You can be skeptical and friendly at the same time.
Follow Patheos Atheist:
Jesus meets Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code:
Love the ending
(via Heathen.tv) [tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]
I have not read the book but the movie (whether you agree with it’s view points or not) from an entertainment point of view was pretty good.
I agree. The book was very good as well, as other Dan Brown books are also. The operative word is “Fiction.” Why do people get so worked up over nothing?
I find it very interesting that it’s usually the Christians who get all bent out of shape everytime something like this or the Golden Compass comes out.
I would challenge the Christian with this:
If you have a firm foundation in your beliefs and you do actually believe what you believe is really real; then even if the devil himself made a blockbuster hit, it should not fill you with fear.
Now that would be something worth seeing. I would take my family to go see it. It would be very entertaining.
And Hemant, great clip!
That was so funny.
Yes, Linda, it is fiction and not to sound rude, cruel or what have you, but why do people get worked up about the fiction call the Bible? It’s a work of fiction too. Yet, if someone makes one remark against it, they get bent out of shape. Go figure.
The Da Vinci Code was pretty dreadful, not entertaining at all. That’s the book — I haven’t seen the movie, and don’t see any any reason to do so. First, Dan Brown is a lousy writer; he doesn’t know the meaning of a lot of the big words he uses. Second, the plot is fairly standard political-thriller stuff but it gets tangled up in the boring polemic. And third, though as an atheist I’m perfectly willing to see Christianity attacked, Brown did such a bad job of it. He’s astoundingly ignorant of just about everything. (Even in his fantasy world, knowing the entire Hebrew alphabet by heart is no great intellectual achievement; I daresay most Israelis can do it.)
Sure, it’s fiction, but Brown announces at the beginning that the historical and other factual material is accurate. It’s not. I had much more fun reading Ben Witherington III’s attack on the book; but infuriating fundamentalists, while a valid aim in itself, is so easy to do that it’s no accomplishment. Bart Ehrman’s book criticizing the novel is quite good, though, and might inform any of you all who care to be informed.
It was interesting,too, to watch the book’s fans flipflop: Sure, it’s inaccurate, but hey, it’s fiction, just be entertained. Well, sure, it’s dull and about as entertaining as a root canal, but it’s so thought-provoking. Besides, it’s just a story, just lie back and enjoy it! … And so on.
The TV skit was mildly amusing, though. People who get off on it, though, must be roughly the counterparts of the Christians who are infuriated by the book: it doesn’t take much to get them going.
I enjoyed both the book and the movie. To be honest, part of my enjoyment was in knowing that it probably bothered Christians. I know… My bad…
Anyway, it is ironic that another line of reasoning is that Jesus may not actually have existed as described in the gospels. There was not much of anything (or nothing) written about Jesus’ ministry until a couple of generations after his supposed crucifixion. If that possibility (that he never existed) ever penetrates the mainstream, we will probably have Christians jumping at any possible evidence that Jesus may have married (like all rabbies did of Jesus’ time) and had children. A direct bloodline from Jesus would support the case for a historical Jesus. But the Christians can’t have that. Jesus having sex is just too much to deal with. Its all pretty funny.
I personally don’t think there is a bloodline of Jesus. There is that old joke: if your parents didn’t have children, then neither will you. I think that applies to Jesus.
Follow Patheos on