Comments on: To See or Not to See – That is the Question

By: The Flim Flam Man

The Flim Flam Man — Mon, 22 May 2006 19:18:29 +0000

I would add one more to your list – that being by paying for the movie you support a dangerous fiction. The actors, director, producers, etc have all been crying ‘It is just fiction, it is just fiction’. German citizens were persuaded by fiction as Hitler cited many times the influence of a fictional book called Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which claimed Jewish bankers and business conspired to take over world trade. But the damage was done. A fictional play called The Deputy had many people the world over claiming Pope Pius XII was ‘Hitler’s Pope” and he worked with Hitler to expel and exterminate Europes Jewery. Whereas through his efforts, Pius XII saved between 700,000 and 800,000 Jews from labor/death camps before and during WWII. Only recently has this lie been exposed in books and previously unreleased Third Reich documents. But the damage was done. Birth of a Nation, was a movie released in 1915 that wove the goals of the Ku Klux Klan and Christianity into one, excusing the violence done towards Black Americans and pro slavery thought of the southern states after our Civil War. But the damage was done. Riots ensued, Blacks were hassled and worst, killed as a result.

We look back on this and ask, how could this happen? “It wouldn’t happen now” as our thinking has progressed and the worldwide human race is so much more tolerant in the 21st century. Well, the death camps of WWII happened just 65 years ago, the killing fields of the Kamer Rouge happened just 40 years ago, the enthnic cleansing of Serbs happened just 10 years ago, and today we see the same thing in Darfur.

Am I out of line to think this movie and book might have the same result? Truthfully, maybe. It is just fiction and great entertainment – I’m told.

By: Laur

Laur — Sat, 20 May 2006 18:27:58 +0000

good to keep in mind that reviewers are calling the movie “davinci code lite” because it backs off alot of the hardcore nutso stuff. i’m with nicki – reading the book seems like a way better option than viewing the movie. i read the book a couple years ago, and i’m glad because i got all the nuance. but the movie – i mean, no one needs to see tom hanks with such bad hair. no one. ick.

By: nicki

nicki — Sat, 20 May 2006 16:20:40 +0000

“No, because if someone dismisses my input about the book/movie, I can simply ask them to explain the basic premise in their own words – then I can respond to that. Again, it’ll end up at the veracity-and-authority-of-Scripture conversation–one for which I think I’m already prepared. If someone is really seeking answers about who Jesus was (and more importantly, who he still is), I’ll point them to the source: Scripture.”

I think this one is your best idea. Only because its the one I would pick, not because it’s necessarily the right one.

My friend who’s not saved read and loved the book, and what she told me just made me feel sick – Mary Magdaline is THE Holy Grail because the blood of Christ’s blood ran inside of her (since she conceived of his child). I don’t think I would want to know any more in detail.

Also an interesting fact, if you decide you do want to view the material, I reccoment reading it rather than watching it. When press previewed it, it flopped. I assume the general public will prefer the book to the movie.