Vatican calling for Boycott of Da Vinci Code

[close_enough]

For a long time he pushed it as real, as Sandra showed in those transcripts. It's only been since the movie was about to come out that people involved started to distance themselves from the controversy to avoid any financial damage. I was certainly under the impression the book was proposing a legitimate theory by this guy. So all this hiding behind the "fiction" label isn't really cutting it with me, although I am glad Ron Howard and Tom Hanks called it that.
Maybe I will write a fictional book about Mohammed or the Jews and see if calling it fiction makes people feel better.

huh?????

nevermind, i've got to get to bed...night

 

[windovervocalcords]

huh?????

nevermind, i've got to get to bed...night

I had the same reaction. The post did not make any sense to me. Just goes to show why some Catholics should not read Da Vinci fiction. They are giving it so much credit.

If not even the term, "fiction" does not cut it for one who believes a novel has the power to harm the Church or its faith community with its "legitimate theory" and is "hiding" behind the fiction label,

That statement gives the Da Vinci Code theories more reality than fiction deserves. But if you "don't believe fiction is fiction" then you have created your own demon.

 

[Dark Knight]

I'll type slower next time, sorry. :crazy:

Go back and re-read the part about Dan Brown, in interviews, proposing it as a real theory, not fiction. Get it now? It was marketed as real, it's only now the filmmakers are calling it fiction to avoid controversy, it would seem. Can't be any more clear than that, folks.

 

[lynie]

I'll type slower next time, sorry. :crazy:

Go back and re-read the part about Dan Brown, in interviews, proposing it as a real theory, not fiction. Get it now? It was marketed as real, it's only now the filmmakers are calling it fiction to avoid controversy, it would seem. Can't be any more clear than that, folks.

It seems to me that Dan Brown believed in what he wrote. That is pretty clear. It is up to us and our own intelligence and beliefs as to what we believe...

A theory is...
general principals about a subject...Dan Brown didn't invent these theories, they have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years.

plausible expanations...While the situations in this work of fiction are rather outragous (maybe because it is an fictional adventure book) the ideas have have been believed by many more people than Dan Brown. He is not the first nor the last to write them down...

judgement, guess or opinion...yep, yep and yep...

It IS a real theory, formed by Mr. Brown, and expanded upon in FICITONAL BOOK FORM!!

I think my aunt is nuts for believing all she reads in the National Enquirer. She reads it as the truth and I think it is a pack of lies. Yet the National Enquirer is marketed as truth...I just choose to not subscribe to if even if there is SOME truth in it.

Get it now?

 

[Dark Knight]

It seems to me that Dan Brown believed in what he wrote. That is pretty clear. It is up to us and our own intelligence and beliefs as to what we believe...

A theory is...
general principals about a subject...Dan Brown didn't invent these theories, they have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years.

plausible expanations...While the situations in this work of fiction are rather outragous (maybe because it is an fictional adventure book) the ideas have have been believed by many more people than Dan Brown. He is not the first nor the last to write them down...

judgement, guess or opinion...yep, yep and yep...

It IS a real theory, formed by Mr. Brown, and expanded upon in FICITONAL BOOK FORM!!

I think my aunt is nuts for believing all she reads in the National Enquirer. She reads it as the truth and I think it is a pack of lies. Yet the National Enquirer is marketed as truth...I just choose to not subscribe to if even if there is SOME truth in it.

Get it now?

No.

You make it sound like he wrote about UFO's or the JFK assassination, lol. He wrote about my Lord and about my Church, not exactly harmless subjects. And if I wish to boycott it, I can. And if my church wants others to, they can. Whether people do or not is up to them. But we can take the stance we did, and we can also try to debunk it as the nonsense that it is, if we wish. And other can disagree, but they're wrong. :crazy: lol

 

[Amraann]

OM!!! notice no G not taking the lords name in vain...


This is becoming comical.. Like a Mad TV or SNL skit!

First off ..... A THEORY is fiction!! It is a proposed truth not yet proven.
No one claims a THEORY is truth. It is Merely a THEORY of probable events thought by the known facts.
It would be offensive that your lord loved a women??
It would be offensive that he understood the concept???

UMMM Can't be anymore clear then IT IS SOLD AS FICTION!!!


Please explain what is nonsense?? This IS a harmless subject. To me this is the equal to UFO's or the JFK conspiracy..
You do know that the bible was derived from the writers who 100 or 200 years later derived what they felt the theory was?? There is only one part that is supposed to be written by a real apostle?
SO I suppose my real question is... What is the difference between those writers and Dan Brown aside from 1 or 2 hundred years?? You take the bible at face value?
You take anothers version of that theory as the truth?

 

[lynie]

No.

You make it sound like he wrote about UFO's or the JFK assassination, lol. He wrote about my Lord and about my Church, not exactly harmless subjects. And if I wish to boycott it, I can. And if my church wants others to, they can. Whether people do or not is up to them. But we can take the stance we did, and we can also try to debunk it as the nonsense that it is, if we wish. And other can disagree, but they're wrong. :crazy: lol

Ya know what DK...I thank God...mine...that my God and my church is different than your God and your church. You and the Catholic church are not all right and all knowing. You may believe that and maybe it gives you the peace and strength that you need in your life lol.

My beliefs are that it is not all nonsense. I cannot prove that it is true. You cannot prove that it is not. It is not possible. You can say "because the bible told me so" and I can say well, ya know, the bible was written and rewritten over thousands of years by many different people and in my beliefs, I cannot take it at total face value. Sorry. You are no more right in your beliefs than I am in mine, although I know from past posts that you will argue that again and again and put your lol after each statement...

Please, boycott it, don't go to it. But please be careful about walking over peoples feelings about enjoying it. It is not worth it.

Lynie

 

[Mira]

It seems to me that Dan Brown believed in what he wrote. That is pretty clear. It is up to us and our own intelligence and beliefs as to what we believe...

A theory is...
general principals about a subject...Dan Brown didn't invent these theories, they have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years.

plausible expanations...While the situations in this work of fiction are rather outragous (maybe because it is an fictional adventure book) the ideas have have been believed by many more people than Dan Brown. He is not the first nor the last to write them down...

judgement, guess or opinion...yep, yep and yep...

It IS a real theory, formed by Mr. Brown, and expanded upon in FICITONAL BOOK FORM!!

I think my aunt is nuts for believing all she reads in the National Enquirer. She reads it as the truth and I think it is a pack of lies. Yet the National Enquirer is marketed as truth...I just choose to not subscribe to if even if there is SOME truth in it.

Get it now?

good post. i think we have the same aunt

Dark Knight: He wrote about my Lord and about my Church, not exactly harmless subjects.

i read all kinds of stuff. i read about the devil and ghosts and ufos and all kinda stuff, including the TRUE evil that human beings do to other human beings. none of it does me or my beliefs any harm. i have personally seen 'something odd' in the sky. i believe that life on earth does not necessarily end with death. i dont believe in god or the devil, i believe in good and evil. i dont believe that either is represented by a living entity. these are my beliefs, and do no harm to anyone.

the only harm to 'your church' or 'your lord' is in your own mind. this does not make you a bad person, any more than it makes dan brown a bad person. he believes what he believes, and it so happened he wrote a fascinating book about those beliefs. a long time ago, people wrote fascinating stories and called it the bible.

all this fuss is only impressing people to see this movie, and read the book. it will die down in a short time, just as other 'blasphemies' have. if, as you believe, it is not true (meaning not provable) what harm can it do?

 

[narlacat]

<<the bible was written and rewritten over thousands of years by many different people>>

Not to mention edited to suit.

 

[kazzbar]

The Da Vinci Code is just an average book of fiction that is possibly over-rated.I can understand the church being upset but feel that by being to anti they are giving it more creedence than it is worth. They should be more upset about the original book "holy blood, Holy grail' as it is more of a threat to them.Dan Brown is just laughing all the way to the bank. I am not Catholic but respect their views and if people do not want to watch the film or read the book because they belive it offensive then so be it. At least the Catholic church are not burning Embassies and setting fire to everything in sight to prove their point !

 

[windovervocalcords]

The Da Vinci Code is just an average book of fiction that is possibly over-rated.I can understand the church being upset but feel that by being to anti they are giving it more creedence than it is worth. They should be more upset about the original book "holy blood, Holy grail' as it is more of a threat to them.Dan Brown is just laughing all the way to the bank. I am not Catholic but respect their views and if people do not want to watch the film or read the book because they belive it offensive then so be it. At least the Catholic church are not burning Embassies and setting fire to everything in sight to prove their point !

I agree that by making such a fuss about the movie and book you give more credence to Dan Brown's literary fanciful inventions.

No, the Catholic Church hasn't been burning and setting fire to everything since the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades lol.

Since the death of Jesus Christ, the one sure way to rile up the Catholic Church has been to engage in heresy.

Heresy is pretty much defined as "deliberately disagreeing with the church." Historically, there have been between two billion and five billion non-Catholics living in the world at any given time since the Church was founded. That's a lot of heresy.

For three hundred years or so, the early Christians were few and far between, with the result that they mostly found themselves staring at the business end of the persecution gun. This inspired a high-minded libertarian commitment to religious freedom that lasted all of 30 seconds after they took over the Roman Empire. From then on, it was "my way or the highway."

Nevertheless, for the next 900 years, the battle against heresy was a loosely organized and largely non-violent affair. The wimpy Church fathers contented themselves with just writing against and occasionally excommunicating such heretics as the Gnostics. The decision to pursue this philosophical approach stemmed largely from unfavorable odds. Even after assimilating Rome, there weren't enough good, solid Christians in the power base to make the use of force an attractive option.

By the 12th century, this had changed, and the Church suddenly realized the sword is actually a lot mightier than the pen. The first implementations of this policy were the Crusades, which involved sending armies out to forcibly convert those who didn't agree with the Pope (specifically the Muslims inhabiting the Holy Lands).

The last burning organized by the Inquisition was in 1834, when the Spanish Inquisition was officially abolished.

Based in Vatican City, the Holy Office of the Inquisition is still one of the most powerful branches of the Church hierarchy. In 1965, the P.R.-sensitive Pope Paul VI rebranded the Inquisition as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, but it was still basically the Inquisition. http://www.rotten.com/library/history/inquisition/

 

[JBean]

I'll type slower next time, sorry. :crazy:

Go back and re-read the part about Dan Brown, in interviews, proposing it as a real theory, not fiction. Get it now? It was marketed as real, it's only now the filmmakers are calling it fiction to avoid controversy, it would seem. Can't be any more clear than that, folks.

I know when i read it a couple years ago, it was not touted as fiction. It was more of an expose' That's was the original draw. No doubt about that.

I heard a good interview. The guy said, how about if I write a whole book and movie about your father. None of it will be true. but it will be about your family, i will make everything up, but surround it in enough fact to make it believable. It will have the same names, the same cities, the same players and it will all be about your dad! But it will all be BS. Oh, and it will not be flattering.
How would you like that?

I get why the church is put off.

But with that being said, we all have the right to read it, not read it, boycott it, not boycott it. We can do whatever we want.I don't understand why people are so offended that the church is asking for boycott. If that church has no meaning to you, what is the difference?

 

[windovervocalcords]

I know when i read it a couple years ago, it was not touted as fiction. It was more of an expose' That's was the original draw. No doubt about that.

I heard a good interview. The guy said, how about if I write a whole book and movie about your father. None of it will be true. but it will be about your family, i will make everything up, but surround it in enough fact to make it believable. It will have the same names, the same cities, the same players and it will all be about your dad! But it will all be BS. Oh, and it will not be flattering.
How would you like that?

I get why the church is put off.

But with that being said, we all have the right to read it, not read it, boycott it, not boycott it. We can do whatever we want.I don't understand why people are so offended that the church is asking for boycott. If that church has no meaning to you, what is the difference?

I don't understand why people are so offended that the church is asking for boycott.

The thread was started because a poster wanted to know what people thought of the fact that the Church calling for a boycott because Catholics are offended by it.

Catholics are offended by the Da Vinci Code and are also offended that other posters have different opinions about the Church's policies and actions.

Maybe, the Catholic Church has meaning to non-catholics too.

 

[Dark Knight]

I know when i read it a couple years ago, it was not touted as fiction. It was more of an expose' That's was the original draw. No doubt about that.

I heard a good interview. The guy said, how about if I write a whole book and movie about your father. None of it will be true. but it will be about your family, i will make everything up, but surround it in enough fact to make it believable. It will have the same names, the same cities, the same players and it will all be about your dad! But it will all be BS. Oh, and it will not be flattering.
How would you like that?

I get why the church is put off.

But with that being said, we all have the right to read it, not read it, boycott it, not boycott it. We can do whatever we want.I don't understand why people are so offended that the church is asking for boycott. If that church has no meaning to you, what is the difference?

I'm glad JBean gets it! You hit BOTH nails squarely on the head!

Ultimately, it was an excuse to attack Catholic Doctrine, and now it's switched over to the Bible, lol. And some are just threatened by the Church's authority, even when it doesn't apply to them!

I'm sorry that we don't care if other people don't like what we do, that doesn't mean we don't love you as people. :blowkiss:

 

[Dark Knight]

I agree that by making such a fuss about the movie and book you give more credence to Dan Brown's literary fanciful inventions.

No, the Catholic Church hasn't been burning and setting fire to everything since the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades lol.

Since the death of Jesus Christ, the one sure way to rile up the Catholic Church has been to engage in heresy.

Heresy is pretty much defined as "deliberately disagreeing with the church." Historically, there have been between two billion and five billion non-Catholics living in the world at any given time since the Church was founded. That's a lot of heresy.

For three hundred years or so, the early Christians were few and far between, with the result that they mostly found themselves staring at the business end of the persecution gun. This inspired a high-minded libertarian commitment to religious freedom that lasted all of 30 seconds after they took over the Roman Empire. From then on, it was "my way or the highway."

Nevertheless, for the next 900 years, the battle against heresy was a loosely organized and largely non-violent affair. The wimpy Church fathers contented themselves with just writing against and occasionally excommunicating such heretics as the Gnostics. The decision to pursue this philosophical approach stemmed largely from unfavorable odds. Even after assimilating Rome, there weren't enough good, solid Christians in the power base to make the use of force an attractive option.

By the 12th century, this had changed, and the Church suddenly realized the sword is actually a lot mightier than the pen. The first implementations of this policy were the Crusades, which involved sending armies out to forcibly convert those who didn't agree with the Pope (specifically the Muslims inhabiting the Holy Lands).

The last burning organized by the Inquisition was in 1834, when the Spanish Inquisition was officially abolished.

Based in Vatican City, the Holy Office of the Inquisition is still one of the most powerful branches of the Church hierarchy. In 1965, the P.R.-sensitive Pope Paul VI rebranded the Inquisition as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, but it was still basically the Inquisition. http://www.rotten.com/library/history/inquisition/

Oh...my....gosh....you're quoting rotten.com???? LOL!!!!!

 

[ariel7]

Oh...my....gosh....you're quoting rotten.com???? LOL!!!!!

ROFL!!!!

 

[ariel7]

good post. i think we have the same aunt



i read all kinds of stuff. i read about the devil and ghosts and ufos and all kinda stuff, including the TRUE evil that human beings do to other human beings. none of it does me or my beliefs any harm. i have personally seen 'something odd' in the sky. i believe that life on earth does not necessarily end with death. i dont believe in god or the devil, i believe in good and evil. i dont believe that either is represented by a living entity. these are my beliefs, and do no harm to anyone.

the only harm to 'your church' or 'your lord' is in your own mind. this does not make you a bad person, any more than it makes dan brown a bad person. he believes what he believes, and it so happened he wrote a fascinating book about those beliefs. a long time ago, people wrote fascinating stories and called it the bible.
all this fuss is only impressing people to see this movie, and read the book. it will die down in a short time, just as other 'blasphemies' have. if, as you believe, it is not true (meaning not provable) what harm can it do?

Hello Mira!

Don't think we've met on here as of yet, but I'd just like to jump in
with some comments on your post. (Alas, there's but little time left b4
I must head to work....)

--Just wondering, you say that you do believe in "good" and "evil" and
rightly recognize that what ppl do to each other here on earth can
a times be PURE evil (indeed).
On what do you base your ideas of good and evil? What's your yardstick,
so to speak?
To believe in good, to believe that there is right and wrong, is belief,
essentially in moral law. To have moral law, logically speaking, there
must of necessity be a moral law-giver.

Truthfully, there's not much that I can say in regards to DVC, as I've
not read it nor studied the issue, but in regards to the Bible, you
say: a long time ago ppl wrote fascinating stories and called it
the Bible. Truly, the Bible IS fascinating, however, it is FAR more
than mere stories... There is NO other book in the world that would
make the claims that it makes and stand up to the scrutiny....
Are you aware of the hundreds of DETAILED, fulfilled prophecies
in the Bible? In regards to SO many things... The mathematical
probability of only a small handful of prophecies ACTUALLY being
fulfilled is mind-boggling in extreme... God doesn't give us a mere
handful, He gives hundreds!

Further, in His own word, He gives the test for a prophet---ONE
single prophecy failing and they are FALSE. Those are pretty
high standards, and His word stands up to them.

Beyond that, and this is one of my favorite subjects,lol, which
some may well remember :blushing: from the days of the evolution
threads.... The amazing scientific insights in God's word... Things
clearly mentioned that have only recently been found to be
true...

Well, I'm out of time if I wish to be on time to work...
All this to say that the Bible is FAR more than a mere fascinating
collection of fiction, and that I believe that you cannot have it
both ways---if there is good and right, then there is One who
has ordained it.

Lots of love,

Ariel:blowkiss:

 

[windovervocalcords]

Oh...my....gosh....you're quoting rotten.com???? LOL!!!!!

Yeah it is funny...enjoy your yuk yuk. I thought it was funny too. I did not notice the source until after I had read the article.

This is what came up when I googled the Inquisition lol. Nothing like the Inquisition to lighten things up.

Here is another more mainstream source:

The Spanish Inquisition was part of a longer Inquisition.
Learning to read meant being able to read the increasingly available printed copies of the Bible. The Church had long espoused doctrines that had little or no grounding or reference in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. Times were changing and increased literacy meant increased possibilities for questioning Papal authority.

Luther’s ability to read a printed Bible enabled him to determine that neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament contained any mention of such a thing as Purgatory. When a representative from Rome came to Luther’s church and was offering time off from Purgatory in exchange for cash, Luther knew it was a scam in large part because of his access to reading the Bible.

The Spanish Inquisition worked actively to impede the diffusion of heretical ideas in Spain by producing "Indexes" of prohibited books.

One of the most outstanding cases--and best known--in which the Inquisition directly confronted literary activity is with Fray Luis de Leon, noted humanist and religious writer of converso origin, who was imprisoned for four years, (from 1572 to 1576) for having translated the Song of Songs directly from Hebrew.

The last 40 years have seen the development of a revisionist school of Inquisition history. Inquisition revisionists tend to fall into three categories: some deny the existence of the Spanish Inquisition altogether; others argue that the Spanish Inquisition was simply not that bad and that death tolls and tales of terror have been grossly exaggerated by Jews or Protestants and their sympathizers to gain popular pity; third, many revisionists are dedicated to demonstrating that the Roman Catholic Church was not responsible for the Inquisition and in fact went to great lengths to prevent it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

 

[lynie]

But with that being said, we all have the right to read it, not read it, boycott it, not boycott it. We can do whatever we want.I don't understand why people are so offended that the church is asking for boycott. If that church has no meaning to you, what is the difference?

Hi Jelly...When I first bought the hardback when it first came out, I bought it as fiction, I heard people talking about it as fiction...I do remember the theory being talked about and debated, but never looked at the book as the truth...But, I do so agree that the church can say "don't see this, read this" to their flock.

I didn't let my 10 year olds watch R rated movies, when some did. Personal choice.

I think the arguement on these 12 pages of posts have evolved to a "my religion is better and more right than your religion" attitide and that I do not buy.

Lynie

 

[windovervocalcords]

Hi Jelly...When I first bought the hardback when it first came out, I bought it as fiction, I heard people talking about it as fiction...I do remember the theory being talked about and debated, but never looked at the book as the truth...But, I do so agree that the church can say "don't see this, read this" to their flock.

I didn't let my 10 year olds watch R rated movies, when some did. Personal choice.

I think the arguement on these 12 pages of posts have evolved to a "my religion is better and more right than your religion" attitide and that I do not buy.

Lynie

Can respect be demanded?

To respect something means to hold it in high regard, hold the people and ideas as worthy of our love and admiration--we reserve it for what we value. Is there is a "right to respect"?

Are Catholics owed respect regardless of whether otheres feel their beliefs are true or false? Many do respect the Catholic Church. Others do not....“Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world." Voltaire

Respect can only be granted willingly, where we judge it to be due, not demanded. Our Founding Fathers created a system that protects each individual's rights, including the right to express his ideas regardless of their popularity or whom they offend.

Catholics can voice their displeasure, filmmakers can present a controversial story that millions will pay to see. Each can criticize the other and peacefully walk away.

http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=3551_0_1_0_M