Ted Baehr Calls Blasphemy, Sex Immorality Reasons to Miss Da Vinci Code(question: who funded it?)

agapepress ^ | May 4 06 | agape press

[churchillbuff]

A well-known pro-family media critic advises Christians to forego seeing the movie screen adaptation of Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code, and he says they should warn others to avoid the film as well.

Dr. Ted Baehr is chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission (CFTC) and publisher of Movieguide, a biweekly journal that reviews and rates films according to their values and family-friendly -- or unfriendly -- content. And when it comes to the kind of content viewers will find if they decide to go see the upcoming theatrical release, The Da Vinci Code (rated PG-13), the Christian movie reviewer says, "There's a lot of good reasons for people not to."

On May 17, two days before the movie's general release, a group of Christian leaders are going to hold a press conference in Washington, DC, to address the issues surrounding the controversial film. Baehr, who will be part of that group, says there is a lot more to The Da Vinci Code's plot than just the assertion that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. That is minor, the critic says, compared to some of the other blasphemous ideas presented in the story.

In the novel and its film adaptation, a Harvard symbologist named Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) teams up with a brilliant French cryptologist, Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou), to follow clues revealing that the recently murdered curator of the Louvre was involved in an ancient secret society called the Priory of Sion, over which an evil Grand Master presides.

Following clues from the murder scene, Robert and Sophie are caught up in a dangerous mystery as they match wits with an unknown enemy somehow connected with Opus Dei, a clandestine Catholic organization. Opus Dei, according to Brown's story, is believed to have long plotted to seize the Priory's carefully guarded secret -- the secret the "code" supposedly obscures, that Christ was not crucified but instead survived, married, and sired progeny.

Besides the story's more obvious blasphemies, Baehr notes, are other issues that he feels make the movie unfit for Christian audiences. "One of the problems," he explains, "is that The Da Vinci Code's main point is leading up to Sophie discovering that the Grand Master's invitation into eternal life is a sexual ceremony where he's surrounded in the basement with his cohorts in the cult of the Priory, having sex with the temple prostitute."

The CFTC chairman says he has heard some prominent Christians tell other believers to go see The Da Vinci Code because they can use the storyline of the film as a springboard to tell people the truth about Christ. But God's Word tells believers to look upon the good, the true, and the lovely, the Christian film reviewer points out. They are not told to look upon the evil, sexual ceremonies that are contained in the upcoming Tom Hanks movie, he insists.

"In Ezekiel, God tells us to be a 'watchman on the wall,'" Baehr continues, "and he says if you know that somebody is going to make a mistake, you tell them not to." Christians should avoid the movie based on Brown's novel, he contends, "because the book is just chock full of occultism, Rosicrucianism, Masonic Satanism, et cetera -- I mean, we have a lot of material on all the satanic material, all the sexual material, all the pornographic material."

The Movieguide publisher says a conscientious, thinking Christian "would be hard pressed to argue that people should indulge in this, because it's going to be engraved on people's minds." He urges believers to ignore anyone advising them to "invite the devil through dialog."

[muir_redwoods]

Yes, by all means, let others decide what you should see and think. It's so much easier that way!

[Darkwolf377]

Westlake is still around and kicking.

Yes, I know, and he still puts out terrific books. His Dortmunder books are pure fun. I still laugh over the one about digging up a safe that was buried in a town; when the guy gets out, he finds the land is now underwater due to a damn being built, and he thinks nothing of blowing it up and wiping out a town just to get to the stupid safe.

[durasell]

Ah, they were giants then...

[Ban Draoi Marbh Draoi]

It is apparent that Dan Brown has been handed over to "strong delusion" because he he would not accept the Truth but rather choose to believe in a lie.

Sign of the times.

But worry not, O people of G-d, the blasphemers, liars and peddlers of lies will soon be dealt with -- severely.

Read Psalm 37.

(We are to speak out against evil. If a person chooses to believe lies rather than the Truth, fine and dandy. But when that person starts dragging other people down to hell, that is the time to speak out.)

[Guenevere]

sinkspur, in my adult Sunday School class, we're studying the history of the Church....

..it's excellent and the teacher has done his homework...(he's a physicist with the Air Force)...

...anyway, as he was teaching last Sunday, he mentioned a historical fact & immediately a young woman (a very good optometrist in our community) questioned his assertion....

..and he realized she was referencing Dan Brown's points...

..He told us he would cover & refute point by point Dan Brown's assertions in a future lesson.

My point is the Bible warns against people like Dan Brown and others who proclaim falsehoods ....The Bible tells us to avoid them...

..because unchurched folk or easily led folk might believe them or get confused in their faith.

This is why I'm so glad that there are those in spiritual authority who want to debunk this book and movie.

[Tribune7]

WHO FUNDED THIS ANTI-CHRISTIAN MOVIE?

I don't think that's a matter of conspiracy. I suspect those who are bankrolling this film do so with the expectation of making a profit, and they probably will.

I agree a Christian shouldn't see it though on principle.

[MonroeDNA]

That reminds me. I need to go see it this weekend.

[Bones75]

Personally I'll be there on opening night to see it, thought it was a great book and think Tom Hanks will do a great job as Robert Langdon. If you liked "National Treasure" you will probably like this movie, IMO.

[Das Outsider]

I not only read the book, I liked it.

It's of a genre that I tend to read anyways. Have you read much of Steve Berry? Very similar in style.

When in trouble, blame Jews, Catholics, and the Illuminati.

Two words: Opus Dei. Now, say it in a scarier tone this time. OOOOOOOH-pus DAAAAAAYYY-ee! ZIIIII-onists--I mean, OOOOOOH-pus DAAAAAYYY-ee!

[Das Outsider]

This is an opportunity for Christians to stand up and defend Christ. Defend their Faith. Defend 2000 years of Church history.

Amen to that. We've managed to get so lax and complacent in matters of apologetics that something like The Da Vinci Code becomes a big deal--but it need not be. It is one thing that a writer like Dan Brown can go on national television and state that an historical version of The Da Vinci Code would differ very little from the fictional one; it is quite another for a Christian to be caught flatfooted without a defense of--and I will say this with no hesitation--the besthistorically attested record of the life of Jesus Christ and a refutation of one of the most vacuous attacks on traditional Christianity known to man.

I see nothing but opportunity to bring the true Gospel to the fore.

[Das Outsider]

It is fantasy.

I stand corrected. The fiction part is made fantasy by the agenda that ultimately drives the former: a revision of early Church history so as to include pagan goddess worship in Christ's Church Universal.

[Das Outsider]

At the same time, St. John was invariably represented as a beautiful young man whose special affinity with Jesus was expressed by his being seated at Jesus' right. Leonardo's St. John conforms to this type, and parallels for the absence of a chalice appear in earlier Italian examples.

Crucial point. You don't need to be an art historian to figure that one out. You also don't need formal training to recognize that Leonardo characteristically depicted Mary Magdalene at the feet of Jesus in other works and would have had he included Mary Magdalene in The Last Supper. Then there's that issue of Da Vinci Code math. If Mary Magdalene is seated to Jesus's right--and by my count there are thirteen persons in the painting--then where is John?

I'd go on, but I'm tired of kicking cripples, even those who seem to have learned nothing in 30 years except the arrogance of thinking they know it all, when they don't even notice errors a simple layman like I did.

Yes, debunking Brown's 'FACT' claims is akin to shooting dead fish in a barrel with a bazooka. Simple research can work wonders when pitted against poor hypotheses and scholarship.

[jerryem]

I only stated that Dan Brown was extremely well informed, which for most intelligent people would mean that he looked at both sides of the coin and used what suited his needs, he did not invent new hypotheses as all his theories are well documented, unlike you Sir, who has not even taken the time to study your own tag line.

[Darkwolf377]

I only stated that Dan Brown was extremely well informed, which for most intelligent people would mean that he looked at both sides of the coin and used what suited his needs, he did not invent new hypotheses as all his theories are well documented, unlike you Sir, who has not even taken the time to study your own tag line.

That's the biggest, lamest dodge I've ever seen on this site.

You "only stated Dan Brown was extremely well informed"?

Oh, really? Here is the post to which I replied:

As I also enjoy laughing, let us all in on your secret and tell us what the laughable errors about art were.( Having studied Da Vinci for 30 years as a profession I found Dan Brown extremely well informed )

You called me out, I handed it back to you, and now you're saying "But I never said that!"

"as all his theories are well documented, unlike you Sir,"

I provided documentation to back up my statement, and now you're backpedalling like mad. Pointing to my tagline means nothing in this context, as you challenged me, strutted your stuff, and are now pretending innocence.

You, Sir, are a joke.

[jerryem]

I think that what most of this fuss is about is some of the truths that Dan Brown has put into print,like reminding us that,,, The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven, but was created by man,,,and we all know what man can do

[jerryem]

I never "called you out," I also found some of his theory's humorous, it is you who took offense, now read YOUR tag line and try and understand it please. Your documentation, in referring to Bruce Boucher who is one of ten thousand voices,most of whom sing out of tune.

[kanawa]

Kilmer was great in two movies: "Real Genius" and "Top Secret".

I liked him in The Salton Sea

[Darkwolf377]

I never "called you out," I also found some of his theory's humorous, it is you who took offense, now read YOUR tag line and try and understand it please.

So...you want me to not respond to you, thus calling you an idiot? Seems like a weird thing to request....

Your documentation, in referring to Bruce Boucher who is one of ten thousand voices,most of whom sing out of tune.

Translation: Your "expertise" has been shown as the charade it is, and in response you don't show where the points I bring up--and the documentation I provided for them--are wrong, you just insult one of the sources.

Please, you're making your embarassment even worse. Just stop, it's sad.

[jess35]

It is also breathtaking to read that the heroine, Sophie Neveu, uses one of Leonardo's paintings, "The Madonna of the Rocks," as a shield, pressing it so close to her body that it bends. More than six feet tall and painted on wood, not canvas, the "Madonna" is unlikely to be so supple.

If you wish to debunk a fictional work, as silly as that may sound, it's better to do so with fact. The Madonna of the Rocks was originally painted on wood but was transfered to canvas.

[WOSG]

Its younger brother, "If you don't like it, just turn it off," hasn't helped much either. The point has been missed by a longshot in both cases."

Yes, and this latter line btw, is of little help in today's "bundled" entertainment model. We pay for 100 channels now on our satellite service and get everything from NASA feeds to CMT to PBS kids to History/BBCA/TCM/Fox/CSPAN/AMC/A&E/TNT etc. to, well, some morally objetionable stuff which I am paying for whether I turn it on or not. And low rating dont seem to stop the production of the morally questionable stuff. This stuff will get marketed and watched by (some of) the unwashed masses whether its blasphemous content is pointed out or not.

At least in raising the points against this film's/book's phony bases, it is made clear what is reality and what is bunk.