Angels & Demons & Disclaimers

The accurate name is:

"Pretty Wingy, Talking, Fictional Thingies & Demons of the Demented"

Interesting India's Father Babu Joseph was offended by Hanks' pay for the movie. Was he equally concerned when the producers of "Slum Dog Millionair" only paid the Indian children from the Bombay ghetto $3,000 each for 8 months work?

Methinks the good Father's protests are more related to the subject. I read the book this year - it's great action fiction. Too bad Catholics and the Vatican church are so weak in their faith in themselves that they are afraid of this movie and are trying to bully the rest of us to ban it.

You're poll is biased because there is no option to enthusiastically go see the movie.

I voted for ID as fiction, to free believers from the suspicion that they're being put upon. On the + side, "Angels and Demons" as fantasy may get some folks to using this religious language for transcendent realities in human life. Further, why should the gift of fantasy be exercized only in the non-religious realm?

I hear fiction every time I hear a preacher speek from any of the denominations of our Lord who cannot be denominated.

As far as any other fictions, outside church, being an offense to anyone then let them be even more offended for neither knowing what scriptures say (Num 23:19; 2Tim 3:16-17) and for not knowing that even a priest's interpretation scatters wormwood (Jer 23:1-3,15,28-30; Ps 1:1-4; Matt 3:11-12).

The epistles to Timothy were not written by Paul but by a pseudo Paul making said passages not "god-inspired" if there is such a thing. See Father Raymond Brown's "An Introduction to the New Testament", p. 654.

The OT is a combination of fiction and embellishments making Num, Jer, and PS poor support for anything.

www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

Matt 3:11-12 is the only passage noted above that might have any validity with respect to being historic. John appears to be making way for a protege but notes nothing about said person being deity.

http://www.faithfutures.org/wiki/index.php?title=115_Johns_Message

On the back cover of my copy, the word "Fiction" is clearly printed in the upper left corner.
Seems to me that if your faith can be damaged by a movie adaptation of a novel, neither the book nor the movie ar the source of the problem.

I cinsiedr Dan Brown's books a fun way to kill a couple of hours. The film version of "DaVinci Code" served the same purpose for me and my daughter.
When we went, there were actually sign-waving protesters lining the drive to the cinema, and a couple of guys standing near the box office trying to dissuade people from going to see it. I told them the same thing I told the folks picketing the cinema where I saw "Last Temptation of Christ" - "If you don't like it, you needn't buy a ticket. Problem solved."

Why would David Waters censor my posts when everything that I say are only the truth?

David, don't you think you are the wrong person to ask if a movie be banned or not?

If you are ignorant of the Bible, don't gag those who knew better than you please.

CCNL, you are another ignorant person. Angels have no wings, for your information. If you were taught that they have wings, it only means that you were surrounded with ignorant people and thus you grew up to be an ignorant person yourself.

Hmmm, angels have no wings and that from a red-necked Christian whose "beliefs" revolve around winged, fictional creatures like Gabriel and Satan.

CCNL, have you heard of the words "TIME WARP"? Einstein's equations proved that it is possible. There are lots of things that ordinary people like you are ignorant of.

Angels don't need wings to travel, appear and disappear. If you think that time warp is fictional, then nothing will cure your stupidity.

When the Bible described a man having wings, it was a figurative speech, idiot.

According to Professors Lanza and Berman in their new book,
"Biocentrism", the last frontier is Consciousness.

In the book, they discuss god, angels and what they consider the inane nature of both.

Excerpts:

"However, the Grand Canyon or Taj Mahal are only real when you get there." p. 160.

"Third Principle of Biocentrism:

The behavior of subatomic particles- indeed all particles and objects- is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves." p. 93.

"So the table has been set in the public mind for biocentrism's jump to the reality that its all only in the mind, that the universe exists nowhere else." p. 167.

CCNL quoted "it's all only in the mind, that the universe exists nowhere else."

Man has developed many types of electronic sensors to detect what it is designed for. None have consciousness but they can detect many things including images which are lightyears away from us.

Stop reading too much fiction. It's doing you no good.

This is surely one of those "who cares" topics.

We have movies about werewolves, dracula, elves, and all manner of imaginary creatures and beings, and nobody complains about that.

Why should we care about the imaginary beings in this movie?

Spidermean2 aka Spiderman2 aka Canyon Shearer, Bible Thumper, Fortune Teller and Severely Brainwashed in that Old Time Religion,

Professors Lanza and Berman go into great detail about the problems with detectors in their new book, Biocentrism.

"Robert Lanza, M.D., Ph D. is considered one of the leading scientists in the world. He is currently Chief Scientific Officer at Advanced Cell Technology, and Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. He has hundreds of publications and inventions, and 20 scientific books: among them, "Principles of Tissue Engineering," which is recognized as the definitive reference in the field."

CCNL wrote "He is currently Chief Scientific Officer at Advanced Cell Technology"

DNA is still a mystery and there is no such thing as "advance" in cell technology. Everything that we know about cells are prehistoric in relation to what we don't know about it.

Also, biologists are not engineers. Without engineers I don't know if it's possible for biologists to peep on powerful microscopes and get images from CAT scanners.

You claim to be an old person already. There is still time to catch up before it's too late. Be smart coz your stupidity will shame you in the presence of God.

Use your OWN brain and don't depend on people who think they are smart when obviously they are a bunch of idiots.

Don't allow it that you will pay for things which other people crafted for you. Make your own.

Some "angelic" history- for those eyes that have not seen-

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinker bell" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinker bells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallucinating:

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

And tinker bells go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

Angels usually disguise themselves as ordinary people. Most often, they present themselves as beggars in dirty clothes.

Not in white raiment with wings as CCNL was taught.

"Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained ANGELS without knowing it." (Hebrews 13:2)

Some people can attest that this is true. They disappear in a wink of an eye once you turn your back at them. TIME WARP? Probably, and they do happen.

Spiderman, Spiderman, Spiderman,

You noted:

"Not in white raiment with wings as CCNL was taught."

What is it you do not understand about the word "fictional" in, "pretty, wingie, talking, fictional thingies" aka angel aka tinker bell aka fairy ??????

CCNL, if you want to stay stupid and willing to pay the price for it, it's your decision.

I just want to remind you that Einstein's theory of relativity (time warp) opens the possiblity that TIME can stop. It means that if there is hell and time stops, one could fry forever. ONE COULD BE STUCK IN THERE COZ TIME HAD FROZEN.

Remember, stupidity is self-destructive. Don't be so comfortable with it.

The Bible is like a gigsaw puzzle with all its metaphors. Once you understand those metaphors, you'd conclude that only a God can make such a sophisticated document.

I don't know if you can appreciate those words. It's a pity if you can't.

And somehow Spidermean2 aka Spiderman2 aka Canyon Shearer, Bible Thumper, Fortune Teller and Severely Brainwashed in that Old Time Religion has become a biblical and quantum theory exegete?? PhDs were acquired at what school?? What years?? Thesis titles??

Thomas Edison is the reason why we have light bulbs, incubators, music recordings, cinemas, etc. He didn't have any formal education. No college degree to speak of.

But he just spent much more time on the subject he chooses than the average Phd holders. "Genius is 99% perspiration", he said.

If you credit the time I spend in analyzing the Bible, I probably would get a triple PhD.

Seek and ye shall find. Try it sometimes coz it works.

Another thing. The Bible is a different book. You need to commune with the author to explore it. Those who will try without guidance will utterly fail.

You are a prime example of that miserable FAILURE.

Snakes don't talk and God is actually not that concerned with snakes. If your trusted exegetes can't interpret the meaning of that metaphor, dump them. How in the world can a snake dictate the fall of man?

The level of intelligence the Bible possesses is simply beyond the reach of people who tries to discredit it. The gap is so great that it's like comparing a diamond to a dog's vomit.

Hmmm, analyzing the bible first requires reading the following:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

30-60 Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

Then by reading:

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/

17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf

18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

and finishing with:

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:
pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.

33. The books of the following other On Faith panelists: Professors Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Elaine Pagels, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.

34. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

35. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus,

ROFLMAO!!!!

CCNL and Spidey are having a discussion!!!

Too funny!

Gaby, Gaby, Gaby,

Actually, it also for your benefit. Hopefully you learned something since your constant chatter with Arminius is so lacking of content.

Lepi,

The pot-boilers of Dan Brown, though wildly entertaining, are so riddled with historical inconsistencies that they ought not to damage the faith. The trouble is that some people (and I've met some of them) will treat Brown's words as actual truth, either out of pure ignorance or some anti-Catholic animus.

Should the film be banned? Of course not! Should it be picketed? Probably not, since the ignorant will see that as proof of its veracity. Should Catholics (and, by extension, other Christians) strive to correct the false impressions created by such works. Absolutely!

ColoradoDog:

You wrote: "Too bad Catholics and the Vatican church are so weak in their faith in themselves that they are afraid of this movie and are trying to bully the rest of us to ban it."

Here is the Vatican's statement as quoted in the article: "Meanwhile, the Vatican, which condemned "The Da Vinci Code" -- the 2006 Howard/Hanks/Brown offering -- as "an offense against God," describes the new Catholic conspiracy flick as 'harmless entertainment which hardly affects the genius and mystery of Christianity.'" Hardly a call to stifle the movie, wouldn't you agree?

CCNL, I assume that you have read the books you've listed. So what did you learn? Can you now interpret the metaphor of the talking snake?

Unless, you do, your learnings are useless. Maybe what you need is to contemplate on just a single verse and while contemplating, use your BRAIN.

Maybe that is what is missing in your list.
Tell that to your "exegetes".

It's just a movie based on a fiction book, folks. Is faith so weak that it sees threats from the cinema? Best for us to just enjoy the movie (or not) and focus on real faith.

Spidermean2 aka Spiderman2 aka Canyon Shearer, Bible Thumper, Fortune Teller and Severely Brainwashed in that Old Time Religion,

Hmmm, there was no Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve of the Bible were simply myths just like Angels and Demons. And therefore there was no talking snake to get all "metaphoric" about!!

Bill Maher might be able to help though. See:

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/btm/feature/2008/10/02/maher/

"Do movies really threaten the faithful?"

----------------------------------

That would be a "No", unless their faith is so weak it cannot stand earthly consternations.

You know, like that self-impressed Donohoe creature's "faith".

Spidermean,

Do you get that your commentary is more than a bit deranged?

Stop skipping your meds, OK?

Good grief, what a sad person.

I don't know what this movie is about exactly but if it offends the church I am all for it. Most churches just teach a bastion of lies to put fear in people. Then the pass the colectin plate to pay the preacher mortgage and car note.

seriously, if you need religion you are weak anyway, what a crutch, and basically what a crock

The poll is disingenuous because, as one poster already mentioned, it has no option to vote 'Excited and can't wait to see what should be a great movie!'

Anyway, I think a sign should be posted outside all movie theaters that says something like:

"If you are a religious person and therefore cannot understand the difference between fiction and reality, please know that 'fiction' means 'not real', and that there are no such things as zombies, vampires, Jason, Freddie, King Kong, or other monsters and so on. If you still cannot understand this, then please at least respect the rights of others who do understand."

The problem with film like this is that the average moviegoer does not have the basic intelligence to separate fact from fiction. Many of them actually believe what they see and hear in a film and Howard is irresponsible, as usual, not to point this out in his films. Hollywood in general is guilty of some of the most monumental intentional falsehoods. A good example is the treatment of the cold blooded murderess Aileen Wuornos in the film 'Monster'. An absolute disgrace and a disservice to the public sacrificing the truth in the interest of some warped feminism.

Mr Spiderman Sir. Your account of Angels is correct (as you know) and CCNL is way off base(as we know) I have seen Angel/ Angels at four different times in my long life. Get over it bitter CCNL and get with it.

Yonkers, New York
17 May 2009

Die-hard Catholics who are for banning movies like "The Da Vince Code," "The Passion of Christ," and "Angels and Demons"
have a very good reason for doing so.

They fear that it will set intelligent Catholics to thinking hard about religion in general and to their Roman Catholic faith in particular, and probably reach the rational conclusion that religion is the greatest fraud foisted on mankind by clever, crafty and deceitful men long ago for the purpose of manipulating and exploiting it.

Mariano Patalinjug

Spidermean:
"Angels have no wings, for your information. If you were taught that they have wings, it only means that you were surrounded with ignorant people and thus you grew up to be an ignorant person yourself"

How do u know angels have no wings? have u seen one? Is Satan red? CCNL is surrounded by ignorant people? Geez, I have heard everything.

If u think there are angles and demons and pixies and fairies then it is you sir who is the most gullible, ignorant, ignoramous I have ever communicated with. bar none.

But u r great comedy value

next time one of you loons speaks to god can u ask him why he tells u christianity is the true religion but also tells others their religion is true?

Why does he do this? Is he just having a laugh or are u just making s*it up?

As the comments demonstrate, "OnFaith" is just a gathering place for intolerant atheists. I can't imagine taking the time to post just to let people know how contemptuous you are of religion.

As usual, liberal "tolerance" is demonstrated to be tolerance for your own views and intolerance of all others.

As for the actual article, does a slur have to threaten its subject to be offensive? Is it OK for me to call someone the n-word, as it does not threaten their existence?

To err is human, but to forgive, that's divine!

Deep-held beliefs can't be swayed, a lot of missionaries will tell you that, it's also why they do what they do.
A movie can certainly effect people on an emotional level but when in conflicts with their religious beliefs the effect is passionate and violent denial.

About the word "passion". Passion is used as an excuse for unholy behaviour. In France, for instance, they have a category of murder that attracts a lesser penalty it's called "a crime of passion" - lovers who kill in a moment of "passionate anger" when confronted with infidelity benefit from the compassion of sympathetic law. Is this right? No, it's not. There are no excuses for killing another beyond self-defence, and even then it had better not be because you went to war - universal soldiers will rot in hell when and if a day of judgement comes, along with those who sent them there!
So, the use of "passion" in a religious movie title condemns the film before it's even made.

Speaking of devout Catholics who make religious movies, what's the deal with that turncoat royalist Mel Gibson. How's he going to get a divorce, Cathaholics don't allow that do they???

The movie has as its villain not the church but a weird priest who thinks the church is too liberal and invents an Illumnati conspiracy to bring it back to tradition. As such it does not really criticize the church, except to emphasize its secrecy and duplicity. The movie could have been more critical of this weird institution.

Faith dictates believing in stories despite the lack of evidence, and often times in spite of scientific fact to the contrary. If Scientific and historical facts that contradict the tenets of faith cannot shake the minds of the faithful, then how would a movie fare any better?

It's just harmless entertainment.

Isn't religion man's attempt to recognize an entity greater than him/her self,& gain life after death? It could be wishful thinking. The Catholic Church has made a BIG BUSINESS out of religion for more than thousand yrs.,& the other Christian churches have done likewise.Even though our Constitution prohibits establishment of a "state" religion,it recognizes non-profit church property & exempts that property & its income from taxation.Is "religion" a good thing? yes & no.When religion teaches compassion for our fellow beings, the sanctity of life,a righteous lifestyle,& the other virtuous practices, it is a good thing. On the other hand, when it teaches intolerance for the beliefs of others, allows conduct by its clergy that is vile & contemptable, permits teachings which are contrary to common sense & promote the spread of disease, poverty,& misery, then it is not a good thing. I believe that Jesus, Mohammad,& the founders of the other major religious movements would not recognize what their teachings have wrought.The concept that one person, or only a few people have the wisdom & knowledge to know God's mind & intent is way pass D U M B!!

If movies threaten the faithful, then faithful apparently equals brainwashed.
Faith was never intended by any genuine prophet to be a substitute for intelligence, as witnessed by the number of great artists, scientists, philosophers and thinkers whose faith was unshakable.
A movie is an entertainment, designed to stimulate the superficials of our personality. A good movie will provoke us to think, but it remains a movie. A good movie inspired by a good book will draw us into contemplation of important matters of life and death, but it remains an entertainment.
The author in question here is becoming very rich on a formula which plays upon our interest in the mysterious and upon our justifiable scepticism regarding all institutionalized religion.
His ambition is behind all of this - not faith or the lack of it.

To me it is just the reverse. The Post quotes the Catholic Bishops Conference of India: "It deliberately denigrates the Catholic Church and is intended to offend the faithful." So, what is wrong with free expression?

The real issue to me is that the media, whether it be newspapers, movies, and/or TV usually use a Roman Catholic at the religious "authority". This creates the false impression for the audience that the Roman Catholic Church is somehow the "official" Christian church and/or as a religious organization that should be looked-up to.

In the spirit of the civil rights movement, the media should look to other Christian and Jewish denominations as spiritual authorities. We have had too much inappropriate pro-Roman Catholic rhetoric and coverage.

I didn't read or watch "DaVinchi Code"; and I won't bother with this one either.
We've reached a point in time where people can't distinguish fiction from reality.
The real question I would put to the Church is: What did Pius 12th know about the Holocaust; and when did he know it?
And how much did the Church give to fleeing Nazis after WW2?
Since the Vatican archives aren't open until a century after the Pope's death; I'll be long gone by then.
When Napolean invaded Italy he stole the Vatican archives; and the truth about the Spanish Inquistion was a great embarrasment to the Church.

Anyone who "loses" their faith after viewing this movie had no faith to lose.

When Steven Spielberg's CLOSE EMNCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND was released in 1977, we did not see legions of scientists around the globe rise up in protest over the liberties taken with the science and physics of Interplanetary space travel. Of course the leading scientific thinker of that era Carl Sagan had aleady postulated the theoretical implausibility of such encounters.

Yet, when the question has to do with faith--the nature of which allows the postulator to offer up a proposition which can be neither proved or disproved using the Scientific Method--there seems to be an extraordinary thinskinnededness. People of faith simply do not like to have their faith challenged and will tend to look at any such challenge to the efficacy of their belief as an assault on their First Amendment right to practice their religion.

I think true believers need to understand that the First Amendment is about a good deal more than their right to dictate what we see, hear, read or think about questions of faith. I also consider my right to be entertained with silly, improbable plots a First Amendment right as well. And I see no need to insult my intelligence with some ridiculous disclaimer. I never read those any more than I do the preposterous commercials they load up at the movies these days.

Dude - watch "The Passion". Don't accuse the church if you are doing the same thing yourself. That just adds hypocrisy to your rap sheet.

While I don't believe Angels and Demons deserves the hoopla, I do think it's telling that the only "faith-based" blockbuster that the author of this article refused to see is the one that was most favorable to the faiithful, the "Passion of the Christ". Kinda makes him seem a bit biased toward a certain side of the equation.

I hope those who want to see the movie do so, fully realizing that it's a work of fiction. The Catholic church is a convenient "bad guy," just like NSA, CIA, FBI, and all those other "big brother" institutions people like to blame for their own problems. See it, enjoy it, but don't believe it.

The catholic church has done more than anyone to destroy itself. The pedophiles, the prehistoric thought process, the narrow point of view and their attempt to control peoples thoughts are but a few of the items.
Then you have the use of the bible to support their aims and goals and you have before you a diseased and rotten entity.

Those who are not afraid of another possible truth about life needs to go here if you dare to have your thoughts turned upside down...//www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA6n8KXgl_4&feature=PlayList&p=08B6AF42C6A31248&index=0

Actually if the movie is fiction then the Gospel is even more fiction especially the story of the resurrection. I for one will not abandon my rationality to blindly believe superstitious, primitive myths. Religious belief is pure and simple the result of the endoctrination of susceptible young minds who are in no position to think for themselves.

After all the things the Catholic church did for centuries why would they even care about a mystery novel based around the Vatican? Maybe because their whole history is based on lies, wars, and corrupt power grabs. They didn't get the Vatican and everything in it by kneeling in prayer all day. But they had their day and now its interesting to read about their history and the movie is full of great scenery.

For Pete's sake - if a movie is going to have so much influence on one's life, then that person's faith is not all that strong in the first place.

You want fiction? Go to some churches (many of them) and hear the preacher, priest, prophet or other head tell his people that "This church is the ONLY church and if you don't believe in EVERYTHING we teach, then you will be condemned to hell". That is fiction at its finest.

The Church writes its little works of fiction ... Dan Brown writes his ...

Whether it's The Ten Commandments or Angels & Demons, if a movie can affect your beliefs about the nature of existence that much, maybe you have bigger questions to be asking yourself.

Wouldn't it be cool if the On Faith section actually attempted to provide people with insight and suggestions on how to find deeper meaning, consider the big questions, and become a better person; as opposed to suggesting that there might be a threat behind some benign fiction movie?

This article is about a very important subject. But Alas! most of us dont know the real sacredness of such sensitive topics. We have very limited knowledge about religion and nature. And we say, claim and suggest more than our knowledge tendency. But everybody will be accountable for own words and deeds.
The Creator has always guided human being by sending propehts and divine books given to the prophets. Prophets tried to guide us by the will of God by the given books but humans always picked what they liked convenient and profiting for them. It is not the case. There are lot of question to realize that there is a God and he sent prophets for our guidance. For example why it is forbidden in all the religions not to marry the mother or sister. Where the soul goes after the death. What are the ordeal that a soul has to go through after the death. All these the the topics to think. Communism, Socialism, Democracy are man made systems and man knowledge is not the best but it is a limited knowledge extracted from the scriptures as i said our selective picks. But the real truth of this world is that God is the creator of everything. All of us have to return to God eventually. God will ask us that who gave you such insight of my secrets and such right to ridicule about the things what you did not know. Man is forgetful we even dont know that what we ate 200 days ago in lunch and we claim about big things. We should never forget that one day we have to die and we will be answerable for our deeds. Please think about that who created you, how created everything, how created sun and moon. Why we die, what is soul, where we go, what is the deal after this short human life. Thanks

Are the "faithful" really that "faithful" if fiction threatens them. The "faithful" are so weak in their faiths they must try to rule the rest of us in their fear by banning movies or allowing equal civil and legal rights for gays.

The Devil and Abraham are dancing a jig over the control by fear they have of the "faithful".

Great book - I'm sure the movie is good as well. Go see it (two times - just to annoy a fearful Catholic near you)

I'm keeping the faith & objectivity for my sanity. I watched the movie as fiction. It appears though the Church made a Freudian slip, that is considering the movie as a threat of sort, truth, blasphemy?
I suggest the Church consider this movie as fiction too unless the church reacts because there is some truth to the movie?
It's fiction in my perceptions, subjective experience's so as the church should do the same.
The Church made a Freudian slip once again which bothers me as if they are bed with Hollywood itself.
Tom Hanks performance is top notch, just like movies such as Saving Private Ryan, Cast-Away, The DaVinci Code, etc.
Once again it's a movie!
"Garbo"
signing off.

Bob Moses "the open minded" wrote:

"As the comments demonstrate, "OnFaith" is just a gathering place for intolerant atheists.....

As usual, liberal "tolerance" is demonstrated to be tolerance for your own views and intolerance of all others."

--------------------------

And no mention of the intolerant religious fanatics like Spidermean who demonstrate conservative "tolerance" is to be tolerant for their own views and intolerant of all others?

Calling others hypocrites while wallowing in it yourself, Bob? Isn't that hypocritical as well? We are intolerant of the intolerant, aren't we?

If your faith in your religion can be shaken by a book or a movie, you either have not much of a religion or not much faith.

If Spidermean's attitude of faithful superiority and intellectual arrogance is any measure of his faith I don't want to be his kind of Christian. Why is it that people need to win an argument over religious (faithful) matters? Are facts and intellect a measure of religiosity? Is that how people are won over to the true faith? I'm reading these arguments and wondering where love fits in? Its absence is notable when we choose to insult and call others ignorant and stupid... Worse: we're doing all of this over a movie.

I am so tired of "journalists" and the phrase "some say." Either use attribution or find a better topic for your posts.

Catholics need to calm down and realize the world doesn't revolve around them and their particular brand of superstitions.

I would not allow my son to watch the DaVinci Code in my home. Tom Hanks and Ron Howard are going to Hell for these films.

Movies only matter for people who are not of the faith depicted. Do you really think a very religious person will leave their lifelong faith because of Tom Hanks?

On the other hand, a movie can put a bad impression of a faith in the mind of someone who knows little about it so rather than coming to a new faith as a clean slate that might be convinced instead there is a hard to overcome negative impression that must be wiped away first - make conversion hard. If you think that is good or bad probably depends on what you think of that faith.

This has nothing to do with the topic but it would be helpful if you remove a comment to say why. That way we all know your rules. I was going to comment but I realized what I had to say may offend some people and I self censored but I wasn't sure. Since your in charge of this a simple reason would be helpful.

After the revelation and secret Agenda of Dumsfeld and this past administration I can see why the Wing Nuts Wackos and Hate Mongers are in over drive, their Tolitarian Christian agenda has been upset. Looking at the religous freaks this is understandable as they DETEST any free thought other then what they tell people is free thought. NO as a CRITICAL FREE THINKER I believe I can watch a movie without some Right Wing Nut Hate Monger telling me how to draw a conclusion. Reading and self decision is a personal right not OWNED by some Christiasn Hate Monger or Right Wing Hate Monger Wacko. Remember when you shake hands with a Christian or a Republican count your fingers when your done.

The concern about the movie is similar to the insulting treatment of the President at Notre Dame! “It is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation," Cardinal Francis George of Chicago said shortly after the university announced Obama's appearance.” Interesting statement, “what it means to be Catholic (Christian).” It means belief in absurdities, the mythological stories of the Old Testament such examples as Lot offering his daughters to be gang raped, myth of Exodus, then the New Testament with mythical virgin birth, torture by being crucified and then resurrection from death and accession into a mythical Kingdom of God! Of course, the Egyptian priests of Horus the Egyptian god that the story of Christ represents also believed this myth. Horus was also of virgin birth, prosecuted, crucified and resurrected including the myth of Lazarus as Christ is to the Roman Catholic Christians. Before Christianity was officially established by Emperor Constantine, as Gibbons has so eloquently stated “The various modes of worship were all considered by the people as equally true; by the learned philosophers as equally false; and by the Roman magistrates as equally useful.” As Voltaire said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” How well illustrated and proven by the history of the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity in general. Ralph Waldo Emerson is quoted as saying, “The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next.” Unfortunately, human experience has yet to move on beyond Yahweh! So, let us just enjoy the drama of the movie and move on with our lives and treat others as we would want to be treated!

THE TRUTH HURTS... IF CATHOLICS ONLY KNEW THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH..IT IS ROTTEN TO THE CORE. TO CALL IT A CULT IS A UNDER STATEMENT..EVERY COUNTRY THAT IS CATHOLIC IS POOR THE PEOPLE ARE UNEDUCATED WHY? BECAUSE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT WANT IT'S PEOPLE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES..ASK YOUR SELF THESE QUESTIONS WHY IS THE COUNTIES THAT ARE NOT DOMINATED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH NOT PROSPEROUS..WHY DID AMERICA AND THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH WHICH ARE BASICLY PROTESTANT BECAME THE WORLD POWERS..WHY IS IT THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE MUSLIMS ARE THE ONLY TWO RELIGIONS THAT MURDERED AND SLAUGHTERED THE JEWS... SATAN HATES THE JEWS BECAUSE JESUS WAS A JEW ...MOST IMPORTANTLY WHY IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SO SHROUDED IN SECRECY... CATHOLIC PEOPLE SHOULD READ THE N.I.V. OR AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE AND LEARN TO THINK FOR THEM SELVES AND THE TRUTH WILL SET THEM FREE...

Clear and Present Danger showed an extremely corrupt President. No one would say that the portrayal denigrated the American Presidency.

Same here. The Catholic Church, which possesses a hierarchy, magnificent buildings, marvelous religious spectacles, and a vast array of complex legal opinions, is a great source of stories about evil persons who acquire excess power. The Opera Tosca is far more critical of the Church, if you want to examine things that way. Somehow, few are offended by Scarpia in this way; the Church permitted (most likely would have begged for) a movie of the opera in its original setting, replete, in the setting where the Inspector plots murder and rape in the Church, with the religious ceremonies, costumes, and a fake Pope.

Definitely, Mr. Howard should give the same disclaimer provided for the Da Vinci Code, that the work is fiction and does not reference the actual acts of any particular person or group of persons. Having done that, the Church should be grateful for the publicity. When you watch the History Channel's analysis of the Da Vinci code, you come away with greater respect for the actual institution.

If you really have faith, how can a movie shake it?

coloradodog,

Do we all have anything better to do but lower our guard down, making "them Demons and Angels" our "Sunday of rest" more interesting? NO!

tootincommon,

Thank you,
I'm holding on to my faith & this movie & horror movies in past has not shaken it, never will.
Once again I thank you tootincommon.
I'm going to enjoy this Sunday as a day of rest.

We live in the 21st century...the idea that a carpenter who lived 2000 years ago was the son of an omniscient bipolar being that bares a stunning resemblance to an old white guy named Zeus is, frankly, ridiculous. Not to mention, you have to ignore the million little historical details eroding the picture and suspend all logic to accept the dogma on blind faith. I am sorry, I think everyone can believe whatever they choose...even if it's an the existence of a flying spaghetti monster.

Quick someone call a waaambulance for Bob Moses! We've got a seriously bruised ego and chronic irony deficiency victim here!

Now that that's out of my system - like so many others have said above; if someone feels their faith threatened by this movie they need to spend more time in self-analysis of what it is they've made responsible for their faith.

What Langdon finds at the murder scene frightens him: the symbol appears to be authentic, and the legendary secret society, long thought to be defunct, seems to have resurfaced. Kohler calls Vetra's adopted daughter Vittoria to the scene, and it is later revealed that the Illuminati has also stolen a canister containing a quarter of a gram of antimatter—an extremely dangerous substance with destructive potential comparable to a small nuclear weapon, a potential unleashed upon contact with any form of normal matter. When charged with electricity at CERN, the canister's magnetic field controls the drop of antimatter to float suspended in a high vacuum, ensuring safety; but when it was taken away from its electricity supply, it automatically switched to its back-up battery, which will only power it for 24 hours. The horrible truth is that the Illuminati has put the stolen canister somewhere in Vatican City, with a security camera in front of it as its digital clock counts down to the explosion.

-------------
godgift
--------------
adult-adult

Have you even seen this movie? The only thing offensive is how idiotic it is. Please boycott this movie not because it is offensive to God but because it is offensive to anyone who enjoys a good story well told.

Of course this movie is entertainment. It offers only a superficial and not accurate representation of the Illuminati, though a somewhat better and more accurate rendition of the Church's history of obscurantism and intolerance. On the other hand, the contemporary Church comes out looking better than it deserves. The deceased pope is depicted as wise and progressive. The College of Cardinals is portrayed sympathetically as men devoted to their faith and to the Church. This is quite remarkable, since the Church's record of ruthlessness, and hostility towards science and freedom of thought and inquiry, while central to the plot, is rather lightly touched upon. Catholics should be congratulating themselves on getting a near pass with this one, not complaining and seeking new restrictions on freedom of inquiry and creativity.

Of course this movie is entertainment. It offers only a superficial and not accurate representation of the Illuminati, though a somewhat better and more accurate rendition of the Church's history of obscurantism and intolerance. On the other hand, the contemporary Church comes out looking better than it deserves. The deceased pope is depicted as wise and progressive. The College of Cardinals is portrayed sympathetically as men devoted to their faith and to the Church. This is quite remarkable, since the Church's record of ruthlessness, and hostility towards science and freedom of thought and inquiry, while central to the plot, is rather lightly touched upon. Catholics should be congratulating themselves on getting a near pass with this one, not complaining and seeking new restrictions on freedom of inquiry and creativity.

This is silly. People of fragile "faith" worrying that a potboiler movie will lead them into unbelief. Of course, maybe their faith is potboiler-based.

I love religious documentaries!

Isn't it interesting that those who proclaim the loudest that Hollywood is out of touch with "real" people and has nothing valid to say are the same ones now demanding some sort of disclaimer be added at the very least. For those us who have a deep faith in the atoning mission of Jesus Christ but also believe there are many untold mysteries about the history of His church, we welcome even an entertaining attempt to call into question some of the long held beliefs that have no historical validity.

The Catholic Church has an extremely long history that is entwined, except for recent centuries, with the history of European government. What was good and acceptable 500 years ago is often not good and acceptable in our day and vice versa. To say that you do not find the morals of the distant past to your liking is reasonable; to deny that that would be the case for any set of morals centuries old is unreasonable.

I am tiring of Hollywood trying to damage our religious institutions and forcing their moral beliefs on us through the medium of the movies. If that weren't bad enough we are paying for this foolishness. I am not declaring their moral view wrong. If they want to promote atheism and attack institutions of faith that is fine, but I ask that they do it on their own time. I think I speak for millions of other Americans who say leave the moralizing for other mediums than our movie theatres and television show. I for one think Opie and Tom have lost all credibility. They have damaged their careers by this constant diatribe and foolishness. I can't imagine Tom Hanks winning anymore awards and whatever skills he once had he had destroyed by allowing his petty pernicious views come full blown into the movie theatre. We don't want to go to the movies and watch you act out your moral beliefs Tom anymore than we want to watch you wipe your rear end. I must confess both seem to be very similar behavior now days.

You know what, Catholics do not need to be worrying about thier image as depicted in a movie since real life is scary enough. They should clean thier own house first and then they can become pious, until then just sit back and hope someone doesn't make a movie about priests and thier sex lives, what would you say then?

The reality about atonement theology:

For added thought, here is what Professor JD Crossan (an On Faith Panelist) has to say about atonement theology: (from his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

Howellstephen75:
I am tiring of Hollywood trying to damage our religious institutions and forcing their moral beliefs on us through the medium of the movies. If that weren't bad enough we are paying for this foolishness.
**************************************************************************************
No one forces you to go to a particular movie, and I certainly hope that movies aren't the source of your moral beliefs. You're only paying for it if you buy a ticket.

Howellstephen75:
I am not declaring their moral view wrong. If they want to promote atheism and attack institutions of faith that is fine, but I ask that they do it on their own time.
**************************************************************************************
It IS on their own time. They're actors - making movies is what they get paid to do. And just because an actor prtrays a particular character doesn't mean that the actor holds the same opinions as the character.

Howellstephen75:
I think I speak for millions of other Americans who say leave the moralizing for other mediums than our movie theatres and television show. I for one think Opie and Tom have lost all credibility. They have damaged their careers by this constant diatribe and foolishness. I can't imagine Tom Hanks winning anymore awards and whatever skills he once had he had destroyed by allowing his petty pernicious views come full blown into the movie theatre. We don't want to go to the movies and watch you act out your moral beliefs Tom anymore than we want to watch you wipe your rear end. I must confess both seem to be very similar behavior now days.
**************************************************************************************
I don't go to movies to learn about an actor's religious or political beliefs. I go to movies to be entertained by a story and special effects.

I'll watch most anything with Tom Hanks but didn't care much for DaVinci Code but thought the book was interesting fiction. A cousin told me she wouldn't read or watch anything tht might make her question her faith - I still can't fathom a fiction book or movie doing that but to each his own I suppose.

I call a Poe on Howellstephen75.

This debate would have to be between persons who can't discern reality from fiction.

Come to think of it, that would include the religilous bunch, wouldn't it?

-Wexler

Where is the faith of anyone who would loose it after seeing a movie.

How do they maintain their faith looking back at the Inquisition, burning heretics alive at the stake, promoting anti semitism, covering up for pedophile priests, bishops and others and too much more.

What would ever happen if they had even a minor knowledge of the twisted history of the development of Christianity and the many many errors and contradictions in the Bible. Both Old and New Testaments.

I have to believe that these people can not understand that those who do have faith must see it as the other side of doubt; all one coin.

Most fake it.

Hanks; next movie should be "The Conspiracy of Notre Dame" where an evil, right-wing Vatican conspires with the dark forces of pedophile-hiding American Catholic Bishops, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove to invite the first Black President of the United States to the University for a public lynching.

As a Deist, I believe in God (whatever that is) but I definitely don't believe in religion. To me, organized religion of any form is just priestcraft, designed to control the weak-minded. All the "special" incantations, symbols and ceremonies don't bring humans any closer to their creator, they just make power for the priests.

CCNL wrote "Hmmm, there was no Garden of Eden. "

Im not so sure about that but one thing Im very sure of. It is present now and it is about to be destroyed.

I'd like to remind you again that what's missing on your list of books is the BRAIN. It's one thing to read them and another thing to understand them.

I used to like both of these folks, I just wonder what got both Howard & Hanks on this anti-Catholic diatribe.

Chops2 wrote "How do u know angels have no wings? have u seen one? "

I know two people who have seen them. You won't know they are angels until they disappear in a flash. Both were begging for a coin and absolutely no wings.

"Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained ANGELS without knowing it." (Hebrews 13:2)

Posted by: orange3

I used to like both of these folks, I just wonder what got both Howard & Hanks on this anti-Catholic diatribe.

------

The realization, brought to you via Bill Donohue's jealousy over evangelicals in the spotlight, that you hadn't exercised your victimization muscle in too long? What's next on the list for you people; stoning anyone named Jesus? Oh, wait...

I think that if someone wants to make an offensive movie, then they should. If the offended people want to speak up and say they're offended, then they should do that. Maybe Howard and Hanks don't like the Catholic Church. So what? Lots of people don't.

I'm not surprised that a silly thing like "Angels and Demons" might threaten some "believers."

Doesn't say much for their "belief" but I'm not surprised.

If anything is defamed by the movie it is science, not the Church, i.e., a secret cabal of disgruntled scientists is out to destroy the Church. Who is portrayed as the villain here? It is not the Church.

The reality is that angels usually wear dirty clothes and beg while devils usually wear clean white robes projecting themselves as "holy" people.

Does "A&D" threaten the faithful? No, the Vatican seems to be doing a great job of that.

Everyone protects their turf; cigarette manufacturers,drug dealers,alcohol companies, republicans,democrats,catholics in funny robes,movie producers,etc.
Which is funnier: a so so author parlaying his fictitious writing to movies and millions or the various christian and other religions parlaying their fictitious writings into cults and $$billions. It's really something. Mark Twain once wrote that paper has never been known to refuse ink, and all of the aforementioned writing are proof of that. Let's work on living and letting live without all the insecure proselytyzing,eh!?

The problem with "The DaVinci Code" and "Angels and Demons" is that they deal with real organizations, but do so fictitiously. Precisely because they deal with real organizations, they need to be careful in their presentation of what is reality. The simple fact is that lots of people come out of the theaters believing some of what they've seen, when none of it is true.

"The DaVinci Code," for instance, includes a monk of Opus Dei as a character. Fine, but the problem here is that Opus Dei hasn't got any monks. It is a secular (Catholic speak for non-monkish) movement. There are priests affiliated with it, and a few members consecrate themselves to chastity and make promises not to marry, but none of them live in cloisters or wear distinctive clothes (the hallmarks of a monk).

But people come out of the theater thinking that they know all about Opus Dei and its manners and motives.

Sony's equivocation, as well as the producers' and original author's, regarding whether the book and movie were factual or not, is the purest hypocrisy. They refused to say it was fictitious, for fear of lost revenue, but wouldn't say it was factual knowing it would put them in danger of libel suits. Instead, they invented some doublespeak third category, something that sounded like "historical fiction," but wasn't the term they used. Factual fiction, or something.

As a Christian, my faith isn't the slightest bit perturbed. Our Lord said, "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account," (Mt 5:11).

As for banning it, if the large majority of people in a given place don't want it shown, why shouldn't they prevent it? Isn't that democracy? The 'freedom of speech' is not absolute, after all. No crying "Fire" in a crowded theater, no mention of God in public schools, no denying the Holocaust in Germany, no demanding free elections in China, no denouncing homosexuality in Canada. Why should "Angels and Demons" be protected speech? If the people in India want "Angels and Demons" banned, then why shouldn't they have it so? And why should people in the USA care?

Lol. That's a funny test, actually. If you were to switch out the Catholic Church in Dan Brown's books, and replace it with the Homosexual Rights Movement, how well would his books go over, do ya think?

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Angels & Demons, like the Da Vinci Code, is a great work of fiction on the subject related to the Catholic Church. Why all the fuss? Fiction is not defaming the Church and its institutions. There is no blasphemy or hatred being expressed. Catholics are overly sensitive when it comes to questioning the beliefs in this harmless way, when so many Catholics have held and continue to hold prejudicial and hateful beliefs towards other religions, as exampled by the Pope quoting a middle ages text about Islam and the Prophet Mohammed or the recent insensitive actions of the Church heirarchy towards Jews by reinstating a known anti-Semitic Bishop. Those are genuine social problems that Catholics have yet to address in an honest and open fashion. Hollywood entertainment is just that: ENTERTAINMENT!

I do believe the "Da Vinci Code" and "Angels and Demons" libel the Catholic Church. The Knights Templars have been a cause celebre' of Protestants going back to the Reformation and conspiracy theories regarding this order just rub salt in old wounds. This itself is based on a kind of hate directed at Catholicism and misplaced, since the Templars were not Protestants; It is more like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I refuse to see both movies myself, being Catholic.

First of all, the movie was terrible. It wasn't true to the book, which was ALOT more interesting. It cut out completely one of the most important characters: Maximilian Kohler. Then it changes the body of work of the novel, which is basically hunting down a killer, to a cheap, fast paced, no substance scavanger hunt. To top it off, it also changes very important parts of the storyline ( here's a clue: all 4 cardinals die in the novel ) and cheapens the ending by changing THAT too.

Now as for the novel, those who have read it cannot possibly come the conclusion that it's a " shot " at the church or religion. If anything the novel attempts to bring down " science " a notch or two. There's one line ( used in both the book and movie ) that summarizes this: " Science it too young to understand ".

That line, as well as the novel's overall message, is basically telling the scientific community that you don't know everything therefor you cannot dismiss relgious views completely.

If the critics would actually take the time to read it instead of dismissing it as another " shot at the church ", they would see how interesting and, in a way, inspiring, this novel truly is.

For me this film very amusing. Actors together with the director on full gravity try to speak about the God in own mind's language. Even it is ridiculous. The rationalistic attitude to the God and Church not news, it at each corner of our life. Guys have put this film especially for themselves, than enjoy, moreover have from this pleasure greater money. Vatican, in my opinion, it too creates huge advertising...

Surely the church cannot complain that a movie shares the same rights to express a view as it does. Every religion fundamentally attacks the belief systems of others, normally quite agressively. If the church believes that this sort of behaviour should be stopped, then they should all join together to ban evangelism, religious pressure groups, etc. Not only are the attacks on A&D hypocritical, they're deeply threatening to all of us - an attack on our right to express a view. It is not a large step from the church ranting about the content of a movie to the church instigating violence against those who hold conflicting or different views. Which is why religion is such a catalyst for violence and such a powerful agent for abuse.

It's not about the Catholic Church. Its denying Jesus Christ, the Son of God, on film for all of the world to witness. It's about denying the Cross. Well, deny Jesus and He will deny you before the Father. This horrific, Satanic film was made to cause unbelief. Who cares how much money was made from these films. What profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul? Who wants to spend 7 years with Satan and totally separated from God before He zaps the wicked? Read Revelations. Jesus will come again. I pity the unbelievers and the Satanic cults that adore Ron Howard and Tom Hanks.

The idea of brutality, violence and shaking of faith in movies is what offends me. Everyone in Hollywood believes that if you show a movie that attacks Christiandom, and Catholicism was the first Christian religion, all the rest are spin-offs, that all is o.k. Let them make movies that show Islam in a bad light or Judism or shintoism or any other ism and see what the world thinks. The Passion of Christ attempted to show Judism in a harsh way, but it didn't succeed. Show Muslims in their true light, ie. "we hate all infidels and will go to our graves hating them. The edict that the ayatollah placed on all infidels has not been changed. This edict allows muslims to kill themselves, which is against their religion, and not go to hell, as it were. Make movies that show the bad guys being bad and don't just pick on Catholics. That's awful.

Op-ed regarding the Book of Revelation

"Nineteenth-century agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll branded Revelation "the insanest of all books".[30] Thomas Jefferson omitted it along with most of the Biblical canon, from the Jefferson Bible, and wrote that at one time, he "considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams." [31] "Martin Luther found it an offensive piece of work" and "John Calvin had grave doubts about its value."[32]

Cited reference numbers are from a review of the Book of Revelation as found in Wikipedia.

With respect to the simple preacher man being the son of god:

John 1:1-18 where you have found most of this incarnation mumbo-jumbo only appears in this passage making it a single attestation. Most contemporary historic Jesus and NT exegetes have concluded that the passage is simply more embellishment by the "great embellisher" John (who btw was not the Apostle John)- See Father Raymond Brown's epic 800+ page book, An Introduction to the New Testament for added information.

And before calling up the angel aka "pretty, wingie, talking, fictional, thingie" Gabriel who supposedly talked to Mary about her "virgin" birth of the holy spirit's incarnate one, check out http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/026_Jesus_Virginally_Conceived

There are actually more reference in the NT noting Joseph as Jesus' father!!!!

Faith that can't survive questioning, contradiction, or the advancement of alternative theories must not be a very strong faith.

Then again, I suppose one might say the same of any "faith" that requires weekly reaffirmation of its axiomatic essentials.

The Church has developed its own carefully considered theater for the five human senses. They don't much appreciate competition in that arena, I think.

Perhaps the caricature of Mohomad in the Netherlands poking fun at Islam comes to mind at this juncture. Catholics and Christians said Islam was too thin skinned to have a little fun poked at them, and now the Catholics and Christians are calling foul over a couple of movies made by Ron Howard and other great stars.

The American Christians and Catholics want to poke fun at others but they can not take a little po0king themselves. Perhaps they should remember that the next time they name-call others, make fun of others, or poke fun at others for their own amusement,based on their religious beliefs.

Where I come from we call that a bully, American Christians and Catholics atct that way, and maybe a little respect for others is in order from Catholics and Christians to others of every denomination and those of no denomination, as well.

Patrick

Ann's"thought" actually wrote:

"I pity the unbelievers and the Satanic cults that adore Ron Howard and Tom Hanks."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Maybe *you* should read Revelation *less*.

Oh, and it's just 'Revelation', Ann, not 'Revelations'. Just a heads up, since you've read it and all, and haven't just been devouring Tim LaHaye.

You can't defame what was never entitled to respect in the first place. The institution that bashes gays with impunity, knowingly speads AIDS in Africa, and protects pedophiles is not worthy of respect in the first place.

By definition, nothing threatens the viewpoint of the Christian faithful. That is what faith is. Case in point, 2000 years and no second coming. How would a movie change that?

I saw Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" just because Blockbuster video refused to carry it. I didn't see Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" just because Gibson's sanctimonious glorification of violence (what theologian Walter Wink calls "the myth of redemptive violence") gets on my last nerve.

-- This is all I know and this is all I need to know. You have your agenda, what was the point of writing a whole article? You should have just written the sentence above, and I could instantly ascertain your position on "Angels and Demons."

By the way, I'm one of those Catholics who think arguing over this silly movie is beneath contempt. The Illuminati? Give me a break.

I have never understood the need to prove or disprove my love for God. I love God and that’s that. I chuckled when I watched the Angles & Demons movie because of the absurdity of claims directed at the Catholic Church and atheism. The church is cast as the demon while the atheist is cast as an angel. What a twist.

We who believe in God are constantly bombarded with challenges to our beliefs by atheist and scientist. It seems that these people must destroy the belief in God in order to validate their existence. I am not a Catholic so I found the movie cathartic to my belief in religion. I do not believe in religion nor do I believe in the church because I feel that politics have kidnapped them.

Thanks to this picture I may reconsider my position. Any movie that puts this much effort into defaming Catholics makes me believe that the church is doing something right. The fear of the church is what drives this movie, why? The use of an atheist to save the church challenges me to ask the question why?

The church and religion is the bane of atheist and science, why?

The church demeans itself. We don't need a movie to do it. REligious
nincompoops - every last one of them.

Number one at the box office this week - Howard and Hanks should thank the nervous, fearful Catholics, who would ban this movie for the rest of us, for the publicity.

If Catholics don't like this movie, it's their right not to go to us and leave the rest of us the hell alone. America is not a theocracy in spite of their agenda to make it one.

Anyone whose faith can be "threatened" by a movie based on a work of fiction doesn't possess much faith to begin with, especially when the movie is so thoroughly cheesy to begin with. Angels and Demons was a book most notable for its mediocrity; I doubt the movie is much of an improvement. I personally will not be seeing it, but only because the reviews universally have been "better than The DaVinci Code, but not by much," and "The DaVinci Code" was a remarkably bad movie. And I mean "bad" in the fine tradition of "Ishtar" and other turkeys; not bad as in offensive.

The pot-boilers of Dan Brown, though wildly entertaining, are so riddled with historical inconsistencies that they ought not to damage the faith. The trouble is that some people (and I've met some of them) will treat Brown's words as actual truth, either out of pure ignorance or some anti-Catholic animus.
Should the film be banned? Of course not! Should it be picketed? Probably not, since the ignorant will see that as proof of its veracity. Should Catholics (and, by extension, other Christians) strive to correct the false impressions created by such works. Absolutely!
Posted by: Robert_B1
**************************************************************************************
I've known ignorant people who mistook Jean Auel's "Clan of the Cave Bear" series for an anthropological study.

The fact that "Gone with the Wind" takes place in a real city during a real event and refers to actual battles does not make it a history text, and anyone who mistakes it for one is seriously deluded.

Anyone who picks up a book clearly labeled as fiction and believes what it written in it as fact is obviously not the brightest light in the chandelier to begin with.

I saw the movie this weekend. I am an ex-catholic. I thought the movie was not only better than a few of the reviews I read that panned it, but that it actually portrayed the catholic church in a good way.

For the first 1800 years of it's existence the Christian church carried out it's policies as a political body by murder, torture theft slavery and any other way it sought to perpetuate itself. Now that people no longer allow the church to rule they have adopted the love for all and pity us the poor victims. A few hundred years ago Mr. Howard and Hanks would have been killed for this movie and that doesn't seem to have changed with some of these posters.

Uh_huhh,

You wrote: "You can't defame what was never entitled to respect in the first place. The institution that bashes gays with impunity, knowingly speads AIDS in Africa, and protects pedophiles is not worthy of respect in the first place."

Did you know that about a year ago Time Magazine reported that 25% of the world's HIV patients receive their healthcare through the generosity of the Catholic organizations?

When was the last time you heard a Catholic leader "bash gays?" What does that phrase even mean? It takes tremendous insecurity to confuse having one's actions questioned with being "bashed."

Do you know an organization that, discovering some of its members have done something atrocious and that it will be held legally responsible for them, does not try to handle things quiety? Right or wrong, that's what it was - not some perverted enjoyment of pedophilia in our ranks. I wonder how angry you are at the public school system, which has similarly shielded a far larger number of predators.

In my opinion,the point is not whether it "offends the faithful".
My point is that it (a) discourages those who seek Christianity as an option.
(b)further unhinges those conspiracy theorists that I believe need psychiatric help.
If the tiresome trinity of Howard-Hanks-Brown really want to show if they have gonads,they should have a go at Islam,and then we shall see how brave they are.
Because I have yet to hear of Christian suicide bombers or Christian "Fatwa",they seem reasonably safe - unless that is,they one day meet their maker.

"Faith is a very sensitive subject."

If Mr. Waters actually believed his statement, maybe we would be spared the sarcasm and snide comments that lean heavily against one side.

I don't normally read this column, but given the nature of the topic, I thought this particular post would be a good read. What a disappointment.

On Faith seems less concerned with intellectual subtlety as with having an ax to grind.

So what if this stupid movie offends a stupid church? It's obviously fiction. The only people that don't understand that are church-going simpletons. The Da Vinci Code was an awful movie, and I'm sure Angels and Demons will be as bad or worse.

This movie shows the church in a better light than most modern films do.
It was not full of the vitriol that the church has seen from the media in recent times.

I think the junk science aspect was more harmful.

It was good movie.
The title should have been saved for the sequel or prequel to “Constantine.”

Label it fiction. Of course, the Church will have to reciprocate and put the same disclaimer on the Bible.

coming from the hypocrit cultist extremest who worship 1. Money 2. Hate/Intolerance 3. Torture 4. War, I don't even know why I bothered glancing at their nonsense.

What's going to happen if they make a movie about the priests molesting children and the cover-up by the church?

I don't think you'll be able to get "FICTION" printed on those copies.

Impeachbush99 wrote.
coming from the hypocrit cultist extremest who worship 1. Money 2. Hate/Intolerance 3. Torture 4. War, I don't even know why I bothered glancing at their nonsense.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I hate to be the one to tell you this:
Bush is Gone.
He was never Catholic.

And you have the market cornered on “nonsense.”

I think the objection to Angels and Demons might be more accurately depicted as objection to its distortions of Catholicism. Specifically, the movie depicts Catholicism as hostile to science. Not true: emperical science is undersood as a function of reason, which is not inimical to faith. Catholic schools teach the same science as do secular ones. The continued promotion of this old canard --even in a work of fiction-- is either the spreading of a harmful lie or the result of inexcusible ignorance. Either way it misinforms and promotes needless division -- as illustrate by many of the intolerant comments published here.

I don't know which is worse. Bible thumpers shoving their beleifs down our throats. Or the non beleivers that call beleivers idiots.

my beleifs(which I could give a yuk what either of you 2 groups think) are mine, and they will not be shaken by a movie. Which I intend to see, much better book then Davinci code.

If the bible thumpers are so worried about the movie, then they need to look at themselves and how shallow their beleifs really are. for the non beleivers, shut up... I think ye argue to much... You must be closet beleivers...

Its only a book(execlent book at that)... Bet both of you groups argued over the dice game Dungens and Drangs also.

Why is it when Critical thinking and Reasoning with a conclusion OTHER then that you are Told to think is a danger to these Hate Base Religons You have Christians ooww! they are destroying me, the Muslims ahahah! Allah has been offended, the Hebrews Jehova is offended. Yet with all these Faith Based atrocities (by the believers in Fairy Tales) No one has EVER seen thehell fire and damnation of these illusionary and ficticious Gods, ND YET WITH ALL THE CLAIMS OF DEFAMATION their imaginary god goes on to yet Falsely accuse another imginary Heretic who the self rightous Morons of any religous fanatical group feels endangered, Seems like its a pretty weak and petty system that tese dellusional folks have to go to such extremes to keep their following, where is there DIETY if he is so easily offended, just another low mentality no thinking under Blind following no questions asked Fairy tale. Because if they had a real Diety they would not be afraid of Critical Thoughts and Challenges only Functional Ilteriates are.

This is not just a Christian thing. All religions have this protective paranoia.

sanspeur51552001

another closet beleiver... they argue way to much denying it to be otherwise.

I agree with Liberalbasher. My spirituality is mine alone, conceived of a lifetime of thought and conceptualizations about what or who God is to me. I cannot take the bible literally, because there are too many glaring inconsistencies. I also have a hard time with this notion that God is a merciful, loving God, but then read the atrocities that are committed in His name. It doesn't make sense.

For those who do not believe in any God, I can say I have read the rationale behind it and it is very compelling. In fact, it has only served to further confuse my belief systems. But I figure I will probably spend the rest of my life trying to figure it out.

By the way, I grew up as a Catholic. At the church we attended, the angels were painted with wings.

What I find amazing is that almost none of you highly intelligent people can spell or understand the basic rules of grammar.

It would be nice if ya'll would stop using rhetorical dodges.

1.) There is nothing--NOTHING--to compel said Howard and Hanks to issue a statement or disclaimer about this movie and there never should be. One's opinion (pro or con) but that changes nothing.
2.) There are thousands of young people who were born after 1963 that think Oliver Stone's "JFK" is accurate history. How many non-Catholics will spend the rest of their lives thinking the "secret history of Christ" Brown tells is historical fact? The state of these young peoples’ education and intellectual self-discipline is deplorable. Agreed. But you can’t pretend it doesn’t happen. It shouldn’t happen. Running run lights shouldn’t happen either.
3.) "It's just a story." Well, yes and no. The "It's just a story" dodge works as long as it’s not your ox being gored. Suppose years from now when most of us actually were alive during the civil rights era are gone, a book becomes popular and a blockbuster movie was made. The story has Martin Luther King Jr. molesting small children and those around him either help him procure those children or look the other way. How much harm would you suppose this piece of slander do? Hey, remember it would be just "creative fiction". Not for nothing would the motives of the author and film makers come under question--and they should be. Motives are a fair question.
4.) There are clear instances it literature and film making when essential elements of the story can crossover and over shout the sense of suspension of disbelief and enchantment. Indulgences in these elements fracture storytelling beyond recovery. "Artists" know this and so Howard and Hanks earn only contempt when they express shock that people "misunderstand" their movie.
5.) Those object to "Code" and "Demons" should readily know that they have no power in what gets made. Howard and Hanks have every right to make the movie they want. They have no right to expect their film should go by without comment. You have a perfect right to point out that lies and slander are being told at the Church's expense. Howard and Hanks have every right not to like that and make rude hand signals back. The unbelievable thing is that neither of you can shut the other up.

lol, wait till all the holy rollers and non believers read/see Dan Browns next book. "The lost Symbol".

Wait, that argument will be the liberals against the conservatives... Now that should be a hate filled dialog if I would ever predict one. And you know what, here is a promise...

No matter what I think on the subject. I will flame the liberals just because they don't know their history. Now there is a group that will be influenced by a work of fiction. Lol, bet they also believe as a large percentage the JFK movie also.

I guess I'm not the person to ask. I have no interest in the Catholic church or any of its internal machinations. Of all the conspiracy theories in fiction, the one that has Rome secretly running the universe is the least compelling. I'm not sure who would care about it other than doubting Catholics or paranoid, theocracy-obsessed secularists. So who's watching this rubbish, anyway?