Why Should We Stop THE DA VINCI CODE?

Movieguide® ^ | May 19, 2006 | Dr. Ted Baehr

[Simi Valley Tom]

War on Christianity has been declared. On which side of the battle line will you stand?

The movie version of Dan Brown's book, THE DA VINCI CODE, is now in theaters. Although the movie significantly waters down the unrelenting, anti-Christian attacks and virulent paganism and goddess worship of the novel, it promotes the book and contains enough falsehoods and scurrilous conjecture to distort the truth about Jesus Christ, the Bible, Christianity, and God. That, coupled with the book’s popularity and some Christians’ ignorance about their faith, leads us to believe that the movie, and the attention it draws, will increase people’s hatred and prejudice against Christians and Christianity.

If this sounds like an overreaction, consider this:

* THE DA VINCI CODE presents blasphemous fiction as fact in a deceptive fashion

* THE DA VINCI CODE book denies the divinity of Jesus Christ, claiming He was no more than a mortal prophet, and the movie says it doesn't matter whether Jesus was divine or not

* THE DA VINCI CODE alleges Jesus married Mary Magdalene with whom He had a child

* THE DA VINCI CODE falsely claims the Christian church has historically hidden these “facts” through deception, murder and conspiracy

THE DA VINCI CODE novel has already caused great harm. Over 45 million copies of Dan Brown’s book have been sold, and it’s been a staple on worldwide best-seller lists for two years and counting. Brown, however, doesn’t present it as an overt work of fiction. A simple statement in the prologue reads, “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”

Many Christians are already theologically malnourished; how will they withstand the assault of distortions, lies and bigotry from THE DA VINCI CODE?

We must combat THE DA VINCI CODE’s attack on Jesus, the Bible and the very integrity of the Christian faith.

On which side of the battle line will you stand?

Note: See the News and Articles sections of www.movieguide.org for more analysis of Dan Brown's book, and see Current Reviews at www.movieguide.org for a review of the movie version.

[freedumb2003]

And "The Body" that posits that Christ died a human death and they found His remains...?

[Shadowfax]

BLAST!!!!!

I've lost the title for most convoluted post.

Well, I'm still in the running for most tortured post.

[Always Right]

obfuscation: to make something obscure or unclear, especially by making it unnecessarily complicated

The point was fairly straight forward. Sorry it went over your head.

[Eastbound]

"If Jesus did marry Mary, it would mean that He is nothing more than a lecherous, two-timing cheater."

Say whatever you will against the Son of Man, for it shall be forgiven. Yes, I suppose the details of Jesus' personal life might have been left out of the scriptures in order to stress the importance and meaning of his mission as Savior.

Whether he married as a man or not is really beside the point. His office as Christ, the Son of God is where the story is. There was a point that he yielded his will to the will of God and thereafter forsook his rights and self-interests as a human, even refusing to defend himself when his life depended on it.

But to defend himself, thereby saving his body, he would have to take back his statement that He was the Son of God when if fact he was, and is. The law at that time said it was blasphemy and punishable by death to claim to be equal with God. His resurrection proved the matter and mankind found no defense for their actions. No where to go for atonement except through the one that they killed, his body being the last and perfect sacrifice which they knew not until later.

From thence, any blood-offering for sacrifice for atonement was a rejection of the true sacrifice which had already brought the laws of sacrifice to fulfillment.

There are many who practice some sort of sacrifice to atone for their 'sins' who do not understand and refuse to admit that God had already provided the perfect sacrifice -- His own express image whom we call the Son of God.

I think it would be wise to let the future reveal the truth of the matter on whether or not Jesus was married, rather than reject the notion out of hand and refer to him as a 'lecherous, two-timing cheater' if he did exercise his human-ness as the Son of Man. Wouldn't it be more proof that indeed his body was real flesh and blood, and felt pain and passion, rather than some ethereal phantom apparition that wouldn't be able to relate to the problems that humans have on human terms?

Why should it make a difference anyway, insofar as our salvation is concerned?

[Always Right]

I'll give you a real example, maybe that would help. I write a novel about fictious slave family during the civil war. If I write in my book about Abe Lincoln molesting a little slave girl, would that be OK? I mean my book is just fiction, right? So what if I slaughter the character of an American Hero and have no real basis for it.

[maine-iac7]

but why can't Brown just say he doesn't believe that Jesus and Mary were married and had a child?

One of the first books that Brown read, years ago, (which started his research) that puts forth this theory, is "The Woman With the Alabaster Jar" by a best selling author who is a life long CATHOLIC - with an impressive education and research resume.

That book and many of her's subsequently, all NON_fiction, have not brought down the hounds of hell on her. Not a blip.

Why is this, I wonder?

For those who are not afraid of using their own minds...read my post #102 (she also had a web site...not a place for the overly dogmatic)

[Revolting cat!]

I said this before, but one of the most embarrasing things, for me at least, is to regard others as fools and in the end find out that it's you who are the fool. The parrots keep screeching "it's FICTION, people" ('FICTION' usually capitalized for some odd reason), or even "it's FICTION, idiots!" Well, the joke is on the parrots. We idiots know that the book is categorized as fiction. We know it and have moved beyond that knowledge, unlike the parrots. It's fiction, but as every semi-educated person knows there are, as you pointed out above, certain parameters that good fiction observes.

Gore Vidal, to take one example, didn't make his fictional Abraham Lincoln the composer of Beethoven's works who marries Julia Roberts. Why not, it's FICTION, people?! Might of sold 40 million copies with such turns of plot! Brown fiction is not only blasphemous, it is prepostrous and should have been tossed in the shredder by the publisher before the printer saw any of it. But it's also bidnys, it's about money, the lowest common denominator of taste, and not about literary or educational value.

[BlazingArizona]

On which side of the battle line will you stand?

Ooooh, I know! Let's start beheading people.

[RobFromGa]

I'm thinking of writing a book in which Congress passes a law stipulating that every person is suddenly 25% more wealthy and an evil villain who has been threatening the world for almost a hundred years is killed and his dead body is paraded through the streets by the wealthy mob while they all head off on vacation with their new cars and boats.

Do you think I could get this on the non-fiction list, or should I stick with fiction?

[Shadowfax]

There's no doubt that Jesus was a man who exercised his humanity. But he was just as much God, free of sin and perfect in every way. As a result, he would not have taken another bride beside his church, the bride that scripture says is his.

It truly would be all wisdom to trust that Jesus would seek his Father's will and be true to his divine in rejecting any other bride but the one that his Father has provided for him. I am not the one calling him a "lecherous
two-timing cheater." Those who claim that he would take a second bride are saying that.

What difference does it our salvation? If Jesus would be unfaithful to his true bride, he is not the Lamb of God, the perfect attoning sacrifice for all of our sins. If he married Mary, then he offers no salvation.

So, it makes all the difference in the world. This is totally like the Enemy, who offers little lies that seem so harmless and innocent. After all, why can't we consider that Jesus would marry? It sounds so reasonable. So understandable.

Of course, it's actually the difference between Heaven and Hell.

[AConnecticutYankee]

Gore Vidal, to take one example, didn't make his fictional Abraham Lincoln the composer of Beethoven's works who marries Julia Roberts.

But what would be wrong with doing that? Actually the idea is kind of interesting. That's one of the uses of fiction it seems to me - to play around with ideas, sort of ask "what if?". So what if it's not true? That's why they call it fiction.

[Shadowfax]

Would you have a problem with it if Vidal said, "This book is a work of fiction, but the theory about Abraham Lincoln being the composer of Beethoven's works and about him being married to Julia Roberts is based on solid historical evidence."

That's what Brown is saying with DiVinci Code. No one is saying that he's denying it's a fictional book. What a lot of people are choking on is the fact that he's saying it's a fictional book that based on solid historical theory. The ideas in his book about Christ have been examined for years and have been found wanting.

[maine-iac7]

Dan Brown is also being sued for plagiarism from the authors of another book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" who claim that he ripped off their book.

Both wrong and old news.

I'm a professional writer so conversant with copyright laws.

So I followed the court case - in London. (I also read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" some years ago.)

The authors did NOT sue Brown for "plagiarism" - they sued for 'stealing ideas'. This, as anyone in the business knows, is bogus. Ideas cannot be copyrighted - exactly the judgment of the judge. (If ideas could be copyrighted, the libraries and book stores would be pretty empty as only one book could be written on any given subject.)

Two things ridiculous about Leigh and Baigant's suit: the 'ideas' in Brown's book have been written about for hundreds of years - including many contemporary books also currently in print - so they could hardly lay claim to the ideas as theirs in the first place.

They also had to know that ideas cannot be copyrighted, but I suspicion they hoped to get a judge that would wink at the law and thus ban further sales of the book and the movie.

(They also may have been a bit jealous of Brown's level of success over theirs)

They lost their shirts.

[maine-iac7]

oops - I forgot to put /sarc at the end of my post =

[Shadowfax]

So did I.

[maine-iac7]

Your post are making less and less sense, and that is saying something.

your tag line is looking more and more like fiction

[Revolting cat!]

What if? Sure. And Vidal's Lincoln does plenty of that, but within established framework. Jim Crace's Quarantine plays with what if describing Jesus' 40 days in the desert. Dystopias, such as 1984 do it as well. And then there is THE PLOT AGAINST AMERICA by Philip Roth in which "What if, he asks, the flying ace Charles A. Lindbergh had defeated Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1940 election, and what if Lindbergh (who in real life articulated anti-Semitic sentiments and isolationist politics) had instituted a pro-Nazi agenda?" (source NYT.)

Peter Shaffer's play Amadeus and its film adaptation by Milos Forman were similar exercises which played with ideas based on limited historical knowledge. If you had been there, in Mozart's time, you'd know they got it all wrong, but none of us had.

Fiction, even fiction that "plays with ideas" starts out by observing history and then filling in the author's ideas. But twisting historical events and the nature of organizations that are still with us? Opus Dei a buncha murderous thugs? No thanks, Danny boy.

Those are interesting questions outside of this discussion and they're covered in a thin book by Umberto Eco Six Walks in Fictional Woods, which is a collection of his university lectures, I think. Highly recommended.

[No Truce With Kings]

"That's fine and wonderful, but why can't Brown just say he doesn't believe that Jesus and Mary were married and had a child? Brown will not denounce this theory either because it helps sells more books and/or that he really believes it. Brown intentionally implies that he has facts to back up this stuff, when in reality his alledged facts have been thoroughly discredited. There are A LOT of people who are buying into this blasphamous lie. I don't mind him making up stories about fictious people, but when he lies about history and known historical figures, I think it should be clearly stated that those 'facts' are not true."

I think you answered your own question. Brown thinks he can get more money by letting people think it is true. But what he is doing is not illegal, nor will it damage Christianity.

Whether it damages Brown (at God's Great Judgement Seat) is a matter for Brown and God. Whether it damages others is a matter of their free will. Put the facts before them, and let them make their own choices. You cannot force people to salvation.

Remember the parable of the sower? Some of the seed will fall on the path and fail to root, other will be choked by weeds. Some will be choked by the weeds of the da Vinci Code, but they would likely have been choked by other weeds if Dan Brown did not exist. They want to believe his nonsense because accepting the real story is too hard for them.

[AConnecticutYankee]

Would you have a problem with it if Vidal said, "This book is a work of fiction, but the theory about Abraham Lincoln being the composer of Beethoven's works and about him being married to Julia Roberts is based on solid historical evidence."

Well, probably I would not have a problem with it. If I cared enough about it I might inquire what the evidence is to see whether it was credible. But it's like any other historical fiction, isn't it? You take a real figures like Abe Lincoln and maybe give him a mistress or a fondness for moonshine or have him meet secretly with Robert E. Lee to play poker. Why not? If you are publishing something as fiction you don't usually have to fill it with footnotes and prove everything you have said actually happened. It's fiction. (Sorry to irritate whoever it is that gets irritated by that statement.)

[It's me]

Sure, and Farenheit 911from Michael Moore was fiction too, right?

No one believed that either, right?