CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Every review of the movie I've seen in the newspapers so far has been poor. Maybe it's wrong of me, but I find myself darkly amused by the whole situation:

For those who don't know, here's the Da Vinci Code novel, short version:

1. Jesus was only human, 2. Jesus wasn't God, 3. Jesus had a daughter, 4. The "Church" killed people to cover up 1-3.

The movie takes a slightly different tactic:
1. Jesus MIGHT have only been human, 2. MAYBE Jesus wasn't God, 3. MAYBE Jesus had a daughter, 4. A FEW PEOPLE in "the Church" killed people to cover up 1-3.

Apparently, the ambiguity in the movie was added for fear of offending Christians. As for me, my opinion is:

IF YOU'RE GOING TO BLASPHEME, IT'S A LITTLE LATE TO WORRY ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE WOULD THINK, SO AT LEAST BLASPHEME WITH COURAGE. Put another way, if you're going to dare to spit in God's face, it's a little silly to worry about what the people around you are going to think.

Because of the movie's new soft-handed stance, the plotting and dialogue are weakened, resulting in a movie that fails to live up to the secular world's expectations. Meanwhile, are Christians satisfied with a big "MAYBE" stamp on the blasphemy? Of course not; churches around the world are still boycotting the movie and telling the people the truth. I personally never planned on seeing it to begin with.

So in the end, what's accomplished? The Christians aren't appeased, the world isn't satisfied... I guess it's unrealistic to hope that the movie will bomb (what with the book being on the best seller lists for 130+ weeks now ) but I still can't help but be satisfied that the movie is lackluster and will be forgotten.

I'm not defending the movie or anything (I didn't even know about the story til I heard about the film), but I think Christians are reacting the same way that Jews reacted to the Passion of the Christ.

No, the stories aren't even close to the same, but Passion was Christian belief, Da Vinci is Secular belief (with Hollywood fiction, of course).

I wouldn't go as far to say that they are "spitting in God's face".
Were we spitting in Jews' faces with Passion? No.

I haven't seen the movie yet, so my arguement can't go much further.

Orange Kitten wrote:I'm not defending the movie or anything (I didn't even know about the story til I heard about the film), but I think Christians are reacting the same way that Jews reacted to the Passion of the Christ.

No, the stories aren't even close to the same, but Passion was Christian belief, Da Vinci is Secular belief (with Hollywood fiction, of course).

I wouldn't go as far to say that they are "spitting in God's face".
Were we spitting in Jews' faces with Passion? No.

I haven't seen the movie yet, so my arguement can't go much further.

Well the main reason for the controversy were numerous false claims against Christianity that were represented as true. Given the immense popularity of the book, and the fact that numerous people believed the claims, it is natural that many will be concerned with the impact of the movie.

I think Tom Hanks is going to wind up getting a Razzberry for Worse Hairdo in a movie!

The inaccuracies in the book itself for laughable anyways (like how is the main girl suppose to tear a painting that is, in real life, a six foot tall WOOD painting? XD ).

Still, if it causes people to ask questions, it still opens oppurtunities for us.

Myoti wrote:The inaccuracies in the book itself for laughable anyways (like how is the main girl suppose to tear a painting that is, in real life, a six foot tall WOOD painting? XD ).

Still, if it causes people to ask questions, it still opens oppurtunities for us.

Very true... so long as they ask instead of assume. It is nice to know that all the apologetics that have been done since the book came out seem to be paying dividends now if the cast and director and author are changing their tones from "The facts are true" to "Hey, don't take it so seriously, it's fiction..."

Myoti wrote:like how is the main girl suppose to tear a painting that is, in real life, a six foot tall WOOD painting?

Actually, I looked into it further and discovered that the Louvre copy of The Virgin of the Rocks was initially done on a wood panel and later transferred to canvas. However the heck they managed that O_o

That part of the book is accurate. I think that some of the confusion is due to the fact that the London version is still on a panel.

....I am such an art history nerd

Anyhoo, that main thing that gets me up in arms about the Da Vinci Code is the fact that Dan Brown starts the book off by stating that all of the facts within the book are completely true. That kinda makes the whole 'hey, it's just fiction' argument useless.

You wanna speculatively go after Christianity, have at it. But to try and pass off a piece of fiction as evidence against Christ's divinity is just nasty.

And why is it that everyone is willing to build their beliefs on a piece of fiction like the Da Vinci Code, and yet they think it's totally out there to believe the Bible?

The movie is a great discussion starter. And if you know your apologetics, you can have an interesting talk with others.

Well, in one sense I think people like scandal and are suspicious of institutions like organized religion, so a book that appeals to both works well. Also, people tend to want to be in the know about "what really happened." With Christianity being seen as "too strict", something that allows a person to create their own values sounds pretty seductive. I think these factors helped make people want to accept it

Mr. SmartyPants wrote:The movie is a great discussion starter. And if you know your apologetics, you can have an interesting talk with others.

It is also causing many christians to have to bolster their evidence for their beliefs as well... which is a good thing. God can make what once was bad, good and use bad situations for his plans.

mitsuki lover wrote:I think Tom Hanks is going to wind up getting a Razzberry for Worse Hairdo in a movie!

Aaaaaaamen, brotha!

My newpaper is going to hell. NOt only did they give it a positive review, they recommended 5 other "Hollywood blasphemies" like Dogma, The Last Temptation of Christ, Stigmata, The Life of Brian, and The Magadelene Sisters (I've seen neither, and now I'm glad).

AnimeHeritic wrote:Well the main reason for the controversy were numerous false claims against Christianity that were represented as true. Given the immense popularity of the book, and the fact that numerous people believed the claims, it is natural that many will be concerned with the impact of the movie.

This is, I belive, the crux of the problem. Dan Brown tried to pass the book off as fact didn't worry about the Christian reaction. The dismal flop rating this movie got is DIRECTLY related to that action.

the_lizardqueen wrote:And why is it that everyone is willing to build their beliefs on a piece of fiction like the Da Vinci Code, and yet they think it's totally out there to believe the Bible?

That is a positively excellent question.

rocklobster wrote:My newpaper is going to hell. NOt only did they give it a positive review, they recommended 5 other "Hollywood blasphemies" like Dogma, The Last Temptation of Christ, Stigmata, The Life of Brian, and The Magadelene Sisters (I've seen neither, and now I'm glad).

Meh. Dogma and The Life of Brian aren't meant to be taken seriously, as both are absurdist comedies.

I'll agree with The Last Temptation of Christ. I haven't seen Stigmata, so I can't judge it.

Oh... and The Da Vinci code WILL bomb. I guarantee it.

Dude, do you realize how long this book was on the New York Times Best seller?

ALOT of people will see it, no matter how crappy it is. In my mind, the movie is set up as a more controversial version of "National Treasure".

the_lizardqueen wrote:And why is it that everyone is willing to build their beliefs on a piece of fiction like the Da Vinci Code, and yet they think it's totally out there to believe the Bible?

People are willing to believe something that will allow them to do what they want without guilt. Many people these days want to believe in a world without a creater because they don't want there to be any rights or wrongs or consequences for actions. Everyone wants to be their own god. They want to believe as long as you are a "good" person you wil go to heaven, or be reincarnated, etc.

Linksquest wrote:People are willing to believe something that will allow them to do what they want without guilt.

There's a verse that says the same thing... it's in 2 Timothy, I believe. I'll find it and post it later.

For the record, though, I must say I actually LIKE Tom Hanks' hair. It makes him look older... but he IS older now. Kudos for trying something new and different, Mr. Hanks.

Tom Dincht wrote:Dude, do you realize how long this book was on the New York Times Best seller?

ALOT of people will see it, no matter how crappy it is. In my mind, the movie is set up as a more controversial version of "National Treasure".

I know all that.

The first week numbers will be huge, but it'll fall big time after that. I just don't see it holding #1 for long.

Ah, yeah I know what you mean.

If it makes you feel better, anyone whose faith can be decimated by a single book probably would have their faith decimated in the first serious conversation they had with a non-Christian. A strong faith is one based on either:
1. Logic and reason with a lot of thought put into it.
2. Blind disagreement with said logic.

It's a bit dicey, but that's reality. I think I'll stop there.

I'm against this movie as well, but when you think about it, Jurassic Park was equally as blasphemous because they support evolution.

What I'm trying to say is there are millions of movies that try to prove God and Jesus are just fables as far as the Creation and the Crucifiction goes but this movie tried to pull up facts to prove it wrong as opposed to just saying they didn't exist. I'm sorry, did I say pull up "facts?" I meant hypothesises disguised as fact.

Well, it's not a matter if Jesus existed or not. His name was listed in Roman Records.

beau99 wrote:Meh. Dogma and The Life of Brian aren't meant to be taken seriously, as both are absurdist comedies.

I'll agree with The Last Temptation of Christ. I haven't seen Stigmata, so I can't judge it.

Oh... and The Da Vinci code WILL bomb. I guarantee it.

I haven't seen Dogma, but I recall one of the objections was with the premise it presented on indulgences. They don't work the way the movie presented. Beyond that I don't have enough knowledge to comment on the content

As for Life of Brian (which I did see), the main issue seemed to be making a mockery out of things Christians hold sacred. Personally I thought "Meaning of Life" was a more offensive movie.

At any rate I hope that when the movie fades out (whether successful or not) that the influence of the book will go with it. The lies in it may be old, but they certainly got well publicized while the responses got much less publicity

Mithrandir wrote:If it makes you feel better, anyone whose faith can be decimated by a single book probably would have their faith decimated in the first serious conversation they had with a non-Christian. A strong faith is one based on either:
1. Logic and reason with a lot of thought put into it.
2. Blind disagreement with said logic.

It's a bit dicey, but that's reality. I think I'll stop there.

Many non-christians act the same way about their beliefs. I have gotten into heated arguments with non-christians when presenting the evidence to Christianity because they wouldn't listen because they had "blind disagreement."

Linksquest wrote:People are willing to believe something that will allow them to do what they want without guilt.

That's so true, unfortunately :/

Actually, I'm having a pretty good time reading the book. I keep stopping at points to have internal dialogues arguing against what I've just read. Seems to me that Dan Brown really isn't too in touch with Christianity, he keeps going on about how Christ was a 'great and powerful' man. It's technically true but it overlooks the fact that more importantly, he was a humble, loving and merciful savior. I also found more issues about the artworks cited.

The Last Supper is actually tempera with oil paint on dry plaster, not a fresco as it is identified several times in the book. Leonardo had been experimenting with a new technique and unfortunately, it was a disaster. Within 20 years of the completion of The Last Supper it was already beginning to fall off the wall. If it had been a fresco, it wouldn't have decayed so badly over the years.

And if John is in fact Mary Magdalene, that would mean that there are only eleven disciples at the table. This seems odd, where is the twelfth?

This site has a really cool larger image of The Last Supper that can be zoomed into:

http://milano.arounder.com/da_vinci_last_supper/fullscreen.html

Not to belittle the point but evolution is science and not theology.
As far as it goes,the way Leonardo(and he was never known as Da Vinci since that was simply the name of the town he was born in,he was always known as Leonardo)painted John in the Last Supper was similiar to the way a certain school
of art depicted the apostle during the Rennaissance,so it wasn't unusual at all that John is given feminine appearance.This was probably because John was considered the youngest of the apostles and so was given a youthful look.

Found it.

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. 2 Timothy 4:3-4

Yes, that sounds like today, doesn't it?

Here's the end of that passage. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. 2 Tim 4:5

In my mind, the movie is set up as a more controversial version of "National Treasure".

Good thing I'm not the only one who thinks that. :p

Not to belittle the point but evolution is science and not theology.

Actually, it's not even "science", just a "theory" (not that it has much to do with the point...).

Myoti wrote:Good thing I'm not the only one who thinks that. :p


Actually, it's not even "science", just a "theory" (not that it has much to do with the point...).

I would suggest that everything in science is a theory. It is simply that some are supported much better than others.

I think Creation is a theory. If it was proven fact, where would the faith be?
However, nothing has been discovered to contradict it.

Tom Dincht wrote:I think Creation is a theory. If it was proven fact, where would the faith be?
However, nothing has been discovered to contradict it.

God defines truth, and if he says Creation is fact, it is. Yes, we have to accept it or reject it, but our faith in it does not make it any more true or any less true. Creation is fact because the God who is truth declared it to be true.

With that said, let's not let this turn into a debate about evolution (in other words, let's drop this, okay). Remember, guys, one thread on this subject has already been closed. Let's not do that to this one, okay?