Posted on 05/17/2006 5:54:17 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
May 17, 2006
If the Da Vinci Code was already feeding the flames of controversy with its challenge to the basic tenets of Christianity, actor Ian McKellen managed to throw a refinery tank's worth of gasoline on the fire on this morning's Today show, asserting that the Bible should carry a disclaimer saying that it is "fiction."
Matt Lauer, on his second day "On The Road With The Code," was in Cannes for the film festival, where the Code will have its debut. It has already been screened to some critics, who have given it decidedly mixed reviews.
As I reported here yesterday, NBC reporter Melissa Stark timidly dipped a toe in the sea of controversy when yesterday she interviewed Code director Ron Howard, asking how he reacted to the controversy the movie has created . . . for the Church! Sounding more like the Delphic oracle than a Hollywood director, Howard offered up some ambiguous prose about it being healthy thing for people to engage their beliefs.
Lauer took the bull of controversy more directly by the horns when he interviewed the cast and director Howard today. Said Lauer:
"There have been calls from some religious groups, they wanted a disclaimer at the beginning of this movie saying it is fiction because one of the themes in the book really knocks Christianity right on its ear, if Christ survived the crucifixion, he did not die for our sins and therefore was not resurrected. What I'm saying is, people wanted this to say 'fiction, fiction, fiction'. How would you all have felt if there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie? Would it have been okay with you?"
There was a pause, and then famed British actor Ian McKellen [Gandalf of Lord of the Rings], piped up:
"Well, I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction. I mean, walking on water, it takes an act of faith. And I have faith in this movie. Not that it's true, not that it's factual, but that it's a jolly good story. And I think audiences are clever enough and bright enough to separate out fact and fiction, and discuss the thing after they've seen it."
With the camera focused on McKellen, one could hear a distinctly nervous laugh in the background, seeming to come from either actor Tom Hanks or director Howard. McKellen's stunning bit of blasphemy is likely to test the adage that all publicity is good publicity.
Finkelstein, recently a guest on the Lars Larson Show, lives in the liberal haven of Ithaca, NY, where he hosts the award-winning public-access TV show 'Right Angle'. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
Yeah, I notice there is not much of an open dialog about the dangers of homosexuality. Any discussion that homosexuality might be a choice or that there might be negative aspects of the highly promiscuous lifestyle is considered hate speech. There was a local talk show host (who feigned being a moderate) who did not want to talk about abortion because that matter was settled. There is only open dialog on subjects such as 'why are Christians so dumb'.
Ian, Mr. Sophisticated, just buried any hopes this movie had of being successful.
St. Peter: YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!
My vote for Post of the Day!
Satan has a chair warming for him in hell.
OK. That's funny.
mic9852: I never mentioned faith in my post. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.
Really? FYI, the phrase "take the word of Dan Brown over the Holy Bible" implies faith.
No, it implies knowledge. Big difference.
I don't think I disagree with anything you have said, but I think we do, as Christians, seek to live Christ-like lives, and that is something God does want us to try to do. Of course God did not need to "see what it was like" to be human. He is already all-knowing. And Jesus could have been a perfect lamb if he had been killed by Herod, but Jesus was more than that. He was not only the perfect sacrifice, but a means of communicating God's love towards us. Certainly, as you say, Jesus was not "showing us it could be done" by living a perfect life, but we are called to live Christ-like lives. If Christ had married and had children, that would not have affected His divinity, in my humble opinion. If it were the case, however, it would likely have been documented by one or more of His apostles.
As for temptation, Jesus was indeed tempted. After his baptism he went into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan, and Satan is part of God's creation (a matter I still to understand fully). (Matthew 4; Mark 1; Luke 4). To my mind, if Jesus were not tempted as we are, what sort of perfect life could He have led? Part of being human is being tempted to do that which is wrong. It is our response to that temptation that demonstrates, to some extent, our dedication to God.
I'm not concerned with the homosexual part, that is his choice. Where I have a problem is with the militant part, because that implies he is one who is forcing his beliefs on others. The militant ones are generally the ones who push their agenda in schools and other public forums. So yeah it DOES make a difference.
Drudge has linked to this column. See link below photo of McKellen on right side of Drudge page.
The Trinity is a difficult concept. Sometimes I think I get it, and other times I just cannot fathom the idea. The three have always existed, yet one is the Father and another the Son. To me this just shows how little we CAN understand about God.
I love hearing about barbarities from secular hypocrites like you. Check out the history of the United States government sometime. I suppose camp Harmony was done for religious reasons. Call me when the Christians get that bad.
Opie would have been so much better off if he had followed the career path prescribed for all child actors: become a drug addict and a petty criminal.
Well...we do have textbook examples of people believing certain "fictional" books and morphing them into a religion. This is how Scientology got its' start. The gullibility of the "pretty people" in Hollywood is especially noticeable when it comes to this cult. Hollywood is owned lock, stock and barrel by evil. It's time to take these buffoons off their pedestals. Why should I care what Sir Ian McKellan has to say about my faith and the Word of God?
The ideal situation would be for the film to bomb but for it to kick-start some serious interest in early Christian history. Whenever people study the early history of the Church in detail, the attraction of Christianity becomes irresistible.
Does anyone really care what this drunken old Queer has to say?
Nobody ever claimed that barbarities are restricted to Christians. But Christians certainly have been that bad before, and many are still that bad now. The question is do you want to institutionalize that evil by restoring severe penalties for blasphemy?
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.