Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
A name that says it all
The Vatican says it will not allow an upcoming movie to film on location because the work–Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code prequel, Angels and Demons–is “an offence against God.”
“It would be unacceptable to transform churches into film sets so that his blasphemous novels can be made into films in the name of business,” said [Archbishop Velasio De Paolis, the head of the Vatican's Prefecture for Economic Affairs], adding that Brown’s work “wounds common religious feelings.”
Father Marco Fibbi, a spokesman for the Diocese of Rome, said: “Normally we read the script but this time it was not necessary. The name Dan Brown was enough.”
Topic: Entertainment, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top16 Comments to “A name that says it all”
Didnt see the Da Vinci Code. Those who read the novel told me the film was horrific disappointmt.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with the Vatican.
Movies based on total fantasy are nothing new. But the worst thing about Dan Brown’s total fantasies are that he actually means to pass a lot of it off as real. One of the front pages of the ‘Da Vinci Code’ actually contained a blatantly false introductory claim that the historical, artistic and archetectual aspects of his book were real and true (my paraphrase from memory). That was profoundly dishonest, considering the nonsense that followed. When Dan Brown writes, you cannot even trust the words “the” and “it.”
Report comment to moderator
Why should the Church assist Dan Brown in propagating his hateful, paranoid fantasies about them?
Report comment to moderator
Good for them.
Report comment to moderator
I agree, I read the book. It is a novel which we are lead to believe has a foundation of fact. However, the entire premise is fantasy.
They are wise not to support this.
Report comment to moderator
#2 Great usage of the Lillian Hellman quote
Report comment to moderator
The hatred Hollywood has for the Catholic Church never ceases to amaze me.
But Michael Medved, the film critic, said that with all the trash coming out of Hollywood the Catholic Church should be proud Hollywood hates it so much.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Brown’s fantasy of a normal Jesus who had sex and fathered a child is every bit as believable, indeed even much more likely than the fantasy promulgated by the Vatican and its prostestant progeny for 1700 years. Most cults, back then and today, feature sexual involvement between leaders and followers.
But I keep coming back to that naked young man who fled when the cops showed up at the door…
Report comment to moderator
Aracdia, Mr. Brown’s fantasy came out of his own head 2,000 years later. The Vatican’s view is historically based on primary documents written in the first century by people who actually knew Jesus. I believe those documents were divinely inspired, buut even if you don’t, you should be able to see and grasp the credibility gap between the Vatican’s view and that of Mr. Brown.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
The last thing the anti religion, secular left wants to hear are facts Joel. But the rest of us would immediately recognize them and agree with you.
Why they prey on a Christian website says much about their character, motives and terrorist inclinations. Yes, all terrorists lack self control, they have no shame and they can never be satisfied – until you are dead.
Report comment to moderator
It’s no longer necessary to film on location since the advent of reverse engineering of architectural models. These models, when used with blue screens, are as realistic as the real deal. The Vatican needs to copyright the likenesses of all their assets to prevent 3D models of their edifices being used in future movies.
Report comment to moderator
6. I thought that it’s a Mary McCarthy quote.
Report comment to moderator
JoelMark: Those documents are contradictory, and subject to interpretation. NO originals exist anywhere which date to the 1st century. In other words there are NO primary sources.
Would you bet your worldview or your life on any other kind of document that related some other kind of event which happened in a foreign land several hundred years earlier?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
I have given my life to the study of those documents and I disagree that they are contradictory. They are amazingly consistent, even though different authors contributed.
And you are incorrect about the no originals existing which date in the 1st century. There are no full manuscripts from that date but there are plenty of original fragments from that time.
There is no serious scholarship that questions the first centruy origins of the NT and centuries of historical and textual criticism have served to confirm it.
There are no ancient documents in history that have a fraction of the volume of scientific, fragmentary and manuscript evidence that back up the NT. When it comes to Jesus and the 1st century origins of Christianity, the NT books are the confirmed primary documents, having stood up for millennia to the scrutiny of scholars. They history of their reproductions and copying is also quite confirming.
The independent corroboration of the early church fathers who quoted from the NT documents often also adds to the credibility of those documents.
You don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to, but you cannot honestly try to remove them from their first century context and origins.
Report comment to moderator
JM: “The NT books are the confirmed primary documents having stood up for millenia”
A scrap here, a scrap there, which have been picked over, selected and cobbled together by men with different agendas at different times.
The “discards” are especially interesting.
As for your claim that There are no ancient documents in history that have a fraction of the volume of scientific, fragmentary and manuscript evidence that back up the NT., I suggest that there hundreds of papyri and ancient Greek writings which are hundreds or even thousands of years older than the NT, which have been vetted just as extensively. Here is a wiki link for your consideration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Egyptian_papyri_by_date
Incidentally, there is a link from that page to New Testament papyri, which claims that these are about the best and earliest “original” NT versions; the earliest appears to be around 300 years AD. Once again I ask if you can fairly ask anybody to base their entire worldview on the equivalent of a brand new report written today describing a previously unknown spectacular or miraculous event which happened in 1708??
Report comment to moderator
yeah arcadia, the Ussherian chronology just about fits that bill. and that is cutting edge science to many of these folks.
the pope should call the evangelicals in US and tell them that it is unacceptable to transform churches into film sets, since that is the money maker for many of the big evangelists. they too are willing to buy into heresies and contradictory doctrine just to lubricate the greased palm at the collection plate.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!