it.

Click to expand...

I wonder what can bring someone to think that. Maybe you should read about the crusades and other historical evengelistic missions because that will send you cross an ocean of blood. If you're not joking (it's hard to take this seriously) you have some very serious catching up to do.

gladhatter said:

Its not just cathloics nor christians either its People in general that choose to call God the author of thier mis deeds. Applies to all religions.

Click to expand...

So this is God's fault? Or is the fault of human beings?

I don't think anybody is trying to defend or exalt those misdeeds:

35. Another painful chapter of history to which the sons and daughters of the Church must return with a spirit of repentance is that of the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth.
.
.
.
Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: "The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power". ~TERTIO MILLENNIO ADVENIENTE

Click to expand...

Yes you do have me there. the crusades were a time of terrible bloodshed. but they only said they were doing it in the name of Jesus Christ. what makes you think that God was really behind it? anybody can say "in the name of Jesus Chirst!" and not mean it.

Also they "thought" that they were doing right. but it was right in their own eyes. they did not take the time to pray and seek God's will. because the "infidel invaded Jerusalem, they got all up in arms about it. they were not fighting to please God, they were fighting for their city because without their holy sepluchre they had lost face. they were fighting for their honour, not their religion.

about the whole persecution thing, i know all of the religions persecute each other. that satement was a quote from a christian archaeology magazine.

"it was right in their own eyes"
So was what the Nazis did.... And Jeffy Dhalmer... and Jim Jones... And Rev. Mooney... and... and... and...

"they did not take the time to pray and seek God's will"
Bullsh!t... The Crusades were lead by men who prayed constantly...

"anybody can say "in the name of Jesus Chirst!" and not mean it."
You're right... and that makes it worthless any time ANYONE says it...

Though what any of this has to do with the fiction called 'The Da Vinci Code' is beyond me...

Bullsh!t... The Crusades were lead by men who prayed constantly... true but who were they praying to?

I think it is painfully clear that many horrific deeds have been wrongfully committed in the name of Christ, deeds that examination of the Scriptures would show were not in line with the teachings of Christ at all. For me personally, there has always been a strong border between faith in Christ and organized religion. My understanding of the Scriptures leads me to the conviction that Christianity is primarily concerned with a faith relationship with the Person of Christ. The Scriptures encourage Christians to fellowship and worship with other believers, as we are encouraged and strengthened through fellowship. Having said that, organized religion frequently becomes focused on issues, such as temporal influence and power, that have nothing to do with following Christ. An examination of the Gospels quickly demonstrates that of all the individuals that Christ clashed with during his earthly ministry, He most frequently conflicted with the Pharisees, the strongest proponents of the organized religion and strict traditions of the Hebrews in Christ's time.

Paden said:

I think it is painfully clear that many horrific deeds have been wrongfully committed in the name of Christ, deeds that examination of the Scriptures would show were not in line with the teachings of Christ at all. For me personally, there has always been a strong border between faith in Christ and organized religion. My understanding of the Scriptures leads me to the conviction that Christianity is primarily concerned with a faith relationship with the Person of Christ. The Scriptures encourage Christians to fellowship and worship with other believers, as we are encouraged and strengthened through fellowship. Having said that, organized religion frequently becomes focused on issues, such as temporal influence and power, that have nothing to do with following Christ. An examination of the Gospels quickly demonstrates that of all the individuals that Christ clashed with during his earthly ministry, He most frequently conflicted with the Pharisees, the strongest proponents of the organized religion and strict traditions of the Hebrews in Christ's time.

Click to expand...

I think the overwhelming majority of " Christians missed the Whole message that Christ tried to preach which was completly opposed to organized religion and instead was geared toward a good life on earth and how it is truely heaven here if you followed his precepts. Of course its difficut for folks to accept this that accept the Bible as the guide as it hacs been so contorted . Of course Christ was a buddist.

"but who were they praying to?"
To whom they believed "God" to be... so the whole thing is called into question... Cause you can't say THEY are wrong but you're right... That's the "Any Good Scotsman" fallacy...

I'm with GH... IF there ever was a man Jesus Christ, as portrayed in The Bible, he was absolutely anti organized religion...

Unfortunately, there's no good evidence to support his existence at all, and I'm forced to relegate him to the same category as Odin, Zeus, Thunderbird, Bubbles, Mr Dressup, Yoda, Kermit The Frog and Marry Poppins... Fictional characters with some possible good lessons to teach about life...

The Da Vinci Code (movie)

I saw it over the weekend, and I liked it well enough for what it was... a sorta cerebral spy-kinda thriller

Ian McKellen's performance was inspired... Paul Bettany and Alfred Molina were PERFECT.... so were Audrey Tautou and Jean Reno

I also liked the obvious 'nod' to the visual style of "A Beautiful Mind" in the "Puzzle Solving" lighting effect.... Very evocative... But not over-stated

When there's a special edition DVD with some cool commentaries, I'll own it

the movie for me was entirely disappointing. i didn't like the book much as it, unlike the similar michael crichton books, consists mostly of fictional data, not of real facts. which makes all the revelations much less impressive as if they were based on factual research.

but the movie invented some ridiculous details that simply made it too unbelievable. for me at least. if you want to make this sort of a "nobody is who they seem to be"-movie, you should make sure that you don't take your production too seriously.

plus the movie also is filled with unnecessary special effects while the real action sequences appear pale and pointless compared to other popular action movies.

all in all, you better stick to "National Treasure" which at least doesn't try so ridiculously to seem realistic. better humor, better action, more sensible, more straightforward, less wannabe-provocative and yet with the same extent of factual background.

i have to admit that i'm still to watch le fabuleux destin d'amélie poulain but after all i've head of that movie and after all i've seen from jean-pierre jeunet, i doubt that "that ugly Bit-ch [...] sucked too". although, on the other hand, taking this role doesn't really speak for her sense of style.

It was a passable summer thriller, the best part of it was seeing the Casino Royale teaser on the big screen.
Ian Mckellen stole the show, and Audrey Tatoa (sp?) was HOT as ever. I love her accent. I thought Tom Hanks was weak, it seemed like amateur hour for him. Never thought much of Ron Howards directing, he has moments of occasional greatness, but they are very fleeting. Mostly though, the dialogue was just s####y. Wooden and clunky, and lines no human could ever say with any real conviction.

And I saw the action trailer for Supes Returns! Whoo-Hoo! I got goosebumps hearing the John Williams theme again.

In a sentence...the movie was OK but not as good as the book, which itself wasn't anywhere near as good as Dan Brown's first Robert Langdon adventure ANGELS & DEMONS. I was surprised that Ron Howard didn't do more with the project than this, and that Tom Hanks was as passable an actor as he was. Audrey Tautou was phenomenal, as were Ian McKellan, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany, and Alfred Molina. The film was about 2.5 hours long, and yet it felt rushed and shallow overall. I would gladly pay to see it again, as Hollywood hasn't put much else out there in a while, but I expected much more than I got.

I saw Da Vinci Code on Friday with some friends... It was ok, but I argee with Hovitosking, it was too shallow and all these actors had potential to deepen the characters as did Ron Howard. Cluedo was a deeper film than this, in terms of characterisations.

whats wrong with you people? i just saw it and loved it completly.

i think you all read too much into it, its a movie, it doesnt have to be real.

are you all sure you actually like the indiana jones movies?

i feel theres gonna be a 50 page essay faulting everything, simular to the one posted by some dickhead on another forum about one of the indiana jones movies, using complex words that a basicly meaningless to the average person.

i think you guys have lost the "magic feeling" you used to get from movies back in the days from when you were little.

its late, im dead tired and am talking ****.

going to bed now..........

steve

phatr32 said:

i feel theres gonna be a 50 page essay faulting everything, simular to the one posted by some dickhead on another forum about one of the indiana jones movies, using complex words that a basicly meaningless to the average person.

Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, this is in reference to one of my contributions. Always glad to enhance the experience of another Ravener.

*Bows. Waves to fans*

No, DaVinci was just bad. I don't expect realism, but I do expect interesting characters, engaging dialogue, fun action, and believable actors. This movie delivered on none of that. I don't begrudge the 7.50 I paid to get in, but it was nothing special, mostly bland and witless. I blame part of that on Ron Howard, who at best is just a mediocre director, and most of the blame on Dan Brown. He's just a sloppy, poor writer. It's a concept that could have been very engaging, unfortunately none of the creative people involved had anything of substance to bring to the table.


As far as my magic feeling in movies... I squelled like a happy little boy during Walking Tall when the Rock beat the snot out of generic thugs in a t###y bar. I nerded out when MJ called Pete tiger for the first time in Spider-man. And with King Kong, (not a great movie, but entertaining) I laughed and squeeled along with my buddies during all the island scenes. I still enjoy a good flick, but this just didn't do it for me.


As an aside, how can Steven and George make a movie about the cup of christ without pissing any Christians off, but Dan Brown writes a crappy little book and everyone gets upset? There were people outside my theatre protesting.

"none of the creative people involved had anything of substance to bring to the table"

Balls.... Audrey Tautou... Ian McKellen..... Jean Reno.... Paul Bettany .... Alfred Molina.... Jürgen Prochnow.....

They were all GREAT in their respective roles..... It was really only Hanks that was dull.... and I suspect that's only because Langdon is dull....

"Ron Howard, who at best is just a mediocre director"
Ya... right.... Everybody who works with him says exactly that....