The Passion of the Code

It finally hit me as I was talking to my roommate: the reason why there's so much fuss about the upcoming Da Vinci Code movie.

Certain religious groups got really, really into The Passion of the Christ. I'm talking soundtracks, books, necklaces, all kinds of secondary stuff. Most people didn't get into it, and considered it basically just another controversial movie.

But now that an anti-Christian movie is coming out—however you want to characterize it, these groups still feel threatened—they think the same kind of enthusiasm will sweep out into the public. They fear that it will have the power to turn people against Christianity that they thought The Passion had to turn people to Christianity. Thus the need to preemptively denounce it. Nevermind that to the average person, neither of these movies will end up being a big deal one way or the other.

For the record: I saw The Passion of the Christ; I enjoyed it all right; I didn't find it anti-Semitic; I am not a Christian; I am familiar with the book version; I will not see The Da Vinci Code; I never touched the book.

Share this

>however you want to

>however you want to characterize it, these groups still feel threatened

That's a lousy rule for determining whether something is anti-X.

Good point. Not many martyrs

Good point. Not many martyrs for anti-religiosity, are there? People are motivated much more by a positive, such as Christianity and its attendant promise of immortal life, rather than the negative of atheism, which purports that this life is all there is.

It was a good, moving movie, and I'm not Christian, either.

I am a christian, but I

I am a christian, but I don't see how the Da Vinci Code would turn people against Christianity any more than, say, Harry Potter (with all those evil witches:lol:) does.

The Da Vinci code is anti

The Da Vinci code is anti christian, but what really gets to me about the movie is not this. Its the fact that the book lies in its efforts to discredit christianity. If the religion is so terrible then surely it must be easy to find honest historical reasons to discredit it? Furthermore, I don't think that Dan Brwon is some christ hating zealot, out to destroy the catholic church. Instead i'd bet that the guy is a smart business man who knows that controversy sells.

I've read both "The DaVinci

I've read both "The DaVinci Code" and "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown and they are both good FICTION. Both books base their plots on popular conspiracy theories, historical facts and a some devastating catalyst. If anything is anti-Christian, IMHO, its the Catholic Church and they way they handled their child molesting charges.

btw, I also saw Passion of the Christ and thought it was a good movie and was not anti-Sematic.

There are several major

There are several major issues with 'The Da Vinci Code', et al. All of them were rejected as being even viable historically speaking. One of the sources of information was from 'The Gospel of Judas', and as per two of the already accepted Gospels, Judas committed suicide, in the 'Potters Feild'! And the maon thing is, Jesus either was what he said he was (Saviour, Son of God, died on thne cross, rose on the third day etc.) or he was a liar! Those are the only Two choices! If he wasn't what he said who and what he said he was, he would have been a fake. (Which, as can be seen 2000 yuears later, is nopt the case!)

Kevin: Those are not the

Kevin: Those are not the only two choices. It's possible that the statements attributed to Jesus in the Bible were not actually made by him. It's also entirely possible that there was no such historical figure as Jesus. It's a little odd that you would accept the possibility that the actions attributed to Jesus in the Bible did not actually take place, but not accept the possibility that the statements attributed to Jesus in the Bible are equally fictitious.

Stormy, Whether or not it's

Stormy,

Whether or not it's actually anti-Christian I couldn't answer, but what matters is that these groups think it is. That's why they're denouncing it.

Oddly enough, I see a

Oddly enough, I see a completely different picture. I've actually noticed how little fuss there's been about the upcoming film, at least relative to what some feared might happen. Oh, sure, there's been some denouncing by evangelicals here, a request for a disclamer by the "real" Opus Dei there... but nothing too wild.

When asked by Entertainment Weekly if 200 protestors did indeed show up on the movie set of the Da Vinci Code, producer Ron Howard said there were "two protestors and 198 trying to get autographs". The article also mentions that "most major Catholic organizations have been quiet" about the film.

Maybe there will be more of a roar closer to the release date, but there hasn't been any significant, head-turning protests that I've come across.

Then again, perhaps I'm unwittingly using the recent cartoon riots and the Theo van Gogh death as a basis of comparison, whereas everything looks pretty mild compared to those "protests".

The Da Vinci code is not

The Da Vinci code is not anti-Christian its just Catholics are rather uppity if anyone says anything nasty about them especially Opus Dei. Yet again they will have a coniption fit and get the movie-makers more sales no matter how crap it is.

I guess whether it's

I guess whether it's anti-semitic depends on whether there really was a Christ and whether Jews really contributed to his death doesn't it? The story certainly doesn't paint Jews in a good light.

Now if it is a true story then ones motivation for telling it could be either good or bad. If one tells the story with the understanding that it should be applied to all Jews then certainly that is anti-semitic. If one tells the story just to be plain with the facts than I don't think it is anti-semitic.

If it is not a true story then your motivations in telling the story don't matter. In that case it is an anti-semitic story whether you are aware of it or not. After all it is a story about how corrupt the Jews are that they got Gods only son killed. Historically this story has been the catalyst for quite a bit of Jew butchery, so it seems empirically that this story isn't neutral towards Jews. Jews wouldn't be called "Christ killers" without the story.

I didn't see the movie so I don't know how I would rate Gibson's treatment of this story. Since I believe the story to be false I also believe it to be anti-semitic. However, Gibson, may have dropped the part where Jews are responsible for the death of the "son of God". I doubt it.

Newer religious texts often contain rationals for not continuing to be a member of a prior religion. The bible doesn't speak to Islam but certainly Islam speaks to the bible. Jewish religious texts written prior to the existence of Christianity aren't going to mention Christians. The opposite is not true. These rationals are often unflattering. So you end up with stories about Jews killing Christ in Christian holy books, and Christians corrupting Allahs word in Muslim holy books.

I think it's fair to say that the Bible is anti-semitic and that the Qu'ran is anti-semitic and anti-Christian.

By Bible you mean the New

By Bible you mean the New Testament right? Because you have to specify. When most people think of the Bible they think both New & Old. The Old Testament certainly isnt't anti-semitic. The reason the New Testament is anti-Jew is because Gospels were selected deliberately to paint Jews in bad light viz the death of Jesus.

I don't believe the story,

I don't believe the story, but I think whether it is anti-semitic depends on whether the actions of the Jews are presented as being the responsibility only of the Jewish people, or of all God's children. I was taught that as a Christian one should identify with the Jews, that "we", not "they", had killed Christ, in the same way that we're supposed to have shared the responsibility for the sins of Adam and Eve.

I think James point is

I think James point is important here. Also, Jesus was a Jew. Can a religion with a keystone belief in Jesus, a Jew, being the Son of God also be anti-semitic?

Most religions can be intepretted however society needs them to be understood. Anti-semitism in the Bible? Sure I can see that interpretation. I'm just not convinced that it makes sense.

-From an ex-believer.

If people would actually

If people would actually listen, Dan Brown isnt saying that Christianity is bust.
Its just a book thats saying what if to make people think and keep peoples intentions.
If you think a book and movie that is KNOWN TO BE FICTITIOUS can lure people away from religion, then they probably werent very faithful anyways.