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

agapepress ^ | May 4 06 | agape press

[WOSG]

"In a totalitarian police state Pauly Shore would not exist."

Please, don't tempt us to the dark side! :-)

[durasell]

Do what I do -- no cable television.

[GOP_Raider]

LOL!!!

[WOSG]

"Silent Spring, the Rachel Carson book? It wasn't a novel."

There was a lot of fiction in that book (stated as fact), and it influenced a lot of people. Maybe that is what he meant.

[WOSG]

"Yes, by all means, let others decide what you should see and think."

That's what Hollywood is all about.
They decide what movies get made. They make them. We suffer through the bilge when their choices are awry (like here).

As for me, I'm going to be watching a sympathetic bio-pic of McCarthy, "McCarthy and his enemies" based on the William F Buckley book of the same name... no scratch that, it doesn't exist.

[Das Outsider]

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

Just what "truths" has he put into print? Belief in the plenary inspiration of the Old and New Testament is hardly accepting the idea that the Bible just dropped from the clouds; such a view is a mischaracterization of Christian doctrine and serves only as a straw man.

The Da Vinci Code does demonstrate one truth regarding biblical literature: modern man can successfully distort and misrepresent it in an era of sensationalism to fuel an agenda. I would include the Left Behind series in that as well.

[Das Outsider]

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.

The more pastors, teachers, and laymen that are getting the word out the better. When a non-Christian reads a headline like "Such and Such Leader Calls Da Vinci Code Blasphemy," it is usually disregarded as just some religious guy with an opinion. However, something like "Five Facts That The Da Vinci Code Doesn't Tell You" is more likely to pique their interest.

[WOSG]

"If you liked "National Treasure" you will probably like this movie, IMO."

LOL. So if you liked one lame movie with an absurd premise that requires you to check your brain at the door, you'll like another one.

My rating? Destined to be on cable and hardly worth the watching even then.

[tutstar]

read laaater

[jrg]

His Church as a collection of cold-blooded murderers

Haven't read the book or seen the movie yet, however, "cold-blooded murderers" seems to bring to mind the Inquisition......

[muir_redwoods]

I've never been forced into a Hollywood movie at gunpoint.

[Darkwolf377]

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.

Uh...not true. Nice try though. But what is silly about debunking something the author states at the beginning of the book is factually correct? (What's silly is you folks who can't seem to grasp that yes, we KNOW the PLOT and CHARACTERS are invented, but the author himself says the art and history used in the book are correct.)

In fact there are TWO versions--one on canvcas, one on wood.

The article I quoted is in error in that the canvas one is in the Louvre, but Brown is STILL factually incorrect about it: Below are quotes from an article by someone who knows both versions:

Virgin of the Rocks in the Louvre

One of Dan Brown's larger blunder sets in his book involves the famous painting of Leonardo Da Vinci called Virgin of the Rocks. The first mistake is that Brown changes the painting's name to Madonna of the Rocks. He does this solely so he can make an anagram. The clue on the Mona Lisa says "So dark the con of man", which Robert goes on and on about, how the church has conned mankind. Really, it is an anagram of "madonna of the rocks". I guess Dan Brown couldn't think up an anagram to go with "Virgin of the Rocks".

When I went to see this painting in the Louvre, it was hanging in the main Grand Gallery hallway. In the book, Robert is in near the Mona Lisa in a side room - in the Salle des Etats. The guard has him at gunpoint, when the guard spots Sophie in the same room walking around. In fact, the guard is "a good twenty yards" from the entrance to the room, and can't get a good walkie-talkie reception because of the room's security. At that point Sophie grabs the painting. That would be a trick, since the painting isn't in that room. It's out in the Grand Gallery.

About the Paintings Some people claim the painting is actually a wood base painting and therefore Dan Brown was wrong in describing it as canvas. You need to understand that there are actually TWO versions of this painting out there. The wood base one is the copy that is in London. You can see above the differences between the two, in the faces of the people and in the baby Jesus and his staff. Leonardo painted the canvas one in 1483. There were contract issues so he painted another one on wood in 1503, MANY years later. The canvas one is the one in the Louvre. So Dan was correct about that.

Dan Brown claimed that the painting was redone was because the requesters were "furious" at the first version. Actually it was a pretty boring issue about a contract that had Leonardo redo it.

Sophie the Shield Maiden Sophie uses the "Madonna of the Rocks" as a canvas shield to get the guard to drop his gun. Of course this was meant to cause pain and anguish to art lovers everywhere. Specifically, Sophie had just fetched the key out of the back of the frame. She now threatens the guard with the painting's destruction if he doesn't drop his gun. Brown says she picks up this 5' tall painting and wields it. I could strain credibility to think of this woman waving around a 5' tall painting. However, the painting is *really* 6.5' tall and has a HUGE heavy wooden frame. Sophie could hardly have moved it, never mind wielded it like a shield!

This is a very large painting. The frame is very solid. You'd need a weight lifter to move this.

http://www.lisashea.com/hobbies/art/madonnarocks.html

If you wish to debunk someone who's debunking a fictional work, as silly as that may sound, it's better to do so with fact.

[jess35]

Uh...not true. Nice try though

You've already had to correct your original erroneous source to admit I was correct and now you're trying to tell me I was wrong?

This is what happens when you depend on others to tell you what to believe instead of searching for yourself.

[Ngamatapouri]

Having just passed a very enjoyable hour reading all, I must agree with what you said to Darkwolf377, he tried to pull the same trick on Jerryem, I think he needs to read all before offering an opinion and then don't offer it, as it would be somebody else's anyway

[Theo]

... I'd go on, but I'm tired of kicking cripples....

That would be "kicking the handicapped." :-)

Very enjoyable response, by the way. Quite decisive.