Da Vinci Code Actor: Bible Should Have 'Fiction' Disclaimer

I suppose that one man's word you think I'm taking is Moses, but no, I'm taking the testimony and continued belief of the people in what they saw upon Moses return, the sign of God glowing from his face. That's not taking in all the other miracles that occurred at the time.

how do you know all it is is faith based on a word.

i can say im god
and here it is in writeing why wont you beleave it?
as its in writeing

All religious works are written by humans, at least that I've seen, but having not seen deifinitive proof of the existence or non-existence of the Decalogue tablets, I cannot say for certain. I don't believe they exist, but I have no proof one way or the other.

For my own religion, the holy books were definitely written by people, claiming divine inspiration. This would make God the author, and the writes the scribes. I believe it to be true, but again I have no proof, and how could anyone possibly prove that anyway? Is it true? Maybe, maybe not.

The writers of the Bible claimed divine inspiration. Is it true? Maybe, maybe not.

In the end it all comes down to a matter of faith. You either have it or you don't, you either believe or you don't. And though not impossible, it is very hard to get someone from one of these two positions to switch sides. But why bother? I have my beliefs, you have yours, Mark has his, etc. I'm not going to try to talk you or anyone else around to my faith, that action is not a part of my practice.

Of course there are some who consider it their mission to bring others around, to save them. Okay, if that is a part of their practice then have at it, as long as that action doesn't conflict with the rights of those they would convert.

Which part of history do you not understand?

who can prove theres a god?

other ancient history. We are more certain that Jesus lived and died than we are that Aristotle did. I still haven't mentioned God.

That's all this book and movie really are. If everyone realizes in essence the author is a peddler of heresy disguised as factual dissertation with a weak disclaimer to fall back on, it becomes in context of how trivial he and his work really are.

On the good side it gives others with the Truth a chance to put forth that Truth by exposing the Lie, and that's not a bad thing at all.

The book and movie are just an excuse for those who already wish to believe in conspiracy theories and to reject the validity of God a current means of doing so and maybe having some short lasting aura of psuedo intellectualism to do so.

#If Mr. Brown wants his readers to draw informed conclusions regarding the theories his characters spew out then he should at least do the reader the favor of getting the facts right#

if i understood your post, then the facts that his characters were discussing are correct...the fact that you or others disagree with the theories his characters spew out is irrelevant...


jonah "didn't like the book that much" jones


..

Brown DID NOT get the facts right, and I didn't say that he did. He MAY have accurately described a variety of ancient documents, architectural features and so on. I don't have the expertise to fully evaluate that.

HOWEVER

Even if he got the document descriptions right, he did not get a lot of the basic history right. A lot of the nonsense his characters spew was not specifically linked to particular documents so their historically nonsensical claims were not covered by the author's assertion of basic accuracy. That mixture of a little truth with a lot of half truths, misrepresentations and lies presented under the cover of a carefully worded but misleading claim of historical accuracy has fooled enough people that I think it would be reasonable for the novel (and presumably the movie if it is faithful to the novel) to carry a label declaring it a work of fiction.

Whether I like his conclusions or not is irrelevant. I have no objection to people engaging in debate of those theories as long as they stick to the facts. Dan Brown didn't.

like star wars did it stick to facts?

Last time I watched a Star Wars movie it didn't claim to be historically accurate.

just as the bibles fiction

I won't waste my time arguing with you regarding the authenticity or the accuracy of the Bible. It is what it is, you can accept it or reject it or label it as you wish.

I don't see that as relevant to this discussion of The Da Vinci Code. The Bible's accuracy does not stand or fall based on anything Dan Brown wrote. Nor does it stand or fall based on anything you or I write or think or believe.

BTW: I can't help but observe that your post is precisely the sort of non-sequitir with a zinger that causes so many complaints when coming from Rob or some others.

you don't have to reply you know feel free to ignore any post i make. as to zinger i dont see it.i have tried to hold my tounge as i see some here are zelots about there bible.


as i see it its bad when the radical Muslims want to kill behead a person for a cartoon.
and the catholic church gets bent out of shape over a movie, seems same kind of nonsense.

... that you label the Catholic Church's objection to being portrayed wrongly silly, and yet claim that Passion of the Christ was antisemetic.

Inasmuch as ALL history is a story of what happened by man, the Bible is a historical document.

I'm not sure this is a perfect analogy to get this point across, but let's say I were to write a book referencing how some prominent Zionists of the 1940's conspired with Hitler to concoct the great illusion of the Holocaust so as to get the international community on board with the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel?

I name names, cite architecture, etc., but accuse the Zionist movement of historically inaccurate and unsubstantiated things. Such a work REQUIRES a disclaimer.

So, too, does Da Vinci Code. Equating the reactions of the Catholic church to this vs. the Muslim reaction to the cartoons is inflammatory IMO.

Evie

i just didnt go to see it evie didnt need to have a disclaimer for it

... neither are most Christians, even Catholics. A LITTLE respect for a religion would be nice for a change. A disclaimer would be no big deal since it is fiction. The reticence to provide one speaks volumes to the profit motive.

Evie

Not the first time.

believing the claim, it's time for the author to step up and say it's not true. Did you ever hear of War of the Worlds?

are fools, idiots are jerks as you saying hey need to be told

It would help a great deal Mark if your posts contained a bit more reflection.

Of course the people objecting are not fools, idiots, or jerks. The people objecting know it's not true. They're worried about the people who will be conned, to their detriment, by a clever deception.

theres a sucker born every day if there so naive to beleave all the see read i cant say enough

DaVinci code refers to organizaitons and people by name. Lucas didn't have it turn out that Darth Vader was Jesus.

The way I see this, the reticence to use a disclaimer is pure marketing ploy. Apparently they'll need that and then some cuz the buzz isn't too good.

Evie

... did better in its first weekend and it was a pretty pathetic quality movie. If you want to waste your money, I don't really care.

Evie

... it is bad enough getting that from some others here. NOBODY thinks Star Wars is real because it doesn't even elude to real people & organizations. This is the distinction with the DaVinci code you don't seem to grasp. It is a made up story but about real people and an organization that still exists today.

I was raised Catholic and confirmed. My husband spent several years in Roman Catholic schools. Neither one of us had even heard of Opus Dei until all of this. Do you think it is fair of Dan Brown to give so many the wrong impression about this group? It's about as inflammatory as spinning a tale of Congress claiming the Congressional Black Caucus enacts voo doo rituals in theri meetings. Considering how many in the population have no idea who the VP is, not to mention being able to name any Congress Critter. Do you think they might just take it as the truth?

I see you didn't answer my Oliver Stone analogy. You wouldn't object or be offended? Somehow I don't think you would accept a disclaimer as going far enough.

Evie

a commedian on TV and he was asked how long he has been playing his character. His answer, Play?

is the NY Times good enough for you?

A lot of us don't check out our reading lists on the NYT best sellers list.

If Dan Brown hadn't claimed that the book was historically accurate then I wouldn't care whether the book proclaimed its status as fiction.