A Quick Take II: updated
We finally went to see a new movie at the theatre which happens to be a semi-controversial flick called, ‘The Da Vinci Code’. 'Why is THIS movie so controversial?' I was thinking throughout the movie. Ironically enough, I believe it is because it makes people question their faith, and ardent evangelical church members do not take too kindly to their brothers and sisters questioning what they believe. Still, ask someone why the Da Vinci code movie is so controversial and they'll most likely say because it depicts Jesus in an uncharacteristic light. If that was the case, no one but sadists, atheists and agnostics would go see this movie. It simply depicts Jesus in a different light. Can you not be human and divine at the same time, even if you’re the son of God? Is it against the rules? And who exactly makes these rules, God? Why is it so unrealistically unfathomable that Jesus might have sired children? Fact is, this movie does no more damage to faith in God, then does the 'The Lion King' or 'The Prophecy' movies.
---
Then there is the argument as someone last night pointed out, that if Jesus had sired children, then he wouldn't be the 'spotless lamb' that the bible claims him to be. -Who makes these rules?- Also, this person points out that the son of God, or God in human form would not have sired children because, 'what is the point?' Why would God want to have fathered a child, it seems unrealistic and unfathomable. I said, becuase he wanted to experience it, to which was said, that he is God, he is all knowing, he knows what it would feel like. So I let it be. Perhaps, what I should have said, is that God works in mysterious ways. WHAT a mystery, eh? Perhaps not if you are a true believer. Perhaps so, if you believe there is more to the bible then is told.
---
So what did I think of the movie? I thought it was really great; it seemed to really bring the book to life, which they followed remarkably close. Still, and as always, the book was much better.