Da Vinci Code

[HighBorn]

It was a GREAT movie... everyone go see this one

[vtmarik]

.... True Crime? I've not been in a Western book store for about 4 years.... but doesn't sound very appealing.

... Where is the next Phillip K. Dick? The next Ellis Peters? .... None in sight.

If you're expecting someone with that much talent, you'll never find him. It's easiest to accept the greatness of people without looking for their heirs.

Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchet are good authors. As was Douglas Adams.

Dean Koontz is a good replacement for Stephen King.

[Romber]

DaVinci code was a great book. I kept reading and reading it. And the main idea was excellent. Although it is a fiction book. So no truth. However people think it is real just because there IQ is less then there height. The theory is amazing but still fake. I'm still going to see the movie though

[Nobunaga]

You don't see gobs and gobs of people protesting the changes in Rogue's origin story, do you?

... They changed her origin story??!!

... Bastards!

[Banana Stomper]

It felt too long. It wasn't great, it wasn't bad.

[RabbitCold]

I think the Da Vinci Code will outsell X-Men 3 simply because it's so controversial.

You don't see gobs and gobs of people protesting the changes in Rogue's origin story, do you?

X-Men 3 will out sell the Da Vinci Code

[Truman]

I'm against the movie, "everyone" loved the book, and many went to see the movie, but I saw a poll on Yahoo saying the average rating for the movie is B- from the Yahoo users and a C+ from the critics.

I'm planning on seeing the movie when it comes out in the library, so I don't have to pay to see it (I'm boycotting Da Vinci . I also want to see it because then I'll know a little more about the story so that when I say "I'm against this movie" and they say "What do you know? You probably never watched the movie!" then I can say "Yeah, I did." Lol, I love it when I get people like that. .

The other thing is, I've seen many of the posts on this topic saying things like "It's just a fiction movie!" and "Why is there so much controversy over this?" Well here's the deal. MANY PEOPLE ARE STUPID! They can't tell fiction from fact when presented as fact in the movie. This movie isn't like "The Mummy Returns." This takes place in our world where no magical things happen, and the data is supposedly fact. Ron Howard refused to put a note at the beginning of the movie saying it was ficticious, because he "...felt the overall idea of the movie binds the person to the story." He didn't want to spoil the "fun."

People are like sheep. They eat anything you give 'em and believe anything you tell them, especially if it's in a movie. Remember that movie that presented Washington as to have had an affair? IT NEVER HAPPENED! But many people believed it then, and some even believe it now because of that movie. Movies present George Washington as to have been a deist. Incorrect! Read his journals! He prayed every night from 9:00 to 10:00 and when he missed a day, he prayed twice the time! That doesn't sound deist to me, but yet many people believe he was.

Many people believe Lincoln freed the slaves and this isn't true. This idea is present in many movies of today! He only freed a large number of slaves in the south and that was it. Many people believe the book and movie called "ROOTS." Alex Haley forged his documents and payed people in other countries to do phony interviews with him. His whole story was plagerized from a book called "The African," which was written by Hal Courlander: a white man. Kunta Kinte never existed. Yet, his whole story was presented as a factual history lesson for kids in school for a very long time. Many people believe the story is true even today, even though he was convicted in court and was forbidden to ever bring up his story again. He committed perjury countless times in court as the judge understood.

There are many movies that present fiction as fact, and the people believe it, and it changes their view on that subject. These few examples prove my point. "The Da Vinci Code" is drawing many people to thinking the most outrageous things like Jesus being married, and there's evidence. There is none. Everything in the book is fiction except the fact that there was a Leonardo da Vinci and the Louve is a real place. .

And that's all I have to say about that.

--Truman

[morph]

wow... that was just um a whole lot to read that i dont want to read, i mean da vinci code, if its fake then the church shouldnt start gettin mad, and yet they did and then it drew more publicity to the movie, and the book and so it gave the guy who wrote it more and more money, if you dont want something contraversial like that to grow in populairty, then dont pay any attention, personal i am not gonna see it nor am i gonna read it, i have no interest in it, and if people ask me about it ill tell them i havnt read it nor seen it nor do i want to and ill leave it at that... so ya...

[Daesthai]

<null>

[Blitzkreig]

I very strongly recomend you guys read Josh McDowell's Da Vinci Code: A Quest for Answers. It shows in a consise direct way how there are almost no facts in Dan Brown's book.

Secondly, the Christian people are angry because Dan Brown has taken something sacred to them and defiled it with his made up theories. If someone made up a story about your most sacred beliefs, telling you none of it's true and basically making you look like a fool, you'd be angry too.

[Scarus]

I pretty much agree with Truman that the real danger in the movie is that it presents fiction as fact to an audience which in large part is incapbable of distinguishing between the two. That's the real danger of the movie and why many churchs are outraged by it.

To give you an example from my everyday life, I overheard two of the secretaries in my office talking about how the movie had really opened up their eyes about the Catholic Church, and that they felt everyone should see the movie so they would know what's really going on. I mentioned to them that the movie was fiction, and not based on any facts. This didn't faze them a bit. One of them said something about a church coverup, and I'm sure they both thought that I was just trying to be superior, or something.

It used to be that if something was in print that the masses couldn't help but think that it was true. Now, we're seeing the same thing, except even more so, about film.

[areyouincahoots]

I read it. I thought it was a good, fun read. Personally, I liked Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons" a lot better as far as the story is concerned. In regard to the controversy, I kept out of it. I believe what I believe and this book, though entertaining, doesn't change anything for me.

I totally agree...it was a good read, but Angels and Demons was better...Digital Fortress and Deception Point were good, too...

I am a christian and reading that book and watching the movie did nothing to my beliefs...You have to be pretty easily shaken to take a fiction novel as truth...

[PaperPlunger]

so i saw the movie, and thought tom hanks played his roll so badly I would rather buy the movie and take a huge dump on it. Because he is a terrible actor.

[vtmarik]

I pretty much agree with Truman that the real danger in the movie is that it presents fiction as fact to an audience which in large part is incapbable of distinguishing between the two. That's the real danger of the movie and why many churchs are outraged by it.

To give you an example from my everyday life, I overheard two of the secretaries in my office talking about how the movie had really opened up their eyes about the Catholic Church, and that they felt everyone should see the movie so they would know what's really going on. I mentioned to them that the movie was fiction, and not based on any facts. This didn't faze them a bit. One of them said something about a church coverup, and I'm sure they both thought that I was just trying to be superior, or something.

It used to be that if something was in print that the masses couldn't help but think that it was true. Now, we're seeing the same thing, except even more so, about film.

Yeah right, next we'll have "Unlocking Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" and "Deciphering Real Genius" as well as "X-Men 3, Fact or Fiction?"

Those who believe that this movie is real will hopefully manage to take themselves out of the gene pool by killing themselves with stupid methods used to unlock the "secrets."

I wonder if anyone who wasn't converted by the movie will be by the video game.

[Truman]

People will surely start questioning the Bible and Christianity more than ever with this movie, Vtmarik. People everywhere are asking questions like, "Are we sure we can trust the gospels we have now? Weren't they just picked by a close vote in the church just to agree with politics at the time?"

Well, no. The opposing side to the gospels being added to the Bible was 2 "votes." (They weren't really votes, by the way.) The gospels chosen were the only ones written contemporaneously to the time of Christ. Every other one was written in the second century or afterward. They'll say, "Well that's because the others were squashed by the Church!" Oh really? I want evidence. There's absolutely no evidence of this and many people are asking thsi same question.

There are many questions being asked by people around the world because of this book. Of course, there are rational answers for each one. About 99.7% of the book is fiction, even though the first word of the first chapter says, "FACT," and then lists a large bunch of ficticious baloney, making it sound fact.

"The Da Vinci Code" does not attempt to make people think the story is true. It only rises foolish questioning among millions. That is the problem.

Also, Vtmarik, the examples you give are completely beside the point. "X-Men" and "Star Trek" are obviously false stories that never happened, just as "The Da Vinci Code." The difference is, there is already controversy over Jesus and Christianity. This is what makes "The Da Vinci Code" so dangerous, is that it supports the claims made by skeptics, but in a misrepresenting way (with lies). Wake up, Vtmarik. This book and movie aren't just for entertainment. Most everyone can see that except maybe a few atheists and skeptics.

--Truman

[Steel Reserve]

There is alot of controversy going around, personally I can wait to see this movie and I really enjoyed the book. What do you think?

I think the people who are staging protests outside theatres where the movie is being shown are acheiving the opposite of what they want.

They want to warn people away from seeing it.
But all they're doing is giving the movie free publicity.

If somebody told me, "Don't watch this movie. It's eeeevil",
I would say, "Oh, now I just HAVE to see it."

If people would just clam up about it, people would lose interest.

Oh, well.

[DublinDoogey]

This book and movie aren't just for entertainment. Most everyone can see that except maybe a few atheists and skeptics

I don't know his own reason's for it, but I can be sure that Dan Brown wrote The Da Vinci Code for entertainment, I've read interviews with him and he isn't they type to try and create a huge conspiracy theory.

He's just using an old story, the one about the holy grail, and using it for entertainment... similar to Lara Croft: Cradle of Life.

It just so happens that he chose a more touchy adversary, the Catholic, and over all the Christian Church.

[DRoZ]

Well I am just disappointed in all of you ... three pages of replies about this movie and not one single reference to Tom Hanks freakish looking hair .... for shame ... for shame.

[vtmarik]

People will surely start questioning the Bible and Christianity more than ever with this movie, Vtmarik. People everywhere are asking questions like, "Are we sure we can trust the gospels we have now? Weren't they just picked by a close vote in the church just to agree with politics at the time?"

So? That's bad?

The opposing side to the gospels being added to the Bible was 2 "votes." (They weren't really votes, by the way.) The gospels chosen were the only ones written contemporaneously to the time of Christ. Every other one was written in the second century or afterward. They'll say, "Well that's because the others were squashed by the Church!" Oh really? I want evidence. There's absolutely no evidence of this and many people are asking thsi same question.

Evidence? How about the fact that the Gospel of Thomas is still decried as heresy by the Vatican?

While it may not be evidence, it certainly has the look, feel, and sound of evidence.

What you're talking about is truthiness, the fact that something sounds true and so therefore it is. That's not logic, that's just dumb.

There are many questions being asked by people around the world because of this book. Of course, there are rational answers for each one. About 99.7% of the book is fiction, even though the first word of the first chapter says, "FACT," and then lists a large bunch of ficticious baloney, making it sound fact.

"The Da Vinci Code" does not attempt to make people think the story is true. It only rises foolish questioning among millions. That is the problem.

Doesn't sound like a problem for me, it's just idiots advertising the fact that they are idiots. I like that, it helps me avoid them.

Also, Vtmarik, the examples you give are completely beside the point. "X-Men" and "Star Trek" are obviously false stories that never happened, just as "The Da Vinci Code." The difference is, there is already controversy over Jesus and Christianity. This is what makes "The Da Vinci Code" so dangerous, is that it supports the claims made by skeptics, but in a misrepresenting way (with lies). Wake up, Vtmarik. This book and movie aren't just for entertainment. Most everyone can see that except maybe a few atheists and skeptics.

So this book is dangerous because there's already conspiracy theories? That's dumb. So the movie JFK is dangerous because it's about a gunman on the grassy knoll?

Anyone who reads this book for any reason other than entertainment is an idiot. Anyone who reads this book and takes everything inside as proof of holy writ is an idiot. So we should ban a book because it plays on people's insecurities and ignorance...

Wow, that sure sounds familiar... what other books take advantage of people looking for cheap and easy answers?

The Bible and L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics springs to mind...

[Pilate]

Well, no. The opposing side to the gospels being added to the Bible was 2 "votes." (They weren't really votes, by the way.) The gospels chosen were the only ones written contemporaneously to the time of Christ. Every other one was written in the second century or afterward. They'll say, "Well that's because the others were squashed by the Church!" Oh really? I want evidence. There's absolutely no evidence of this and many people are asking thsi same question.

How do you know when the gospels are written? If you took at actual academic literature, you'll realize that most scholars do not believe the gospels to be authentic.

[Truman]

Evidence? How about the fact that the Gospel of Thomas is still decried as heresy by the Vatican?

While it may not be evidence, it certainly has the look, feel, and sound of evidence.

What you're talking about is truthiness, the fact that something sounds true and so therefore it is. That's not logic, that's just dumb.

The gospel of Thomas is overall estimated by most historians to have been written in the second century, at around the time of 200 A.D. This is nowhere close to the four gospels we have in the Bible, which are dated to have been written from 50 A.D. to 90 A.D. It's obvious that the gospel of Thomas was not written by Thomas.

Also, where did I say that something sounds true to me? Please share a quote.

Doesn't sound like a problem for me, it's just idiots advertising the fact that they are idiots. I like that, it helps me avoid them.

Oh well, I'm sorry I bumped into your intelligible and clever brain, Mr. Man! The fact that you understand that most of the book is fiction doesn't compare to the millions of others who are being deceived. You may not care, but I, and many many other do.

Anyone who reads this book for any reason other than entertainment is an idiot. Anyone who reads this book and takes everything inside as proof of holy writ is an idiot. So we should ban a book because it plays on people's insecurities and ignorance...

I never said people would read the book for knowledge. The story is fiction, but Dan Brown himself claimed that there are many "facts" he used to bind the story. In other words, he says much of the "historical" part of the book is true. Doesn't that sound like indoctrination to you? Yes, this book is labeled "FICTION" because the story is fiction. The lies used to bind it are not meant to be fiction. I think you've stumbled again.

Wow, that sure sounds familiar... what other books take advantage of people looking for cheap and easy answers?

The Bible and L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics springs to mind...

I bet you've never read one whole page of the Bible... Some skeptic you are.

Never heard of "Dianetics" before. I'll look into it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you know when the gospels are written? If you took at actual academic literature, you'll realize that most scholars do not believe the gospels to be authentic.

Please show me these scholars. I could show you about 100 of different internet skeptic sources (those who use the term "C.E.") that say the gospels were written in the first century.

--Truman

[Pilate]

Bart Ehrman, Dominic Crossan etc.

You trust internet sources? Academic literature >>> internet.

Anyways, just because they were written in 1st century does not mean they are authentic.

[rocksolid]

Am I the only one that thinks that the Da Vinci Code would not have been so popular if the Cold War hadn't ended? Innate American need for a belief in sinister hidden manipulating hands: Salem, Silverites (blaming the Gold standard on the Jews), McCarthy...and now the malicious international secret society of the Catholic Church...

[vtmarik]

The gospel of Thomas is overall estimated by most historians to have been written in the second century, at around the time of 200 A.D. This is nowhere close to the four gospels we have in the Bible, which are dated to have been written from 50 A.D. to 90 A.D. It's obvious that the gospel of Thomas was not written by Thomas.

Ok, i'll grant you that. Can you link me to a book and/or site that shows this please?

Also, where did I say that something sounds true to me? Please share a quote.

Sorry, misread your thing there, never mind.

Oh well, I'm sorry I bumped into your intelligible and clever brain, Mr. Man! The fact that you understand that most of the book is fiction doesn't compare to the millions of others who are being deceived. You may not care, but I, and many many other do.

Again I say why should we care? So a bunch of people read this book and begin questioning their faith... That can be positive. Sure they may be mislead by the book, but the True Believers will eventually relocate their faith and resume. Those who are Christian only by benefit of their upbringing and not by their own personal beliefs should find their own path in life.

I never said people would read the book for knowledge. The story is fiction, but Dan Brown himself claimed that there are many "facts" he used to bind the story. In other words, he says much of the "historical" part of the book is true. Doesn't that sound like indoctrination to you? Yes, this book is labeled "FICTION" because the story is fiction. The lies used to bind it are not meant to be fiction. I think you've stumbled again.

Not meant to be fiction? How do you know this? Personally, I did my own fact checking and I know that the whole Priory of Sion thing and the Secret Dossier are complete trash. If someone doesn't want to fact check what they read, then that's their own fault. I'm not going to ban a book or disallow it's popularization because some people are gullible and can't determine fact from fiction. It isn't the job of a Church, you, or I to make sure the stupid don't do stupid things.

I bet you've never read one whole page of the Bible... Some skeptic you are.

Read it cover to cover, I own a copy of the King James and New International versions of the Bible. I've also read the Book of Mormon as well as a few of the apocryphal texts. It's all a control mechanism designed to bind both man and God to the word of the Church-with-a-capital-C.

Never heard of "Dianetics" before. I'll look into it.

Right after you read that, check out Xenu.net. Do some fact checking so you don't get distracted into believing that what is in there is real.


Oh, and a side note: I've never read Dan Brown's book, seen the movie, or played the video game because I didn't want to waste my time on the second work by the author of the loathsome Angels & Demons *poorly repressed shudder*

[Jolly Roger]

I find it strange that those who most oppose the historical claims in the DaVince Code are the same people who find a book with things like talking snakes, transfiguration and resurrection perfectly reasonable and completely legitimate.

Just an observation.