Wednesday, May 24, 2006
The Da Vinci Kerfluffle
I listened to the radio this morning and heard Jerry Springer remark about the Da Vinci code. I'll paraphrase his statement. "Making a movie like the Da Vinci code is like making a movie about the Holocaust as a hoax."
Well... I have to disagree.
The whole kerfluffle about the Da Vinci code is that it questions the validity of Christian teaching and dogma. It's also a work of fiction. FICTION. It's not fact. The author found some things that are real and factual, and then put them in his book to tell a story.
(I thought the movie was boring, but the subject matter was interesting. But I digress.)
OK, back to Springer's statement. The problem with his statement is that he is saying the truth of Christianity is as true as the Holocaust. Therein lies the problem. Christianity is resting on a house of cards. As long as people believe there was a guy named Jesus who was the son of God, and he performed miracles, Christianity remains valid.
The Holocaust however doesn't rely on people's faith to believe it happened. There are hours of documentary footage, piles of photographs, and millions of witness testimonies to attest to the fact that the Holocaust really happened. The concentration camps are still intact as museums and memorials to all those whose lives were snuffed by the Nazis.
In other words, there is overwhelming evidence to prove the Holocaust was real and it happened.
There is no overwhelming evidence to prove that Jesus was real, or that he performed miracles, or that he was the son of God, or for that matter that there is even a God. (Watch the movie, "The God Who Wasn't There" to see what I mean.)
Belief in God, Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Zeus, or any other supernatural or divine entity is an act of faith. It's a grand assumption. Evidence and proof of existence of anything paranormal is irrelevant to people of faith. They believe what they believe regardless of evidence.
So, Christianity exists because people believe it to be true. They have faith that it's true. If they begin to look under the hood, they'll find lots of questions and few answers that satisfy. Religion is built on a house of cards. It's a stacked deck. Once you believe, you believe for life.
At least until you learn to question your beliefs.
So, Jerry Springer's statement was incorrect. Making a movie or writing a book about how Christianity is a dubious religion is not like making a movie about how the Holocaust was faked. It's a perfectly valid book to write, since Christianity's validity and religion's validity are based on intangible and baseless proofs to make their case. To write a fictional book about real world things is the stuff that fiction writers do.
Nobody gets on the case of Stephen King if he writes a book about a car coming to life and being possessed by an evil spirit. Nobody questions Tom Clancy when he writes about a president who doesn't exist, and writes about a special agent who does incredible things. (Even though Clancy does extensive research on military and government things.) Nobody complains about John Grisham writing about lawyers who aren't real, and bout cases that never happened. (Even though he was a real life lawyer who knows about law.) Why is Dan Brown singled out and attacked?
The reason is because underneath the surface of his writings there is a grain of truth. Christianity, like all religions, can be made invalid by skepticism and disbelief. The Christians are understandably hot under the collar about The Da Vinci Code. After all, it brings into question the integrity of the church, the validity of religion and belief, and asks that people look into the reality behind religion.
Free thinking people asking open questions about any religion is dangerous. People might actually learn something, and being to think for themselves. Just imagine, a world filled with people skeptical about authority. A world filled with people that learn to think, question, and reason. Pretty creepy isn't it. That's what has the powers that be frightened about The Da Vinci Code.
Too bad the movie sucked.
I listened to the radio this morning and heard Jerry Springer remark about the Da Vinci code. I'll paraphrase his statement. "Making a movie like the Da Vinci code is like making a movie about the Holocaust as a hoax."
Well... I have to disagree.
The whole kerfluffle about the Da Vinci code is that it questions the validity of Christian teaching and dogma. It's also a work of fiction. FICTION. It's not fact. The author found some things that are real and factual, and then put them in his book to tell a story.
(I thought the movie was boring, but the subject matter was interesting. But I digress.)
OK, back to Springer's statement. The problem with his statement is that he is saying the truth of Christianity is as true as the Holocaust. Therein lies the problem. Christianity is resting on a house of cards. As long as people believe there was a guy named Jesus who was the son of God, and he performed miracles, Christianity remains valid.
The Holocaust however doesn't rely on people's faith to believe it happened. There are hours of documentary footage, piles of photographs, and millions of witness testimonies to attest to the fact that the Holocaust really happened. The concentration camps are still intact as museums and memorials to all those whose lives were snuffed by the Nazis.
In other words, there is overwhelming evidence to prove the Holocaust was real and it happened.
There is no overwhelming evidence to prove that Jesus was real, or that he performed miracles, or that he was the son of God, or for that matter that there is even a God. (Watch the movie, "The God Who Wasn't There" to see what I mean.)
Belief in God, Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Zeus, or any other supernatural or divine entity is an act of faith. It's a grand assumption. Evidence and proof of existence of anything paranormal is irrelevant to people of faith. They believe what they believe regardless of evidence.
So, Christianity exists because people believe it to be true. They have faith that it's true. If they begin to look under the hood, they'll find lots of questions and few answers that satisfy. Religion is built on a house of cards. It's a stacked deck. Once you believe, you believe for life.
At least until you learn to question your beliefs.
So, Jerry Springer's statement was incorrect. Making a movie or writing a book about how Christianity is a dubious religion is not like making a movie about how the Holocaust was faked. It's a perfectly valid book to write, since Christianity's validity and religion's validity are based on intangible and baseless proofs to make their case. To write a fictional book about real world things is the stuff that fiction writers do.
Nobody gets on the case of Stephen King if he writes a book about a car coming to life and being possessed by an evil spirit. Nobody questions Tom Clancy when he writes about a president who doesn't exist, and writes about a special agent who does incredible things. (Even though Clancy does extensive research on military and government things.) Nobody complains about John Grisham writing about lawyers who aren't real, and bout cases that never happened. (Even though he was a real life lawyer who knows about law.) Why is Dan Brown singled out and attacked?
The reason is because underneath the surface of his writings there is a grain of truth. Christianity, like all religions, can be made invalid by skepticism and disbelief. The Christians are understandably hot under the collar about The Da Vinci Code. After all, it brings into question the integrity of the church, the validity of religion and belief, and asks that people look into the reality behind religion.
Free thinking people asking open questions about any religion is dangerous. People might actually learn something, and
Too bad the movie sucked.
