Sunday, May 21

World

If You Insist

Michael Novak, foaming at the mouth over at National Review Online:
The professor Hanks plays makes plain that he believes that Jesus is only a man—a man and that's all. A great moral teacher, perhaps, but only a man.

That, of course, is the one thing that the Jesus himself does not allow us to believe. If Jesus is only a man, he is no great moral teacher. He is on the contrary a fraud, a pretender, a horrible spendthrift with his own life and the lives of his apostles—all twelve of whom met a martyrdom like his, some of them crucified, all of them most brutally killed without the utterance of a single recantation. If He was not the Son of God, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, he was either a mountebank or a lunatic, and deserves our contempt, not our praise. His every moral teaching would be vitiated by its radical emptiness and fraudulence.

One of the very meanings of being secular today, of course, is to believe that Jesus was exactly all these things—a lunatic or a fraud and, more important than anything else, no more than a man.

Sorry Michael, but this is complete tripe.

Secularism necessarily implies that Jesus is not the son of God, because it involves a lack of belief in gods.

All the rest is your own construction.

So The Da Vinci Code will not exactly be stating any new thesis that secular people don't already accept. What it may succeed in doing, however, is to make dramatically manifest the silliness, madness, and love of illusion in what being secular means, at least to these film makers. It is for this reason, perhaps, that so many secular critics have found this movie repellent. Although it seeks to mock Christians and Jews, it actually makes a purely secular view seem absolutely batty.
(My emphasis.)

That there are secularist moonbats around is an uncontestable fact. But attributing their faults to secularism itself is as false as attributing Pat Robertson's faults to Christianity at large. More so, if anything.

Having said all that, it does sound like the film* is a steaming mound of hyena offal.

* The Da Vinci Code.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 06:01 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 371 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Its amusing that Dan Brown has that its a work of fiction and thats all it is. There are some facts to it but thats not to say that he didn't take creative licence with them either.

Most people seem to have missed this small point. Once again I wonder if anyone whose protesting has actually read it.

I found the book an entertaining read. But I don't feel any great need to rush out and see the movie anytime soon. I'm sure that Mr Brown has more than enough money anyway.





Posted by: Andrew at Sunday, May 21 2006 08:54 AM (0585Z)

2 Sorry thats meant to read "Dan Brown has said that its a work of fiction ..."

Posted by: Andrew at Sunday, May 21 2006 08:55 AM (0585Z)

3 Yep.  There are plenty of similar works, taking up the story of Opus Dei or the Cathars or some other little-known piece of Church history.  One book, Flicker, had the Knights Templar as the secret power behind the movie industry...

It's actually not a bad book.



Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sunday, May 21 2006 09:12 AM (j2XVD)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
47kb generated in CPU 0.0166, elapsed 0.145 seconds.
56 queries taking 0.1329 seconds, 340 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.