Posted on 05/15/2006 7:35:21 AM PDT by unlearner
Everyone likes a good riddle. It's human nature to want to find meaning, solve problems, and seek out purposeful solutions. Dan Brown capitalized on this by writing the best selling novel, "The Da Vinci Code".
Speaking of which, the title of my post is a riddle: WOE ON RON HOWARD, T. HANKS' D.C. FIB. By rearranging the letters of the title, you can find a meaningful question posed about this novel and film. The solution is in the context of the story, as the answer resembles a major puzzle within it.
If it is not obvious at this point that T. HANKS is for Tom Hanks (not "thanks") and D.C. is for Da Vinci Code (not the US capitol), you may want to sit this one out and let someone else solve the riddle. Tom Hanks plays the main character in the upcoming movie directed by Ron Howard and adapted from the Dan Brown novel. (The official movie website is at http://www.sodarktheconofman.com, using a phrase taken from the book.)
The film and the book are a big fib. That is, they are a lie. "Yes", some object, "but they are fiction. They are not meant to be taken literally." Not quite. The story is intertwined with historical fact and historical fiction. Leonardo Da Vinci was a real person. So was Jesus. So was Mary Magdelene.
The story extends poetic license to depicting these characters in what many would consider a slanderous light. It goes beyond this to the point of denigrating biblical doctrines and substituting fairy tales in their place.
If Jesus fled persecution and had children by Mary, then the most essential doctrines of Christianity are false: the atoning death of Christ on the cross, the resurrection, the spiritual body of Christ (i.e. the Church - Christ's bride). Mr. Brown fails to see that a relationship with Mary would make Jesus an adulterer, and thus a hypocrite, since He spoke against adultery.
The movie is to be released May 19, 2006- just in time to celebrate the aniversary of legalized homosexual marriages. ("Legalized" by judicial edict, not legislation, and only in Massachusettes.) Do I exagerate? I do not know if this is intentional, but of course Tom Hanks has been a champion of liberal causes such as homosexual rights, as is demonstrated by the Academy Award winning propoganda piece, Philadelphia. (I would be amiss not to point out Mr. Hanks also has been a champion of some conservative causes as well- such as supporting our troops.) Co-star, Ian McKellan, is a militant homosexual activist who, while being interviewed, has bragged that he likes to vandalize Gideon Bibles which have been freely donated to hotels. I wonder if the movie will throw in the idea that some famous historical figures may have been homosexual.
Anyway, you can count me out for being one of the crowd to go see this movie when it opens. By the way, I read the book for free using my local library. I did not want any of my money to go to its author or publisher. If I ever watch the film, I will wait for a free coupon from RedBox or until my library has a copy. May I suggest to those conservatives who cannot wait for the DVD, don't go see The Da Vinci Code on opening day. Wait as long as possible. The longer you wait, the less money goes to those who made and distributed it. And they are liberal. This movie is the liberal answer to The Passion of the Christ.
It should come as no surprise. Most Hollywood movies contain many references to Jesus. Hollywood has no problem making Jesus a major subject matter within its films, as long as those references are limited to things such as using His name like a four-letter filth word. This happens, on average, several times in a typical Hollywood film. Yet movies like The Passion of the Christ, which attempts to portray the actual events surrounding Christ's death, are unacceptable to the liberal elite in Hollywood. A similar protest, albeit slightly quieter, was made against Chronicles of Narnia which contains what some interpret as allegorical references to Christ.
Here's my take on Dan Brown's novel under discussion. Aside from the callous insult against biblical Christianity as well as special insults reserved for Catholics, the story is fairly well told. Not amazing, but OK. Some parts are weak. When we are awkardly informed a major character is allergic to shell fish, it is obvious instantly this is a not-so-subtle setup for his later demise using this plot device. The overall plot is weak, too. The explanations for why these supposed secrets have been protected in a secret society are convoluted. Why are they important enough to preserve but not important enough to tell? Why are the secret group sex rituals necessary? The memories of a girl walking in on her uncle in the middle of one of these rituals is quite over the top. It is just too hard to swallow Brown's take on these things having some sort of intrinsic beauty. To me it is just incestuous and disgusting.
It has already been pointed out, but may be worth repeating, that Brown has his facts so mixed up as to be unrecognizable. Gnostic gospels never gained much foothold in early Christianity because those closest to the actual events were present to refute these errant writings. They were not removed by a Constantine persecution. Brown would transform the legalization of Christianity into the persecution of all desenting views. And what's more, even if the Gnostics were an alternative Christianity, they would never come close to supporting Brown's fascination with "the sacred feminine". Gnostics despised women, the physical, and the sexual. None of this fits.
Ok. That's my two cents worth. But what about the riddle? With a little effort some Freeper is sure to solve it . The way to find the answer should be clear to anyone who is familiar with the riddles in the book. Any takers? I will provide some additional hints if no one is able to solve it.
Ahhh, so if he were married to MM, as Brown relates - and as has been written about for nearly 2000 years - how would that make Him an adulterer?
? (Why is the thought of Jesus having followed Jewish Law that males were to married and have issue - indeed, required of a rabbi - so repugnant? Is not marriage and children the prime directive of God the Father - the prime reason of mankind's existence?)
If Jesus fled persecution and had children by Mary, then the most essential doctrines of Christianity are false: the atoning death of Christ on the cross, the resurrection,
Hmmm - I always believed that what Jesus TAUGHT - or tried to get through = as THE WAY for us to conduct our lives, how to realize that the Kingdom of God is WITHIN us - that spark that needs to be fanned to LIGHT - is His message...which not many got back then and not many today. For one thing, he taught us we have the inherent right to connect with The Father through HIM - not through layers of other people. He taught that we need to do our work - not 'eat, drink and be merry" , "oops, sorry" and all be well for another week.
You bring up Gibson's "Passion" as an example of faithfully following the BIBLE - where on earth, for one example, did those nightmarish creatures with worms crawling out of their faces, skulking in the back ground come from? I can't find them in my Bible.
LOL - So, you read the book - but free, you'll see the movie, but not on opening and wait for a free pass - so that will sooth you conscience...well, guess I'll go out tonight and get stinko, but as long I don't pay for the booze, no fowl. And I'll take a trip with a friend in their gas-guzzling SUV, but, hey, it ain't mine - so no fowl....LOL (Not that I am anti-SUV. People who live in the country where there are rough roads, mountains, winters, muddy springs, etc - NEED 4-wheel drives. Also, with the seats required for children - if you don't limit your family to 2 children, you need a SUV or good sized van...sometimes I suspicion if the zero pop. folk aren't behind the war on SUV's? If it's really only fuel consumption, why aren't they screaming for more rail transport and getting some of the tens of thousands of 18-wheelers off the roads?
P.S. - (I hope you don't still believe that Columbus was Italian and discovered America?)
Really? I have not seen any of that. Mostly it just seems to be people setting the record straight and debunking Brown's false claims.
Not saying that this one will kill 6 millions Jews but I think the premise that fiction is harmless is naive.
Sure he is, Harry Potter talked him into it.
This stuff is REAL I tell you!!!
"as long I don't pay for the booze, no fowl. And I'll take a trip with a friend in their gas-guzzling SUV, but, hey, it ain't mine - so no fowl....LOL"
Why does it matter whether or not poultry is involved? This thread is all over the place.
Uh huh. That would include me, and the culture war being waged by you, right here, and right now.
"People who feel at home seeing Satanic imagery and hearing God's word maligned are unlikely to be influenced by what I'm saying. They probably will support the movie either way.
But I hope no one does so ignorantly because they did not know what was being promoted in it."
Puh-LEEZ. Now if we go see it, we're Satanists. I saw "Devil's Advocate" with Al Pacino, too, and it didn't make me either a devil-worshipper or a lawyer (insert some predictable joke here about how they're the same thing). The only consequences I suffered involved being exposed to Keanu Reeves' "acting" for a couple of hours.
At this point, I don't see how anyone could go to the movie without knowing what it's about!
Hmmm - what if the some of the Christianity cover-up was covering up what Jesus REALLY taught - like the equality of women or that the Kingdom of God is WITHIN us and we have access to it directly through HIM without having to rely on layers of other people? - What if Columbus wasn't Italian and didn't discover America - (He wasn't and didn't)
What if we take responsibility for studying and researching on our own - and through direct prayer?
What if we take advantage of this incredible source of world wide knowledge at our fingertips - the Internet? What if we take advantage of researchers and historians who have the expertise and access to ancient archives - and there are many books now in print -
"Not saying that this one will kill 6 millions Jews..."
You are blaming a work of fiction for the Holocaust?
And Hitler's propoganda? Also fictitious lies.
Of course novels have an effect on behavior or people's thinking. So do fictitious movies. To believe otherwise is stupid.
" it is you who has said you will be a movie goer for this one."
I said nothing of the kind. I said that constant yammering about the movie makes me MORE likely to see it, that's all. If you believe in watching and reading critically, you need a little more practice. ;)
No one is making you see the movie. You also can't issue a fatwa against it.
LOL - good catch - time for lunch, my mind's on chicken :o)
They are a little weird.
Where did I say that "fiction is harmless"? I said that fiction is ... fiction.
If you want to further deconstruct that, by fiction I mean.... not true.
So among many untruths, there is for example the one that "people watching or reading the known-to-be fictional story called The Da Vinci Code" are exposing themselves to Satanic forces which will cause the breakdown of Western civilization.
You wouldn't know where *that* one got started, would you?
So you are on the socially conservative side of the culture war? And how am I on the other?
Well, obviously lots of movies contribute to the breakdown of Western civilization. Very old news. Haven't you learned that yet?
Using only your posts as evidence, you do not believe in the intellectual integrity of free human beings, not their abilty to separate truth from fiction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.