|
|
| Anybody watched the Movie, Da vinci Code? I would like to hear what you guys think..( I mean honest openion)
Its Banned in SL., so no DVDs CDs or movie in theaters., But I downloaded it and watched it.. What do you honestly think of it?
Edited by Thushara 2006-05-31 5:14 AM
|
|
| |
|
| I haven't seen the movie yet (it's just hit my local cinema) but did read the book some time ago.
I think the book was well written and a good story but certainly not the most amazing read of the year which is the impression you'd get from the hype that it generated some months after its initial publication.
The controversy stems from the element of the story line that has Jesus married to Mary Magdelaine and their children starting a lineage that continues today. In the book, this is essential to one thread of the plot but is not overly focussed upon.
I saw an interview with the author recently in which he agreed that the film had more or less remained faithful to the book but had had bits cut out in order to make it fit the usual movie run time. The same program also interviewed the minister of the Scots chapel that the story climax occurs in. This minister (if memory serves, Presbyterian) seemed to have little issue with the controversy over the book and seemed fairly delighted over the publicity for his, frankly, rather lovely little church.
In short, my own view is that this is another case of people getting pretty steamed up over something that is FICTIONAL. Yes, I can see how some Christians might be offended by the notion of Jesus and Mary being married. A TV program on the history channel covered the evidence for and against with particular reference to the Gnostic gospels and it's not all clear cut one way or the other when looked at with a historically purist eye, but then the book never sets out to be a historically accurate representation. In fact, cryptographers around the world probably have more to complain about over the so-called codes that the entire plot revolves around - another TV programme covered messages in art and architecture and how, when contemporary, the meaning would have been obvious to the viewer and not at all encoded or obscure.
As for the film itself, my neighbours enjoyed it last night but didn't think it was good enough to be the sort of film you'd watch over and over again.
Fee
Edited by Orbilia 2006-05-31 5:44 AM
|
|
| |
|
| I read the book and saw the movie. I enjoyed both. The book wasn't literarily groundbreaking, but it was a fun read and a good little adventure story. My favorite (and i believe most developed and intreguing character in the book) was Silas. I was excited to see the movie when it came out (mostly to 'see' Silas--which was well playesd by Paul Bettany). I felt that the movie was a very good adaptation from the book, staying faithful to the story. There were a few missteps--such as Silas's motivation for the shootout once he was 'safe' at Opus Dei (it's better explained in the book). And, occassionally the script was too heavy on exposition--which is when they say "this is what the movie is about" in plain language. The first expositiony scene was the one in the mansion where they're describing 'DaVinci's Code' and the second was after Sophie realizes that she's the "princess" or "of the bloodline of Christ" and Robert goes on and on about responsibility or some such nonsesnse--honestly, i stopped listening because i don't like being preached to in movies or otherwise. But, overall i enjoyed the movie--and i though a lot of elements of how they did it were great, and my husband liked it too saying that it was easy to follow even though he hadn't read the book, meaning tht it does function as a stand-alone film.
As to the controversy, i think it's made up. That is, i think that the media and a few key folks are making something that isn't a controversy into a controversy in order to sell books, movies, church preachers (i love how they now 'sell' or 'market' themselves--it's kinda freaky), anti-Da Vinci code clap trap, and of course, news programs. For most people, this book is not at all controversial because they're sophisticated enough to see it as fiction, or understand the historical parts and the fictitious parts and play with fun ideas.
This story about Mary Magdalene being the wife of Jesus has been around for a very long time--in fact it's one of many reasons why the catholic see was once moved to france (there were many others at the time as well). This story seems to have originated in france. After the death of christ, many missionaries were sent out to all corners of the world--both men and women. There were 72, which is 36 pairs. Each pair had a man and a woman in it--the women missionaries were called 'sister-wives' to protect them while on the road. This can be verified through both scripture and tradition (history). One of those women was likely Mary Magdalene.
This is where things get a little cloudy, with a bit of 'history' or 'evidence' as to where she went as a missionary. many believe that she returned home to Magdala and used her family's wealth to establish the church there and help support churches abroad. others say that she went as far north as france and established churches there.
Many french catholics believe that she came to france and established the french catholic churches--and they honor her as they would the 12 apostles. They vehemently oppose Pope gregory's attempt at 'slander' by saying that mary magdalene was the prostitute whom Jesus forgave. They believe other evidence (which i also believe) that she was a wealthy woman from Magdala--a town where the main pagan temple housed sex priestesses. in fact, the town was named for this famous sex-goddess temple--named for it's 4 spires: magdala. and this is where gregory made his leap that she was the temple protesitute or sex preistess--because of the name of the town. But, it was a town, not just a temple, and many jewish people lived there without partaking in that religious practice. It is generally established that Mary Magdalene was a Jew.
So, for those who believe that MM went to france, there are two or three camps as to what she did there--whether she stayed or continued north founding churches all over france (which also included parts of germany and spain at the time--a region called Gaul during this era) or whether she brought with her her family and ultimately settled in or near a church.
she did, btw, write numerous gospels--or numerous gospels are attributed to her whether or not she wrote all of them--and having read them myself, they are very interesting texts. They are, of course, not in the bible and do not carry the major themes of that canon, which is likely why they were excluded, but they are valued by some regional churches still to this day.
there are some stories that mary brought with her not only her 'brother husband' (meaning the male missionary assigned to each other), but also her family. We know that some apostles like Peter were married and left his family (wife and children) behind to follow Jesus. ONce Jesus died, Peter and James ran the church from Jerusalem (from Acts of the Apostles) and while there is no mention of Peter's family, it is likely that they moved to Jerusalem and lived with Peter there. If Mary had a family--or gained a family at some time--it is likely that the family would have ultimately settled where she did. So, it's very likely that mary had children from someone--perhaps even frmo her "brother husband."
From this--the idea that Mary had a family--stems the story that Mary was the wife of Jesus and that her children were his children. I think that this story is plausible and to me, it doesn't really cause any faith crisis. I can't imagine why it would. Jesus was, afterall, as fully human as he was divine and the jewish culture values family very highly.
but, i do have my suspicions bout whether or not Jesus married Mary Magdalene--and here's why. Most people in that era had a life expectancy of 50 or so years. At 25, then, you're 'mid life' and if we remember other cultural cues such as Mary, the mother of Jesus's experience, women were married and breeding quite young--at about age 14 or so, usually shortly after their first mensus. Typically, girls were not married to young boys. Boys at this age--14--were often apprenticing and too busy learning their trade, but by 18 or so, they would be tradesmen and able to support a househould. On average, young girls married boys four to six years their elders.
by the time the boy is 25, he likely is married, has a number of children, and also trains apprentices in his trade. If his first child is born at age 18, then by the time he's 30, that child is 12 and getting ready for apprenticeship. by the time he's 40, that child is 22 and married with his own children.
if Jesus was a 'typical' Jewish boy, apprenticed to his father Joseph, it is likely that he married around age 18-22 or so to a girl who was between the ages of 12 and 15. He likely fathered children and lived as a householder until he felt called to his mission at age 30. At this point, his capentry business would be established--an extension of Joseph's--and could be run by other tradesmen whom he apprenticed and have apprentices doing most of the work. Economically, his family would be cared for by this business. It was likely that he was a very wealthy fellow.
Aside from this, it ws not uncommon in jewish culture for men to take certain prayer vows throughout their lives--leaving behind their families for a time. These families would be supported by the community while they're husbands went to pray in the desert for many days (or years), or other services to the religious aspects of the society. It was considered appropriate for men to do this particularly once they were 'older.'
Now, assuming that Jesus was married with children before he turned 30 and went on his mission, it is highly unlikely that he would marry Mary Magdalene--why? because he was probably already married. If that wife had died, then he might have married her, but this is highly unusual when in a missionary calling for jewish men.
and if he did marry her, seeing as he was prone to the unusual, then how old was she and would she still be of child-bearing age? honestly, i can't answer these questions, only speculate.
But if he did marry her and they do have children, then i don't see how that would be at all earth shattering to christianity. I don't see why it would be important or somehow invalidate the message, teachings, and mythology of Jesus.
but some people confuse easily and lack any depth in their faith and understanding. so, for them, it might lead to disillusionment. which, is a good thing really, because it stinks to live under illusions. |
|
| |
|
| Thanks for expanding on the explanation of the history for me Zoebird. I'd heard of the France connection before but not so clear an exposition on the liklihood of Jesus and Mary M being wed.
Fee |
|
| |
|
| honestly, there's a whole lot we don't know.
but for me, i don't know why it matters. from a spiritual level, it doesn't matter if things are factual. many truths in the universe are not facts, but they are still true. facts are true too, but they're a different sort of truth.
so wehether or not Jesus or Mary Magdalene were wed and to whom they were wed may be factual information--and therefore true--but they don't speak to or undermine the truths of the teachings and mythology of Jesus. Having no children and not being married doesn't make Jesus any more divine. Having children makes him no less divine. and, his children are no more divine than anyone else. In fact, the scriptures say that all are like Jesus--fully human and divine--so his children, if he had any, would be no different and anyone else. It would just be like being a 'preacher's kid' and that's about it. nothing too special--ask any kid who is the son or daughter of a preacher, priest, rabbi, minister, missionary. . .etc. 
Edited by zoebird 2006-05-31 8:54 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Thank ZB. Just for the record, I'd hate to be the preacher's kid for one of the most influential teachers of all time. Can you imagine the sort of rebelous behavior you'd have to perform to deal with it? We're talking sacking entire nations, and putting everybody to the sword.....
As far as the threat to the faith of Christianity, I think it's a huge threat to a lot of really shallow and literal minded Christians who might see the fundamental foundation of their views shaken. (shrug)
Personally, I haven't read the book, and probably won't see the movie, just not interested. |
|
| |
|
| That's a shame GJ. Taken for what it is, it's a cracking read.
Fee |
|
| |
|
| Da Vinci code banned in SL? That's awful.
I agree with most of zb's take on the whole thing. I found Silas' character very interesting, too. I find tortured people interesting, for that matter.
I've never been to France, but my good friends, who are not catholic, (actually, Doug, my friend, is the only real "reiki master" I've ever met) said the "goddess" is alive and revered in catholic Paris. It's in their architecture, their poetry, their identity, etc...that's interesting to me, too.
I can imagine Mary M. and Jesus loved each other very much - in which way, we'll never know. But, in my mind I've always thought of Jesus as an aesthetic, similar to the Buddha. They pretty much eschewed the material world.
I have a different idea of da Vinci's code: One aspect of the da Vinci Code I found implausible is that da Vinci worshipped the sacred feminine. Why would he, a gay man, worship anything female? While homosexual men may enjoy the company of women, they do not revere women. I lived in the Castro, in SF, for years, had tons of gay "boyfriends" and none of them had a lot of intrinsic respect for the feminine - only in regards to how the feminine relates to them. (How does Mother [female friends] take care of Son {gay man}) Really, only straight men and other women (gay or straight) have a deep regard and respect for the feminine. And, we all know, not all straight men respect women.
Plus, the catholic church is pretty much a gay man's club. Look at the rampant homosexual pedifilia, which, by the way, is hardly frowned upon by the catholic church. Sure, the parishoners might be against it, but the catholic church isn't.
I think a more realistic plot is that Leonardo daVinci had a catholic priest as a gay lover. The gay priest broke da Vinci's heart and da Vinci, being an extraordinary genius, channeled his rage in his art, creating just enough rumors to stoke the fires for centuries. Da Vinci got the last laugh!
Of course, homosexuality freaks people out, so my version probably won't be make into a movie. |
|
| |
|
| well, not anytime soon, anyway. i've never really heard of a gay-male sub plot, but one theory that i have heard a good deal about was the increasing power of women in christian society (the first to give women spiritual agency from that region), and the male desire for control and power, thus killing off all vibrant christian women (past and present) and oppressing future generations of women.
buddha did have a wife a child. they were cared for in his family's castle while he went out and discovered his nature. and then he became a missionary--and they were still taken care of. he was a prince, so his child was also a prince. later, his wife, step-mother, and son all became monks. or so the story goes.
the same could be true of jesus's family. it's likely that the multigeneraltional carpentry business could support a number of people--and if jesus's sons maintained the business while he did his bit until his death, then everyone's taken care of and no problem.
it might also be noted that in many non-jewish areas, divine feminine is worshipped. it's common in irish catholicism too. |
|
| |
|
| Yes, I really like Judiasm. They are very pro-female. Very pro-family.
I don't know if I agree with you about Irish Catholics. From my first hand experience, there wasn't much feminine worship going on.
No one is going to talk about a gay sub-plot because most people are uneasy about homosexuality. Talk about breaking the bonds of faith! |
|
| |
|
| Orbilia - 2006-05-31 11:51 AM
That's a shame GJ. Taken for what it is, it's a cracking read.
I've heard a lot of people also pan it. Really I just don't care. Right now I've got a stack of books about 3' deep I'm attempting to read, and about half a dozen I've started and not finished. I'm also pretty done with fiction for the moment, since I've easily read a small library's worth.
I think that the idea of the divine femine is the thing that really bothers a lot of fundamentalist christians about the ideas in the Da Vinci code. For that matter, I'm not seeing a lot of guys jumping in on this subject either. So it's a huge drawing point for women.
On match.com (the dating site) they've got a little section where you list the books you've recently read. Just about every woman on there has put down this book, if she didn't put down something cutsie. Cincy's very catholic, which might have something to do with it, but I don't think that's the only reason.
Not sure what the guys are reading, but I don't think this is it. |
|
| |
|
| fifi:
yes, judaism is really pro woman and pro family. in fact, women are in charge of all aspects of sex, sexualty, marriage, and family. that whole area is considered their 'mitzvah' but there isn't any goddess worship from that tradition.
whereas, when christianity--which started as judaism and therefore without goddess worship--started to spread out, many christians maintained goddess worship in a number of ways. some of those ways are those that you mentioned in france, and irish catholicism (perhaps not the modern, but much of the early versions) also maintained a good deal of goddess worship though prticular saints and devotion to the Virgin Mary. there are others as well, of course, and many who worship Sophia, as the female aspect of God in the triune, giving the Holy Spirit the name "sophia' and therefore female attributes. it's actually quite widespread, but not necessarily recognized.
as to the homosexual subplot, i've simply never heard of it. i suppose it could be possible. i think that if Jesus was gay--as some have claimed, saying that John was his beloved companion--that this doesn't really break down Jesus's message or mythology any more than marrying anyone or mary magdalene would.
and Judaism has a different take on homosexuality altogether. in the talmud, men could have sex before marriage, but once married, could only have sex within that marriage. these sex acts could be homosexual or heterosexual outside of marriage. for those who wanted heterosexual contact, they could go to specified women (prostitutes) who were generally known to be barren. this, then, didn't negatively impact the family/inheritance issues that underly most of the adultry rulings. homosexuality was ok as well, as long as someone wasn't married.
if jesus wasn't married at the time of his missionary progress, then i see no reason why he couldn't have been in a homosexual relationship with John (or anyone else for that matter) from a jewish perspective. If he was married, then he wasn't with Mary Magdalene or John because it would be adultry and he was not into that according to all of the teachings.
it might be interesting to note also that there are many catholic scholars who believe that not only were early priests married, and the early church had priestesses, but also that the church married homosexual couples. the evidences of these are scattered art pieces and a few mentions of marriages of certain individuals (called saints) in various texts similar to church records kept today (so and so married so and so on this date; etc).
so it really begs the question as to when the idea of homosexuality being a horrible sin (which it isn't necessarily in catholicism today--see DignityUSA.org, a catholic organization that is pro GLBT) and why.
and then from this, why it is such a hugely emotional social issue such that it won't be discussed.
and thankfully, pedophillic and related priests are currently being prosecuted both within and without the church, which i think is very important.
personally, i always go back to judaism to understand what christianity is talking about. it only makes sense to do so.
but, yeah, it's interesting stuff. |
|
| |
|
| i think it's a huge drawing point for women who have been taught in recent years of christianity that that which has value is male, and that for her own salvation, she needs a male process. it doesn't really take into account our own agency and the spiritual archetypes of that agency. i think women hunger for a spiritual archetype, but fear having to buck the safety of their church system to find it. so they get titillated by little tastes of it when they get the chance.
i didn't take the book this seriously, nor would i call it one of my favorites. i had no intention of reading it originally, and my friend said it was a fun, easy read. for me, it was like reading a treasure hunt. i liked all the little codes and things that got revealed as they went along. And i liked Silas. he was just such an interesting character. certianly made it worth reading.
but, other than that, i have many other fiction books that i prefer. have you read Phillip Pullman's Dark materials? excellent books. really creative. |
|
| |
|
| zoebird - 2006-05-31 2:40 PM
but, other than that, i have many other fiction books that i prefer. have you read Phillip Pullman's Dark materials? excellent books. really creative.
No, but I have read Philip K. ****..... there's a guy one bread shop short of a full loaf. It's amazing how anti-american culture he was, and how hollywood has embraced him in recent years. I'm sure he's turning over in his grave.  |
|
| |
|
| PKD was insane. i love his stuff.
Phillip Pullman's books are excellent. the Dark Materials are a trilogy: The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass. They are amazing books. I really enjoy them. |
|
| |
|
| I NEVER said or implied Jesus was gay! NEVER NEVER NEVER!
no no no no no no no no no |
|
| |
|
| zoebird - 2006-05-31 7:32 AM
But if he did marry her and they do have children, then i don't see how that would be at all earth shattering to christianity. I don't see why it would be important or somehow invalidate the message, teachings, and mythology of Jesus.
Thanks zoebird for that information. I never see any movies so I was not knoing anything about it. I was just aware from newspapers about some controvercy about the film. You neatly put all the background and views.
Is it possible that such controvercies arise because people expect their idols to be super perfect? And often try to fit the God as per their idea of perfectness?
|
|
| |
|
| GJ, all I can say in my defence is that I read the book before it bacame hyped and enjoyed it for the story rather than for any pro-feminine stance :-) The aspect of the divine feminine didn't even register on my radar. Must be I'm used to the notion due to having a few Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic friends perhaps?
It took a while for the noise about the book to sink in. Perhaps there wasn't as much of it in Britain as the US? A lot of Brits are not religious at all and the fastest growing religion is Islam so perhaps it wouldn't have been such a hot topic here?
I tend to pop into my local Waterstones every so often (interestingly enough this is in a converted United Reform church) and just grab about half a dozen books from the 3 for the price of 2 shelf. The Da Vinci Code was picked up that way. Just as well I saw it before the controversy as the perverse in me would have put it back down had it been famous at the time 
Fee |
|
| |
|
| fifi:
i don't knw if that was sarcasm or whatever, but i wanted to clarify that i wasn't saying that you said that Jesus was gay. But rather, that some have claimed it, and then i argued how it might be true, how it might not be true, and then again how it still doesn't impact the teachings and mythology of Jesus negatively.
To me, if jesus was gay, then great. i have no issue or qualm with homosexuality or with great teachers and messiahs and profits being homosexual. I simply don't decide who can and can't be annointed by God based on sex, gender, and sexuality. it's not one of my barometers, you know? the same with whether or not he was married and to whom and when. same with race. Some claim jesus was black, others dark arab, others fair-skinned arab, others egyptian--i really don't care what race he was.
i remember belonging to two catholic churches in Pine Bluff, Ar. Our parish was technically St. Josephs "the white church" but my sister went to the only catholic school in the area St Peters "the black church." i always felt more at home at St. Peters. Anyway, the big controversy cropped up with the parish priest, Father Tom, decided to paint the statue of the virgin mary in the grotto black. his reasoning was that every time mary appeared to people, she looked like them. Our lady of Guadelupe looks mexican indian. Our lady of Lourdes looks french. Our lady of Chenchnecova (sp?) looks polish. So, apparently she can appear in whatever physical visage she wants. So why not black? and why couldn't Jesus be black? (father tom, btw, was white and irish).
and at the inter-parish discussion on the matter, i, at the tender age of 11, brought up that perhaps jesus was arab and looked arab-hebrew rather than white or black, considering how the people of that region look. I cracked out my World Magazines, my National Geographics, and my book from childhood People of the World (photographic book), and noted that people from the region of the middle east all look brown to me. Not black, not white, but brown.
And then i asked "but what does his race have to do with salvation?"
and the bishop clapped his hands, laughed, and called the end of the meetting. Then we ate cake. I do love cake. |
|
| |
|
| Is it possible that such controvercies arise because people expect their idols to be super perfect? And often try to fit the God as per their idea of perfectness?
i think that this may be part of it. I also think that GJ brought up an important element of literalism.
As i see it, the texts refering to jesus in the bible have a variety of literary devices at play that display meaning. as someone wrote before--there really is not a 'code.' the contemporary audience at the time would have gotten these elements as 'obvious' whereas today they've lost much of their contextual and obvious meaning int he changing culture.
they are, as well, complex literary works working on multiple levels. Many modern people can't seem to segregate out that there may have been a historical person of Jesus who lived this way or that; and then from this there is a literary person of Jesus who is the character in the texts who probably galvanized the ideas and did teach those things (part fact, part mythos); and then there is also the mythological structures that were applied to this character or person of jesus to describe the more esoteric elements through literary symbology.
Engaging Jesus at all three levels is sometimes difficult for less sophisticated readers. Taking a literalist approach to the mythology seems to be the msot common interpretation of our current era--leading to fundamentalism and many of it's problems.
At the mythological level, it's not really important whether or not jesus was a certain race, sex, class, etc in real life or in fact. At the factual level, the mythological elements only play on the spiritual aspect and it's impact on his factual existance (which is evident through the teaching and potentially factual elements in the literary depictions of christ).
people forget that scripture is an art form--including elements that aren't necessarily factual. A similar example to this--from the Code nonetheless--is much of the art in the Lourve. Much of the art there depicts all manner of biblical stories, but not in 'historically accurate dress" or even 'hostically accurate race" or any other number of embellishments from an artistic standpoint that are used to cue the audience to certain pyschological and spiritual elements that cannot be depicted through straight "factual" historicity.
it is the complexity that gives the whole process spiritual depth and import, but few people are willing to engage this. And this is why these theories become controversial for people--it frightens their ideas of who Jesus is or was, and to them, it greatly impacts the mythological structure depicting Jesus's achievements. |
|
| |
|
| Fee:
i tend not to read popular books either. i only read it after a friend loaned it to me.
it is true that europe, overall, is less religious (though in my experience no less spiritual), and so the controversy wouldn't be 'as great.'
there is a converted church in Pittsburgh that my husband and I visited with his friend. It's a brewery and restaurant. that's the most common use of old churches here--restaurants. ;) |
|
| |
|
| no sarcasm on my part. I just wanted to make sure you didn't twist my words around. |
|
| |
|
| Hi Zoebird,
going from feeding the soul to feeding the body is not, perhaps, such a leap :-) A friend lives ina converted church. Her home is upside down with the living room, etc on the upper story in order to take advantage of the view over the Berkshire Downs.
Waterstones did a good job of the conversion and you can still see something of the church behind the racking.
Europe is still very spiritual. In Britain, there has been quite a move back to the old religions such as Wicca and Druidism. In the light of earlier portions of this thread, I wonder if this move toward feminine-centric belief systems is a reaction to the phallo-centric structures in our society?
Fee
zoebird - 2006-06-01 1:52 PM
Fee:
i tend not to read popular books either. i only read it after a friend loaned it to me.
it is true that europe, overall, is less religious (though in my experience no less spiritual ), and so the controversy wouldn't be 'as great.'
there is a converted church in Pittsburgh that my husband and I visited with his friend. It's a brewery and restaurant. that's the most common use of old churches here--restaurants. ; )
Edited by Orbilia 2006-06-01 9:14 AM
|
|
| |
|
| bipinjoshi - 2006-05-31 11:23 PM
zoebird - 2006-05-31 7:32 AM
But if he did marry her and they do have children, then i don't see how that would be at all earth shattering to christianity. I don't see why it would be important or somehow invalidate the message, teachings, and mythology of Jesus.
Is it possible that such controvercies arise because people expect their idols to be super perfect? And often try to fit the God as per their idea of perfectness?
I think it also comes back to the idea that many Christain churches teach that Sex was "The Original Sin" that caused the fall of man. I've been taught that the original sin was Ignorance, which seems to be shared by yoga and a number of other eastern religions.
Anyway, if Sex is the original sin, then for "The perfect man" who was "without sin" to be engaging in said act would invalidate this stance.  Naturally there are similar issues with Jesus being gay(if you think the bible is against homosexuality), various races (if you're a racist), or a woman (who are often viewed as less than human).
I personally have issues with Jesus being mythological because it invalidates "I am the way the truth and the life, no man come to the father but by me." In this case he identifies himself as the living example. I'd have similar issues with Buddha being a myth, or patanjali, or any of the other saints. It means that the aim of the Great Work is not necessarily obtainable.
It took a while for the noise about the book to sink in. Perhaps there wasn't as much of it in Britain as the US? A lot of Brits are not religious at all and the fastest growing religion is Islam so perhaps it wouldn't have been such a hot topic here?
Couldn't tell you. I'm not much a trend anything, so it's hard for me to say. I was surprised at the number of people who listed it in their profiles, but then people around here tend to fall in line fairly quickly.
Anyway, my understanding was that the most popular religion in the UK was Jedi Knight..... |
|
| |
|
| Orbilia - 2006-06-01 9:12 AM
Europe is still very spiritual. In Britain, there has been quite a move back to the old religions such as Wicca and Druidism. In the light of earlier portions of this thread, I wonder if this move toward feminine-centric belief systems is a reaction to the phallo-centric structures in our society?
I think it's because a number of people have be seriously hurt by misinterpretations of Christainity to the point that it's become a tainted well. So they still have a need to feed their spirit, but do so in different ways. |
|
| |
Da Vinci Code.
