Skip to comments.
Official wants Da Vinci movie banned (describes religious thriller as blasphemous)
Yahoo News ^
| 5/10/06
Posted on 05/10/2006 7:13:23 PM PDT by Libloather
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: oolatec
This is a blasphemous book and movie.
21
posted on
05/10/2006 7:46:27 PM PDT
by
Paige
("Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." --George Washington)
To: Paige
Have you actually 'read' the book; or is your statement based upon things you have 'heard'?
22
posted on
05/10/2006 7:50:48 PM PDT
by
Hodar
(With Rights, come Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
To: Clintonfatigued; Libloather; Salvation
By David Brown's own admission, this is a work of fiction. By now I feel it is my duty to point out the movie "The Body" which was much more sacrilegious than the much tamer "Davinci Code" could ever be.
Where was the Church on that one? I mean, it starred Bandaras for goodness' sake!
23
posted on
05/10/2006 7:55:23 PM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Any guest worker program that does not require application from the home country is Amnesty)
To: Libloather
Better yet, a cartoon Da Vinci does Islam.
24
posted on
05/10/2006 7:55:55 PM PDT
by
Screamname
(By God, pray for me, someone help me please! Hillary is my Senator! HELP MEEE!)
To: Hodar
Well, the book does state that Christ was a mere mortal and that the reason his progeny was kept hidden was to prevent this from becoming known, and thus breaking the Church's power. And the book also for some reason treats Mary Magdalene as a goddess even though it states that she too was mortal. It is blasphemous to Christianity and is also somewhat nonsensical. But it's also entertaining.
I guess I don't get why people are so worked up over this. You'd think that the devout would be happy if some are led "astray"--that way Heaven won't be so overcrowded for them.
25
posted on
05/10/2006 8:01:43 PM PDT
by
Cyclopean Squid
(History is a work in progress)
To: Libloather
"
Ramon Arguelles of the archdiocese of Lipa, south of Manila, said the movie was an affront to Christianity.."Of course it is, so what else is new?
It would seem like the Lord is using things like this book and movie to filter the real believers out of the population. Those that know their Bible won't take this story seriously for an instant.
It could be that this, along with several other manifestations in the world, portend some exciting times ahead.
To: Libloather
I read the book and ... wow ... I'm still a Catholic!!!
It's a fictional book, nothing more.
27
posted on
05/10/2006 8:21:05 PM PDT
by
softwarecreator
(Facts are to liberals as holy water is to vampires.)
To: Libloather
Da Vinci does Islam... Followed by the final chapter ... "Islam does Dan Brown".
28
posted on
05/10/2006 8:24:19 PM PDT
by
softwarecreator
(Facts are to liberals as holy water is to vampires.)
To: Cyclopean Squid
You'd think that the devout would be happy if some are led "astray"--that way Heaven won't be so overcrowded for them. You pagan liberals and your overpopulation myths ....
29
posted on
05/10/2006 8:26:49 PM PDT
by
JohnnyZ
(Happy New Year! Breed like dogs!)
To: oolatec
What an idiot. Does he not understand the concept of FICTION? Sure the story is fiction, but the background of the story is being presented as fact. Yeah, Jesus married Mary and had kids and the Catholic church covered it up. That part is being presented as well researched fact, and many Christian bashers are eating it up. Just old gnostic text crap that liberals have been floating around campuses for decades, but ignorant people are easily fooled.
To: Dog Gone
I have never seen Catholics so freaked in my life. The molestation charges didn't get this reaction, although it was fairly close. I'd imagine a Dan Brown version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion would get a substantial rise out of folks, too. People don't enjoy seeing their core values attacked and will mount a spirited defense of the same.
For a secular example, find a thread that questions any action taken or decision made by President Bush and note the responses.
31
posted on
05/10/2006 9:26:51 PM PDT
by
Denver Ditdat
("Deus Vult" is the answer to "Allahu Akbar")
To: Libloather
Good for Eduardo Ermita! I think its great he's suggesting his government take a stand for Christians here. We all remember a film 15 years ago by Scorcese that portrayed the same lie about Christ and Mary Magdelane. Fiction = Lies.
32
posted on
05/10/2006 9:36:30 PM PDT
by
rjp2005
To: Libloather
33
posted on
05/10/2006 10:32:25 PM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: oolatec
haha.. it doesn't take long for 'ITS FICTION' drone lame reply to appear isn't it?
Its not suprising that filippinos being a Catholic country are against this anti-catholic and anti christian movie.
34
posted on
05/11/2006 12:59:17 AM PDT
by
GregH
To: Hodar
I've tried to read this book (I can't continue with it) and I have watched the history channel along with other reviews on this....to say Jesus was having an affair or even married along with having a son....goes against everything in God's word. As Christians we are to believe Jesus was the sinless son of Almighty God and if not the very basis for Christianity has been destroyed. This is the whole point of this blasphemous book.
When are people going to understand there is a major attack against Christianity and what a more subtle way than to make people question the story of Christ Jesus?
35
posted on
05/11/2006 6:01:37 AM PDT
by
Paige
("Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." --George Washington)
To: Paige
Its fiction. To be honest, I believe that the Bible is mostly fiction too, and the Koran...
If the Chuch is afraid that a book or a movie is going to shake their faith than maybe their faith isn't that strong to begin with.
To: Paige
As Christians we are to believe Jesus was the sinless son of Almighty God and if not the very basis for Christianity has been destroyed.And being married is a sin? Going forth and 'multiply' is blasphemy? Jesus was called 'Rabbi', and at that point in time one of the requirements of being a Rabbi was to be married.
Whether or not Christ was married, does not affect his message, his purpose or his significane. Hypothetically, if we found his DNA, and could prove he had offspring, would that invalidate his message? I would say that his message is what matters.
37
posted on
05/11/2006 3:57:38 PM PDT
by
Hodar
(With Rights, come Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
To: RusIvan; Romanov; Freelance Warrior
38
posted on
05/12/2006 1:32:26 PM PDT
by
lizol
(Liberal - a man with his mind open ... at both ends)
To: oolatec
This is really bordering on absurd. Don't they realize that the more they squawk, the more they are bringing attention to this stupid movie?
39
posted on
05/12/2006 1:33:50 PM PDT
by
SAMS
(Nobody loves a soldier until the enemy is at the gate; Army Wife & Marine Mom)
To: lizol
40
posted on
05/12/2006 1:53:54 PM PDT
by
Romanov
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson