It’s the popularity of the book that invites this condemnation
I realize thatr this is a “Duh!” type of reaction, but it’s true. The original Holy Blood, Holy Grail floated the concepts, and claimed tio be non-fiction, and was best-seller (although not of this maghnitude, and with no bloclbuster movie).
Thomas Gifford’s novel **Assassini[/B[ had murderous Catholic Church operatives :
I should probably point out that I can’t see how the movie could be much good: not only was the book not very good to begin with, it seemed unfilmable, with most of the “action” is people working things out in Socratic internal or external dialogues, and nothing ultimately comes of anything that happens. Was Sophie part of the bloodline or something? I don’t even remember, because it’s completely forgettable.
The determination and obsession that the right-wing press has with it being bad (drudge has headlined virtually every criticism he can find) is a little irritating though. I almost want it to be good and do well just to shut them up about it. People who run around with chips piled high their shoulders are just so tempting…
That’s not totally unexpected, as Arinze was in the Top 10 of almost everyone who had any knowledge of church politics back when we were making book over JPII’s deathbed.
Early reports from Cannes are unanimous that the flick blows mammoth chunks. By condemning it, the RCC is only making people feel obliged to go see it anyway. What’s so hard to understand about just letting it die naturally and quickly?
The first thing that bothered you wasn’t the horrendous writing?
I haven’t read it, but I’ve seen enough excerpts, including the book’s opening lines, to be astonished at how godawful the writing in a bestseller can be.
Nope. I was there once when the Pope was leading a Mass (I wasn’t there for the Mass, that just happened to be the day Mr Neville and I decided to see the Vatican). They had folding chairs set up, that looked about as uncomfortable as folding chairs usually are.
I haven’t read the book and won’t be seeing the movie.
But this synopsis in today’s paper makes me really sympathetic to Brown’s version. Primarily b/c his view pretty much coincides with mine and I’ve never bought the Biblical traditions, they don’t make sense.
That’s not to say that I have some kind of scholarly “proof” that “Early followers of Jesus viewed him as wholly human”; simply that I view him that way. The Council of Nicaea’s vote DOES amount to a conspiracy, in a way - they embued their leader with supernatural qualities that couldn’t be disproven, and of which they had no personal knowledge, in order to further their aims. Sounds conspiratorial to me.
And while they made their Savior the biggest badass on the block, they also burdened Christianity with these supernatural claims that don’t make sense, never have, and never will. And then people argue about THAT instead of learning about “God”. It would be a more effective religion if they DID come clean about Jesus’ humanity & cut the hocus-pocus crap.
I think that’s why people are interested in the story, not b/c of blind albinos.
Um… You do know that the Council of Nicea was in the 4th Century, right? Long after the divinity of Christ was established in the Church. The Nicene Creed’s statement on the divinity of Christ is mainly a codification of this belief, in a way that excludes Arianism (“Begotten, not made/ One in being with the Father”).
It’s hard to call something a religion without supernatural crap. It would be especially odd at the time Christianity was founded.
Nope, don’t know beans about it – I was just going by the info in the article I quoted.
But I will tell you that I personally dumped Christianity at age 8, when I figured out that billions of Chinese couldn’t all be doomed to Hell just b/c they believed in a different God. I mean, really.
