?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

So dark the con of man

Yesterday was perhaps one of my worst days as a mommy.  Both boys spent the whole day being whiny and clingy and if one of them wasn't crying, the other was.  It was also a diaper heavy day.  I swear I changed their diapers like 15 times each.  

Around 3 o'clock, my friend, Roseanne, came over to give me some adult company.  I decided that we were going to the movies later.  As soon as Steve got home, we left.  We saw The DaVinci Code.  I really liked it.  I'd read the book a couple of summers ago and loved the book.  I thought the movie did a good job of getting the important details out in a speedy way so we weren't sitting there for 6 hours.  Tom Hanks did a good job but I don't think the character of Robert Langdon has much depth to it.  No Oscar for this one, I'm afraid.  After the movie, we went to a local diner for some late dinner.  

Girls Night is a good thing.  I feel like a person again, instead of just the mommy machine.

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
mom2cole
Jun. 21st, 2006 05:39 pm (UTC)
YAY for GNO!!! You so deserved it!!!
cjci
Jun. 21st, 2006 07:55 pm (UTC)
Hi! Felt the same way about the DaVinci code. Why do you think, in the end they didn't say anythign about the brother?
purplejuli
Jun. 22nd, 2006 03:26 am (UTC)
I've been thinking a lot about the book and the movie and the assertions it makes, the Church's refute of the things in it and it's really lead me to more of a crisis of faith than I already had...

Maybe because he was killed in the accident?
cjci
Jun. 22nd, 2006 03:55 am (UTC)
I felt that way after I first read the book.
I saw this show called The Real DaVinci code (or something like that) and it said the Priory of Sion was a total hoax concocted by two men in the 50s or 60s (can't remember exactly when). In a way that disappointed me.

Re: the brother...in the book he wasn't killed...she meets up with him in the end with the grandmother. I was wondering why they changed that in the movie. Especially when they showed that younger guy who let them in to the church at the end. It seemed like he would be the brother.
purplejuli
Jun. 23rd, 2006 02:25 pm (UTC)
I forgot about that in the book, I read it a few years ago.

I saw the Real DaVinci code on the Discovery Channel too. Yeah, the Priory of Sion is a hoax, but the Knights Templar aren't and their sole purpose was to guard the Grail. It just seems like every thing I read from the Catholic church that is supposed to refute the possibility that Jesus was married and had children seems like the flimsiest of excuses. Like they find one technicality and harp on it so that the rest of the book can't possibly be real.

The book is fiction, certainly, but I think that the ideas that Brown puts forth has merit. Nowhere in the Bible does it actually say that MAry Magdalene was a prostitute, yet the church has allowed that misconception to be believed. Why? In a time when it was customary- even required for men to marry--and marry young--- how are we supposed to believe that Christ managed to live until 33 and was never married.

The US Catholic Bishops had this to say about it on their website, Jesus Decoded: Remember the Dead Sea Scrolls? They belonged to a community called the Essenes among whom there were clearly celibate men. St. Paul, who lived at “that time,” writes to the Corinthians, “Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire” (1 Cor.7.8-9). There was a sense in those times that God was taking crucial action to bring about his kingdom, and that superseded even the most important human relationships, including marriage. “Bachelor” is a laughable word to describe this kind of commitment.

Christ wasn't an Essene. And it doesn't even state that all Essene men were celibate, just that some clearly were. It's this kind of dancing around clear answers and seemingly very deliberate word choices that bother me about the Church's response to the book & movie. It just doesn't make sense. The same way that the vision of Jesus that we're used to seeing, the beautiful pale-skinned, bearded man with the piercing blue eyes, is no where near what Christ likely looked like. He probably looked more like Osama bin Laden than the image we're used to. The church knows that, yet it continues to produce and promote art work with this false image of Christ.

The church his and protected child molesters for decades- most likely centuries- and doesn't believe it did anything wrong, yet those of the faith are required to believe in it's absolute sanctity, that they tell the truth when it comes to the life of Christ?

I just don't think I can buy it anymore.


( 5 comments — Leave a comment )