Posted on 05/18/2006 3:45:21 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
Old Testament sins that are repeated in the New Testament are still applicable.
Jefferson actually edited the bible to his liking, taking out all of the miracles, etc.
Here's a copy of it. Kind of a weird historical oddity, but still fascinating...
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
I recall seeing a bumper sticked that read "Attn: Gays...sin on brothers, Hell aint half-full yet".
Anyway, Hanks has always been militantly pro-gay ever since "Philadelphia".
The Bible gets much better reviews than this turkey of a film!
sticked=sticker
Like the old Testament sins forbidding incest? Murder? Theft? Adultery? Child sacrifice? Sex with animals? Those old Testament sins were abolished by Jesus? By Mohammed maybe.
..or to those of us who are intelligent enough to comprehend that +A Novel+ on the cover of a book means that it is fiction.
Honestly, I remember learning that back in elementary school, when the teacher rounded us all up and took us to the school library to learn about the Dewey Decimal system. We also learned what fiction and nonfiction meant.
9 " 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scaleswhether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the wateryou are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you
No lobster for you!
Ain't that a bummer!
Nobody is born with a taste for lobster (or shrimp cocktail) it's a choice. A lifestyle. Lobster eaters choose the lobster eating lifestyle of silly bibs and melted butter.
The guy is 9,000 years old. He's made a ton of money in popular movies, established his reputation in serious theater and was Knighted. He's pretty much free to say whatever he wants without too many worries.
I understand your point, but apparently you don't understand mine.
This Da Vinci business is a full broadside against the very foundation of Christian salvation. By (from what I see on this thread about Hanks and the producer of the film) homosexuals and pro-homos who hate the Bible because it condemns their sin.
Is there ANYTHING sacred anymore? Apparently you are one of those who thinks there isn't.
As to it being fiction. Whether its producers and Hanks actually believe the tall tale, who knows. The point is, they are using it, fiction or no, to attack the validity of the Bible.
Look, I'm sure you've read threads about this book before... Maybe you've even read it. If so, you know that it claims that all the historical facts about Christ, all the historical facts about Da Vinci, all the historical facts put forth in the novel are TRUE, period, no equivocation on Mr. Brown's part.
I'm sure your teachers taught you the difference between science fiction, historical fiction and so on. The belief that a book cannot serve or be intended to serve as an argument for a certain position simply because it is a work of fiction is completely unwarranted on at least two grounds.
First, the idea that a work of fiction cannot be intended to move people into holding a certain position makes no sense. there is nothing about the definition of the term "fiction" that would suggest that it is incapable of doing so.
Second, throughout history, works of fiction have purposefully and successfully been used to do exactly that. The dialogues of Plato, Galileo and Hume are fiction. Each contributed to creating the intellectual atmosphere in which we breath today. Ayn Rand's novels are fictional... But I'm sure you've noticed that, like Dan Brown's novels, they are also polemical. So is Michael Crichton's novel on environmentalist fanaticism, "The State of Fear". So was Harriett Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's cabin, which Abraham Lincoln with just a bit of exaggeration with starting the Civil War.
Fiction can be as powerful, if not more so, than any other medium. This has been recognized since virtually the beginning of written history-- Plato advocated censorship of poets in the Republic for exactly this reason.
I understand you may believe some are making too big a deal about this movie. Maybe they are, maybe not; it'll be blown away when it has to compete with X-Men 3 in any case. But it seems like this "it's just fiction" fallacy keeps popping up, and it really IS fallacious.
Dan Brown pretty much openly admits that there were not. That's what was funny about the lawsuit of the guys who wrote it--- Dan Brown has been totally upfront in giving them credit and listing them as a source.
Now at 15%.
LOL. Good one.
As I said to a friend today, the appeal of the book is to the rebellious/God-denying streak in every man. Take Jesus down a few pegs, and it makes humanity feel pretty good about itself.
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.