Angels & Demons ....what's all the fuss about?

[7_Sorrows]

I have read all of Brown’s books, including Digital Fortress etc. which was quite good. Why doesn’t Howard make a movie based on that? As far as the Da Vinci Code goes, Brown said at the beginning of the book most of what he wrote is true history. That has been disproved since the book first came out, but people are still going to believe what they read.

i am reading digital fortress right now. i just started it. i have read both the da vinci code and angels and demons. anyhow, the book is just beginning to get interesting. i am glad you thought it was good. i also wondered if they would make a movie of this one.

i hear that dan brown’s new book will be out in august or september, but i can’t remember the title.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I haven’t yet seen the movie (though I plan to). As a Tom Hanks apologist, I feel prompted to step up here.

Again, without having yet seen the film, I believe a preliminary judgment should be passed on Ron Howard. As a director, He is hit-or-miss. Either he develops brilliant pieces such as Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, or Cocoon or he produces utter junk such as Splash, Cinderella Man, or The DaVinci Code. It seems to me (in my most solemn, humble, subjective opinion) that there are no “so-so” Howard films. I’ll go to see the film in theaters, but I promise you that if I walk away dissatisfied, culpability will likely rest squarely on Howard’s shoulders.

glad you posted this. i have to agree. there have been some of ron howard’s films that were truly excellent. i would say that the da vinci code and angels and demons - although
they “look” good on the screen with set design, etc. to me he doesn’t really tell the story as easily as if you read the book. i wonder if people who see the movies without reading the books are able to really understand the whole story. angels and demons moved pretty fast and you don’t really get to know the characters that well. it is definitely an action thriller. perhaps another director could have done a better job.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I haven’t read the book nor have I seen the movie and I don’t think I will do either. But I have viewed some segments about it on TV. When I heard the plot involved a release of anti-matter that was stored in a secret Vatican cache, I laughed out loud. How could anyone see that as anything but fiction?

I heard Ron Howard insist that his film was fiction; it was not a documentary. I appreciate the distinction. Movies are made featuring our government and Washington, DC and no one confuses them with fact.

I didn’t know the plot included a papal assassination, learned that from this forum. Such a crime is certainly anti-Catholic. Especially not now am I interested in watching the move.

the anti-matter was not stored at the Vatican. that is the wrong verb i think. there was a plot and the anti-matter was stolen. the anti-matter was then hidden in the Vatican and at midnight was set to blow up and kill everyone in st. peter’s square as well as destroying the vatican. so it wasn’t like the Vatican found itself in possession of this anti-matter and asked themselves “well now, where shall we store it?”

 

[7_Sorrows]

I watched the film with my parents yesterday and did not find it really objectionable as unlike the Da Vinchi code it does not relate to theological matters, but the plot about the Carlamengo wanting to seize power is ridiculous. However, the makers recreated the Vatican well (the Vatican refused them filming access due to it’s association with Dan Brown) and it was face-paced and exciting.

i read that they created the Vatican on a racetrack somewhere south of LA and the sistene chapel was built on a sony soundstage or something like that. i thought they did a good job of recreating both.

 

[elts1956]

Hmmm … I think I remember an interview where he said it was fiction (but perhaps he spun it so it seemed real). Now you have me thinking; but no big deal (frankly I’m pretty sure it’s fiction like the religion ? its built around).

Are you talking about the Catholic Church, or the false one Brown represents?

Brown is in the public eye. The Da Vinci Code put him there. Unfortunately many are taken in by the written, or spoken word and don’t check the facts.

 

[elts1956]

Hmmm … I think I remember an interview where he said it was fiction (but perhaps he spun it so it seemed real). Now you have me thinking; but no big deal (frankly I’m pretty sure it’s fiction like the religion its built around).

Yes … I am thankful for our BOR (so religious zealots can’t censor our literature & impose their theocratic vision on us). In fact if I were to have a bible it would be the American Constitution!

Geeeee, and where did out Founding Fathers get their inspiration for the Constitution. Oh NO, not a Judeo Christian philosophy.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Geeeee, and where did out Founding Fathers get their inspiration for the Constitution. Oh NO, not a Judeo Christian philosophy.

such a typical statement. Try reading philosophers like John Locke & you might begin to digest the fact that the bible wasn’t the only book our founders read, much less based their political theory on (in fact much to the contrary). Also study the religious views of men like Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin. You’ll be surprised I’m sure … and with any luck you’ll learn something.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

such a typical statement. Try reading philosophers like John Locke & you might begin to digest the fact that the bible wasn’t the only book our founders read, much less based their political theory on (in fact much to the contrary). Also study the religious views of men like Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin. You’ll be surprised I’m sure … and with any luck you’ll learn something.

Or maybe John Adams,

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Or maybe John Adams,

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

That was the opinion of only one founder … many if not most of the other founders wouldn’t have framed it that way. A moral people yes, a religious people not necessarily. Then comes the question of whether there can be objective morality without religion, to which I answer of course there can be – since mankind invented religion in the first place.

It’s all about perception. Once you realize that in fact religion is untrue then there’s a paradigm shift in thinking. No longer is it logical to wonder whether or not morality can exist without religion.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

That was the opinion of only one founder … many if not most of the other founders wouldn’t have framed it that way. A moral people yes, a religious people not necessarily. Then comes the question of whether there can be objective morality without religion, to which I answer of course there can be – since mankind invented religion in the first place.

It’s all about perception. Once you realize that in fact religion is untrue then there’s a paradigm shift in thinking. No longer is it logical to wonder whether or not morality can exist without religion.

you named 2 I named one I believe that if we go through all the founders fathers of this counrty we will find that there was a belief in God. Now I will grant yhou that they did not favor setting up a Theocracy, But they did believe in a higher authority than man.

As for Morality without God. there is non for each and every man can then decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. You then have a compass that just points to nowhere as there is nothing to pull the arrow toward it. Many of the things we consider morally wrong can then be justified as right for the common good of mankind. The individual right soon disappear and the will of the ever changing Majority takes over.

if you have give no value to the whole then you do not have a right to live. good bye to the aged and severely handicapped.

you like to paint well to bad we dont need artist we need ditch diggers grab a shovel. This is what Adams was saying in that statement because of the way the Constitution is set up it can be changed and manipulated to fit the will of those in power and if the do not have a moral and riligous center then look out.

It saddens me to hear of people that have lost site of God. I owe not only being in existence to god but the fact that I am still here to Him. Many thing have been done through out history by tyrants in the name of God that does not place God to blame. I am filled with joy that I have a Father in Heaven and his Son Jesus Christ to redeem me of my short coming. I can not imagine the burden of doing it all myself.

Thank you Jesus for setting me Free.

and by the Way Jefferson di beleve in God or a Supreme being any way. He just had a lot of issues with the Bible so he edited it and removed the part he did not like.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

you named 2 I named one I believe that if we go through all the founders fathers of this counrty we will find that there was a belief in God. Now I will grant yhou that they did not favor setting up a Theocracy, But they did believe in a higher authority than man.

I agree.

As for Morality without God. there is non for each and every man can then decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. You then have a compass that just points to nowhere as there is nothing to pull the arrow toward it. Many of the things we consider morally wrong can then be justified as right for the common good of mankind. The individual right soon disappear and the will of the ever changing Majority takes over.

I posited whether there could be an “objective morality” without religion, to which I said yes I believe there can. You’re describing subjective morality, which I agree is a bad idea.

You might think the laws of god provide this compass or rudder without which mankind would be lost. However, IMO that commonly held notion dismisses many facts. First, it can hardly be said that religion itself mirrors what it was in the first century (in fact Christianity is much different today than it was in the 12th or 15th centuries). I hope you can agree there hasn’t been a Roman inquisition or Puritan theocracy in quite some time.

You might say the rules haven’t changed but rather we’ve evolved towards a truer understanding of them. I say how is this any different than the subjectiveness you seem so frightened of? Today we have a higher sense of equality than our precessors do we not? We afford women rights that arguably are contrary to scripture (I can remember Paul’s words that a woman is saved through child rearing and caring for her family – implying those activities are her only permissible sources of self-worth). Without running down the list hopefully you can see my point.

if you have give no value to the whole then you do not have a right to live. good bye to the aged and severely handicapped.

you’re creating a boogy man that doesn’t exist. I know plenty of irreligious people who all love and care for aging or handicapped relatives. The notion that religion is the only wall that holds back the barbarism of man is not only fallacy, but indeed in some cases religion contributes to hostility. I’m certainly not foolish enough to blame religion for all our problems, but yet it is just another thing mankind has created that is sometimes good and sometimes bad (like everything else we do). In all its imperfection I see no evidence of a perfect all powerful god behind the wheel of religion.

you like to paint well to bad we dont need artist we need ditch diggers grab a shovel. This is what Adams was saying in that statement because of the way the Constitution is set up it can be changed and manipulated to fit the will of those in power and if the do not have a moral and riligous center then look out.

I’m not sure how you expect me to respond here … I suspect this is an emotive response on you part?

It saddens me to hear of people that have lost site of God. I owe not only being in existence to god but the fact that I am still here to Him. Many thing have been done through out history by tyrants in the name of God that does not place God to blame. I am filled with joy that I have a Father in Heaven and his Son Jesus Christ to redeem me of my short coming. I can not imagine the burden of doing it all myself.

Thank you Jesus for setting me Free.

and by the Way Jefferson di beleve in God or a Supreme being any way. He just had a lot of issues with the Bible so he edited it and removed the part he did not like.

Yes he removed all the parts that referred to miracles (included the resurrection). I’m not quite sure how to define Jefferson (it seems he believed in a god, or the possibility of a god, or at least that Jesus was a heck of a guy). As for the rest of your comments … I won’t aim my comments at your deeply held beliefs, since I respect everyones right to hold differing opinions.

 

[elts1956]

such a typical statement. Try reading philosophers like John Locke & you might begin to digest the fact that the bible wasn’t the only book our founders read, much less based their political theory on (in fact much to the contrary). Also study the religious views of men like Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin. You’ll be surprised I’m sure … and with any luck you’ll learn something.

What an Umble answer. And where did John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin get their ideas about individual freedom (with responsibility)? Could it have been the BIBLE!!! or the TORAH??? :bigyikes:

 

[sedonaman]

…
more conspiracy theories! the curiosity around the knights templar, illuminati, free masons, will probably not fade for a long time. so we should expect these books or movies every now and then. i think the art bell radio show brought an interest in these topics to light through the years and books and movies have been made. maybe people will get tired of them after awhile.

One of the reasons they continue to be made is that Catholics as a group go see them. You might say it’s the Eighth Sorrow that some Catholics like to see their religion bashed.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

What an Umble answer. And where did John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin get their ideas about individual freedom (with responsibility)? Could it have been the BIBLE!!! or the TORAH??? :bigyikes:

If you find any musings about individual freedom in the bible please let me know … because the bible I read is not exactly an exposition on equal rights. Locke postulated the mind was a “blank slate” (which is contrary to Christian philosophy). Moreover, Locke was influenced heavily by the likes of Descartes (who himself was thought to harbor deist or atheist views, though he did remain a loyal Catholic).

John Locke was a lawyer by trade – so it’s most likely that the single biggest influence on his views was the common law. Locke was a heavy weight among enlightenment thinkers, associating with men such as Robert Boyle (who a natural philosopher, chemist, physicist, etc.). These were not zealous religious men – indeed quite to the contrary. It was in England where religion was no longer permitted to shackle the thoughts of men that the enlightenment happened. It could not have happened under different circumstances.

Jefferson and Franklin were heavily influenced by Locke (in fact the influence of Locke on our Constitution cannot be understated). So the musings of Christians that our laws are heavily based on scripture simply finds no basis in fact. Certainly the bible had some influence, but that influence is always overstated by Christians (indeed the claims are so far from the truth they’re almost the polar opposite of what really happened). You’re more likely to find the bibles influence in mundane areas such as our bankruptcy laws rather than more profound areas like equal rights.

 

[7_Sorrows]

One of the reasons they continue to be made is that Catholics as a group go see them. You might say it’s the Eighth Sorrow that some Catholics like to see their religion bashed.

actually, i think if you are looking for Catholic bashing you will find it, if you are not looking for Catholic bashing, there isn’t any. it’s how YOU choose to see it.

 

[sedonaman]

actually, i think if you are looking for Catholic bashing you will find it, if you are not looking for Catholic bashing, there isn’t any. it’s how YOU choose to see it.

Well, I guess the Vatican saw it wrong because it refused Ron Howard’s request to film some scenes there, and what does the Vatican know, anyway?

 

[the_7th_one]

If you find any musings about individual freedom in the bible please let me know … because the bible I read is not exactly an exposition on equal rights. Locke postulated the mind was a “blank slate” (which is contrary to Christian philosophy). Moreover, Locke was influenced heavily by the likes of Descartes (who himself was thought to harbor deist or atheist views, though he did remain a loyal Catholic).

John Locke was a lawyer by trade – so it’s most likely that the single biggest influence on his views was the common law. Locke was a heavy weight among enlightenment thinkers, associating with men such as Robert Boyle (who a natural philosopher, chemist, physicist, etc.). These were not zealous religious men – indeed quite to the contrary. It was in England where religion was no longer permitted to shackle the thoughts of men that the enlightenment happened. It could not have happened under different circumstances.

Jefferson and Franklin were heavily influenced by Locke (in fact the influence of Locke on our Constitution cannot be understated). So the musings of Christians that our laws are heavily based on scripture simply finds no basis in fact. Certainly the bible had some influence, but that influence is always overstated by Christians (indeed the claims are so far from the truth they’re almost the polar opposite of what really happened). You’re more likely to find the bibles influence in mundane areas such as our bankruptcy laws rather than more profound areas like equal rights.

The view of Humans in the world held by the Jews of old was that we are each on a trip in this world to become who God has called us to be. He has given us the means and the way and expects us to make the trip. Like Abram was called to belive God’s call to a Land that would belong to him and his people, so we are each called to our own personal journey. The states role is how to best help the people along the way. Two main views come to mind.
1) People need to be trained guided and directed every step of the way so they do not make the wrong choice. The Kings and nobles (or Chairman and Council) are charged with seeing that the masses get there.
2) A Shepherd sees to it that the sheep are safe. As long as they stay on the pasture, they are free to seek there own way. Freedom within general boundries like Jefferson, Franklin and others.

The thing is, Christian and Jewish views and thoughts underline everything that this country was founded on. They may have been derived a step or two away from the Bible, and faith tradition, but they are the ultimate roots

 

[elts1956]

If you find any musings about individual freedom in the bible please let me know … because the bible I read is not exactly an exposition on equal rights. Locke postulated the mind was a “blank slate” (which is contrary to Christian philosophy). Moreover, Locke was influenced heavily by the likes of Descartes (who himself was thought to harbor deist or atheist views, though he did remain a loyal Catholic).

John Locke was a lawyer by trade – so it’s most likely that the single biggest influence on his views was the common law. Locke was a heavy weight among enlightenment thinkers, associating with men such as Robert Boyle (who a natural philosopher, chemist, physicist, etc.). These were not zealous religious men – indeed quite to the contrary. It was in England where religion was no longer permitted to shackle the thoughts of men that the enlightenment happened. It could not have happened under different circumstances.

Jefferson and Franklin were heavily influenced by Locke (in fact the influence of Locke on our Constitution cannot be understated). So the musings of Christians that our laws are heavily based on scripture simply finds no basis in fact. Certainly the bible had some influence, but that influence is always overstated by Christians (indeed the claims are so far from the truth they’re almost the polar opposite of what really happened). You’re more likely to find the bibles influence in mundane areas such as our bankruptcy laws rather than more profound areas like equal rights.

So nowhere in the Bible can you find writings which the support the dignity of hu/mans???

 

[elts1956]

If you find any musings about individual freedom in the bible please let me know … because the bible I read is not exactly an exposition on equal rights. Locke postulated the mind was a “blank slate” (which is contrary to Christian philosophy). Moreover, Locke was influenced heavily by the likes of Descartes (who himself was thought to harbor deist or atheist views, though he did remain a loyal Catholic).

John Locke was a lawyer by trade – so it’s most likely that the single biggest influence on his views was the common law. Locke was a heavy weight among enlightenment thinkers, associating with men such as Robert Boyle (who a natural philosopher, chemist, physicist, etc.). These were not zealous religious men – indeed quite to the contrary. It was in England where religion was no longer permitted to shackle the thoughts of men that the enlightenment happened. It could not have happened under different circumstances.

Jefferson and Franklin were heavily influenced by Locke (in fact the influence of Locke on our Constitution cannot be understated). So the musings of Christians that our laws are heavily based on scripture simply finds no basis in fact. Certainly the bible had some influence, but that influence is always overstated by Christians (indeed the claims are so far from the truth they’re almost the polar opposite of what really happened). You’re more likely to find the bibles influence in mundane areas such as our bankruptcy laws rather than more profound areas like equal rights.

The view of Humans in the world held by the Jews of old was that we are each on a trip in this world to become who God has called us to be. He has given us the means and the way and expects us to make the trip. Like Abram was called to belive God’s call to a Land that would belong to him and his people, so we are each called to our own personal journey. The states role is how to best help the people along the way. Two main views come to mind.
1) People need to be trained guided and directed every step of the way so they do not make the wrong choice. The Kings and nobles (or Chairman and Council) are charged with seeing that the masses get there.
2) A Shepherd sees to it that the sheep are safe. As long as they stay on the pasture, they are free to seek there own way. Freedom within general boundries like Jefferson, Franklin and others.

The thing is, Christian and Jewish views and thoughts underline everything that this country was founded on. They may have been derived a step or two away from the Bible, and faith tradition, but they are the ultimate roots

Thank you, thank you for stating this so clearly. Now whether your words will be taken as truth is another matter indeed. Have you noticed how some posters tend to ignore what is right in front of them? Especially if they have more secular views.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Thank you, thank you for stating this so clearly. Now whether your words will be taken as truth is another matter indeed. Have you noticed how some posters tend to ignore what is right in front of them? Especially if they have more secular views.

I respectfully disagree with the underlying premise (and I’m not necessarily saying that the bible had nothing to do with shaping some of the ideas of our founders – it obviously did as everything else they learned and experienced did).

The underlying premise is that god exists, therefore to deny him is in a sense to deny our purpose and calling. This then extends to the necessity of viewing his revelations as fact rather than fiction, and more than that as constructive boundaries to govern our existence (given the view that god is perfect, all knowing, and all powerful).

I don’t say with an absolute degree of certainty that there might not be some grand architecht of our universe (and beyond if there is such a thing) … I simply say that the revelations of the bible are not true (and my latter assertion IS something I say with a high degree of certainty). I’ve laid out my reasoning enough times (I don’t want to keep rehasing it). I understand many if not most will disagree – but popular opinion doesn’t deter my thoughts.

The fact is even if it’s true that mankind operates better when under the premise that a god exists – it doesn’t make it true. It just means most people require a deterrent of some kind to temper their predisposition toward deviancy. An invisible friend (or foe depending on your behavior) who is watching, keeping track, who has become the explanation for our conscience, and who will ultimately judge each of us can obviously temper conduct if you believe in it. This is why atheism or agnosticism isn’t for everyone. I’d hate to see someone who can’t control their conduct think or believe as I do – because they’re simply not equipped for it. Some people need a god, even though it’s fiction.

The funny thing is I can point to many elements of Christian philosophy that make perfect sense, however, all that means is that sometimes men say stuff that makes sense (not that it must have been a god who endowed us with that wisdom). Men say sensible things every day … all by themselves!