The Da Vinci Code (Might contain spoilers)

[Demetrick]

If Jesus was the son of god and had a baby, I bet that baby was pretty kick-ass.

Bully, "Hey I heard you mom's a sloooooooooot."

Jesus's kid, "Ya well my grandpa is god."

Bully, "Oh shi "

[Akoa]

lol Too cute Demetrick.

[Daahan]

Machiavelli said that religion has always been one of the most powerful political tools, and I agree with him.

Anyway, in the Church of Yin, as the Pope I will promise not to hide any information about our prophet (Xavier) having any children.

[Inverse]

if you read the book, the movie would be a disappointment. then again, it's worth seeing the lovely Audrey Tautou.

[Andarvi]

is that her name? she was stunning and made my pants grow.

[Raivyn]

I hated the book. The storyline itself was interesting, but his writing...ughhhh he sounded like a kid in a fort out back trying to come up with the cheesiest movie lines ever. I don't think I've ever disliked a book because of how the author writes, until I read this one, so I'll probably pass on the movie.

Ditto.

Didn't help that I read Angels and Demons first, seeing as The Da Vinci Code is the exact same book. Actually, I haven't read a single one of his books which wasn't similar in structure and plot development. One of the most easily predictable and sophomoric writers I've ever read.

[Meilyn]

*Wall o' text warning, boring friday at work*

Saw the movie, wasn't all that impressed. I didn't read the book, though the movie makes me want to (imo stories of this type are better enjoyed at book pace, rather than open to close in a couple hours). Amazingly enough I hadn't paid too much attention to all the hoopla around the book/movie, and didn't know too too much about the story before seeing it. When they mentioned the 'holy grail' I think I actually groaned in the theater, made me think of Monty Python (with the grail light about the Castle Zoot). I didn't really like the pacing of the movie, though it was out of necessity I suppose.

To me, the book/movie really isn't all that controversial. The duality of Christ assumes Him to be 100% human AND 100% divine, so it doesn't really matter to me if he enjoyed the carnal pleasures while on earth. And if He did sire offspring, it wouldnt make sense for them to have any real power or distinction other than their heritage, for otherwise you would have a slowly growing population of demi-gods and mischeif makers (think Greek mythology, where there is a hierarchy of gods that makes it difficult for the general population, as worshiping one could piss off another and so on). It also would make sense even if he did sire descendants to establish a papacy that would overlook the establishment and upkeep of the faith (starting with Peter). A successive line of popes that could be elected is more likely to succeed than a system that depends on bloodlines and succession (which could open a whole realm of problems, such a feuds/splintering/coups/etc.).

I think the problem is that people refuse to keep an open mind about things. Its the same form of extremism that leads to polarity in politics and fights in sports bars. People get so caught up in their own way that anything that does not fit into their understood order is not only wrong, but it an affront to their being. It is the age old story of Us vs Not Us. The social animal that is man defends its intellectual territory even against non-threatening ideas, as doing so confirms in that groups consciousness the righteousness of its own cause. Such extremism conflicts with the evolution of thought and the propagation of ideas, as rather than working together groups fight for ideals which may not even exist. No ideal has been responsible for as much suffering and bloodshed than that of organized religion throughout history.

I have talked with many members of the clergy and of other religions who acknowledge that one cannot truly have faith if one does not question it. Blindly accepted faith is not truly faith but a wayward surrenduring to mental lethargy. It is through the analysis and evaluation of ones faith that a person can rescue their faith from the duldroms of institutionalization and believe in something that they can accept personally. Being as closed-minded about many people seem to be is actually an outward sign of an inner weakness--it shows a lack of conviction and a doubt that the person holds themselves but dare not acknowledge.

The Da Vinci Code seemed like an interesting idea. From the movie I could tell the book is likely much better (I'll probably read it after I finish my current book, The Fountainhead). It was apparent that the author did his research and put forth a plausible idea. So long as people keep an open mind and realize it is a work of fiction like any other, they should be able to enjoy it for what it is. I know people who refuse to even discuss the movie, let alone see it, and it

/end rant. Sorry, extremism bothers me lol

PS - Xavier, I'm not going to quote you, but I do believe that the pope only speaks infallibly on the extremely rare occasion. Some set of circumstances has to be in place in order for him to do so (sitting in a certain chair in the presence of the full compliment of bishops, or something along those lines, I believe this is when he speaks "ex cathedra"). I could be wrong, but I believe that a pope has spoken infallibly only 2 times since the inception of the papacy. I believe the idea of papal infallacy itself has only been accepted since the first Vatican Council in 1870--the idea had been discussed prior to that, but it was never instituted as official dogma. The rest of the time when the pope speaks it is taken as the speech of a religious leader. This is different than the infallability of the church through definition by an ecumenical council or through virtue of being taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

[Xavier]

My point was really just that disagreeing with the Church can't really accomplish anything, since they have the ultimate "sit down son" card.

[Banigaru]

Am I the only one who was rather irked that they made a movie out of the duhvinci code instead of Angels & Demons. A&D was an infinately better book, answered some really challenging questions facing science and religion. I personally am not a really big Dan Brown fan, however what he loses in his horrible writing style he makes up for in some decent research and plot. The movie was ok, Audrey Tateou (sp) was amazingly hot and sexy with that french accent and Tom Hanks was surprisingly a decent Langdon. Overall the book was mediocre and the movie was better then the book, it doesn't happen often but dan brown sounds like he makes books to be read like a movie.