Dan Brown, Da Vinci Code, Catholicism

[TheMadCap]

He did nothing in that book except pull together a bunch of very old inuendo's and rumor that have floated for years.  I was surprised he didn't pull out the old Pope Joan rumor as well.  I am sure that will be in his next book. 

 

302467[/snapback]

 

 

THANK YOU! I have been harping on this point to others for a while now. I read a book called Holy Grail, Holy Blood or something like it about 15 years ago that is essentially the same book....

[John Adams]

Entertaining writer but for someone so precise about Art his book is full of factul points which are not incidental to his thesis.

...

 

I could go on and on but by this time you are probably saying what is the difference ; it is a piece of fiction. If so it is a dangerous fiction because it strikes at the very root of Jesus' message.

302582[/snapback]

 

***SPOLIERS FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO READ THE D.C. BELOW***

 

"Strikes at the root..." Why? Because it says Jesus had sex with someone? Is there something in the DaVinci Code that undermines Jesus' message of love? All it is is a mystery story of a bunch of humans. Their interaction with Jesus is only in the context of finding out that JC had sex and bore children through Mary Magdelene.

 

I don't get why a piece of fiction would get you so upset. Do the inconsistencies/contradictions in the Bible, which is in most people's view another work of fiction albiet a more important one, get you this worked up?

[beausox]

thanks for the info.  I would like to read one of those books the debunk The Davinci Code.  Even so- many things presented make sense.  The founder of Opus Dei was cannonized after making a large contribution to the church.  Many Pagan rituals are similar to catholic rituals.  Mary Magdeline perhaps was not a prostitute.  BTW I am Catholic

302592[/snapback]

Opus Dei is too much for me but then so are the Jesuits. Was its founder canonized for the $ contribution? or in combination to his other contribution? Is a large donation inconsistent with ones record and deeds in life?

The early church adapted/adopted pagan ritual to coincide. Some would say Christmas was Saturnalis or any number of please-bring-the-sun-back sects; Easter any number of planting festival; Lent fasting as the larder diminished. Easter is determined as the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. You have to admire any religion that can make its defining moment - Easter- a moveable feast.

Look, these are the same anti-Catholics who mocked the exaltation of Mary to almost co-divine status with Jesus and now want you to see the randy side of Jesus doing it with His Mothers best friend whom they portray as a hooker.

See it is not the crime. I am sure Danny boy would agree that the purportive sex Jesus and MM had was as sacred as sex can be. No forget how preposterous that thought is and what intellectual acrobatics one needs to endure to believe it. Focus on the real issue:Roman Catholicism is sexist. It is not the crime ; it is the cover-up.

[beausox]

***SPOLIERS FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO READ THE D.C. BELOW***

 

"Strikes at the root..." Why? Because it says Jesus had sex with someone? Is there something in the DaVinci Code that undermines Jesus' message of love? All it is is a mystery story of a bunch of humans. Their interaction with Jesus is only in the context of finding out that JC had sex and bore children through Mary Magdelene.

 

I don't get why a piece of fiction would get you so upset. Do the inconsistencies/contradictions in the Bible, which is in most people's view another work of fiction albiet a more important one, get you this worked up?

302672[/snapback]

Because it is not portrayed as fiction. Because I believe Jesus Christ to be Lord and Savior and that he would involve Himself in a clandestine plot to fool me and all is to believe Jesus is not honest. He did not explain the trinity in words and thoughts I could understand. I understand love. i understand the power of sex. i understand the attraction I have for women. I understand He too was a man and that I am a poor comparison to Him; but all I have to understand is that He understands me and that is why I believe and that is why it is important

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Because it is not portrayed as fiction. Because I believe Jesus Christ to be Lord and Savior and that he would involve Himself in a clandestine plot to fool me and all is to believe Jesus is not honest. He did not explain the trinity in words and thoughts I could understand. I understand love. i understand the power of sex. i understand the attraction I have for women. I understand He too was a man and that I am a poor comparison to Him; but all I have to understand is that He understands me and that is why I believe and that is why it is important

302719[/snapback]

 

"This work of fiction isn't portrayed as fiction, so I'm upset by it."

 

Sounds like the problem's on your end. Maybe you should deal with your own upset, and not blame it on Dan Brown's writing.

[beausox]

Why is it that the same people who swallow whole conspiracy theories as Gospel dismiss out of hand the Shroud of Turin?which is second only to the Holy Grail as the most persistent Christian rumors. I would add the True Cross to this but hawkers have exhausted whole European forests on that one. At the very least there does exist a cloth that may- experts disagree- be the burial cloth of Jesus.

 

The book may be fiction because it is in the fiction section. The author in Madonna-like coyness has said he " has come to believe in its theories". The book starts with Fact statement and provides a bibliography. Can you provide me with a work of fiction that had a bibliography? In fact why would a work of fiction, which is in some people's estimation completely creative. provide a bibliography?

 

I had an acquaintance , who attended Canisius High, and while there was assigned some obscure poet to research and do a paper. He said he had no success finding any scholarly reference to his subject. So he did what came natural to his indolent but agile mind and made the whole thing up. Bibliography, footnotes and anecdotes based soley upon the poetry of his subject. He claims he pulled it off. His name? why Dan Brown of course.

[John Adams]

Because it is not portrayed as fiction. Because I believe Jesus Christ to be Lord and Savior and that he would involve Himself in a clandestine plot to fool me and all is to believe Jesus is not honest. He did not explain the trinity in words and thoughts I could understand. I understand love. i understand the power of sex. i understand the attraction I have for women. I understand He too was a man and that I am a poor comparison to Him; but all I have to understand is that He understands me and that is why I believe and that is why it is important

302719[/snapback]

 

It's not portrayed as fiction? What book did you read?

 

As to the rest of your reply, the book doesn't portray Jesus as the deceiver, it portrays elements of the Church as the deceivers. There's a big difference.

 

You didn't answer what your feelings are on all the other inconsistencies of works of fiction, including the Bible. Do you get your panties in a wringer over them too?

[beausox]

It's not portrayed as fiction? What book did you read?

 

As to the rest of your reply, the book doesn't portray Jesus as the deceiver, it portrays elements of the Church as the deceivers. There's a big difference.

 

You didn't answer what your feelings are on all the other inconsistencies of works of fiction, including the Bible. Do you get your panties in a wringer over them too?

302770[/snapback]

 

I am certain that you did not read the book. Go to chapter 60 where Danny boy gives his "bibliography" of "the royal bloodlines...detailed... by historians". He goes on to reference 4 works in particular:

1)"The Templar Revelation" this work of fiction is penned by Pinkett and Prince who are not historians but rather "lecturers in the paranormal and occult". these two also authored "the Stargate Conspiracy: The Truth About Extraterrestial Life" and, it gets better" the Mammoth Book of UFO's".

 

2)"The Women With the Alabaster Jar" and "The Goddess in the Gospels"by Starbird . Starbird claims to have a Masters in a field unshared to the public.

 

3)"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Baigent ( Teabing anagram) and Leigh. Baigent, in what resembles a real life, sports a bachelors degree in Psychology. Leigh describes himself as "a writer and university lecturer with a thorough knowledge of history, philosophy, psychology and esoterica" shorthand for no scholarship.

 

So there you have it . Now go buy the Inquirer while at the grocery store.

[Campy]

Now go buy the Inquirer while at the grocery store.

302810[/snapback]

Witty retort. Color me impressed.

 

</sarcasm>

[beausox]

It's not portrayed as fiction? What book did you read?

 

As to the rest of your reply, the book doesn't portray Jesus as the deceiver, it portrays elements of the Church as the deceivers. There's a big difference.

 

You didn't answer what your feelings are on all the other inconsistencies of works of fiction, including the Bible. Do you get your panties in a wringer over them too?

302770[/snapback]

If in my panties you could ever get

tho that is a most unlikely bet

I would eyes lower to your manhood and realize

that Lorena already reduced your size

[Campy]

If in my panties you could ever get

tho that is a most unlikely bet

I would eyes lower  to your manhood and realize

that Lorena already reduced your size

302850[/snapback]

That's better

[John Adams]

I am certain that you did not read the book. Go to chapter 60 where Danny boy gives his "bibliography" of "the royal bloodlines...detailed... by historians". He goes on to reference 4 works in particular:

1)"The Templar Revelation" this work of fiction is penned  by Pinkett and Prince who are not historians but rather "lecturers in the paranormal and occult". these two also authored "the Stargate Conspiracy: The Truth About Extraterrestial Life" and, it gets better" the Mammoth Book of UFO's".

 

2)"The Women With the Alabaster Jar" and "The Goddess in the Gospels"by Starbird . Starbird claims to have a Masters in a field unshared to the public.

 

3)"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Baigent ( Teabing anagram) and Leigh. Baigent,  in what resembles a real life, sports a bachelors degree in Psychology. Leigh describes himself as "a writer and university lecturer with a thorough knowledge of history, philosophy, psychology and esoterica" shorthand for no scholarship.

 

So there you have it . Now go buy the Inquirer while at the grocery store.

302810[/snapback]

 

The Inquirer is the local paper here in Philadelphia. No doubt, you meant the Enquirer. Next time, try to get your insult right.

 

If you think I didn't read the bibliography to a CLEAR WORK OF FICTION, guess what: you're right!

 

All the things you cite, assuming they are true, further what I'm sure Brown says in his cover page to the D.C. "This is a work of fiction... yada yada." YOU are the one treating it as true. Not me. I know it's just a piece of fiction with some germs of truth in it.

 

I've never heard anyone say the DaVinci Code is gospel, as you assert. Most people see it for what it is, a work of the imagination.

 

Next you'll start spouting off about satanism and pagan worship in Harry Potter.

[John Adams]

If in my panties you could ever get

tho that is a most unlikely bet

I would eyes lower  to your manhood and realize

that Lorena already reduced your size

302850[/snapback]

 

Aren't you the genius who compared the moderators to Our Gang for juvenile behavior? Thanks for raising the level of discourse.

[beausox]

The Inquirer is the local paper here in Philadelphia. No doubt, you meant the Enquirer. Next time, try to get your insult right. 

 

If you think I didn't read the bibliography to a CLEAR WORK OF FICTION, guess what: you're right!

 

All the things you cite, assuming they are true, further what I'm sure Brown says in his cover page to the D.C. "This is a work of fiction... yada yada." YOU are the one treating it as true. Not me. I know it's just a piece of fiction with some germs of truth in it.

 

I've never heard anyone say the DaVinci Code is gospel, as you assert. Most people see it for what it is, a work of the imagination.

 

Next you'll start spouting off about satanism and pagan worship in Harry Potter.

302859[/snapback]

I am sorry i offended your fixation on "getting things right". Who knew? someone accepting as truth fiction and not forgiving a misplaced vowel. The fact is it is not a fictional bibliography. Brown is serious. He truly believes the work and scholarship(sic) of these academic charlatans support his thesis.

[beausox]

Aren't you the genius who compared the moderators to Our Gang for juvenile behavior? Thanks for raising the level of discourse.

302864[/snapback]

 

Witty retort. color me impressed.

 

 

Sarcasm

[KRC]

The fact is it is not a fictional bibliography. Brown is serious. He truly believes the work and scholarship(sic) of these academic charlatans support his thesis.

302868[/snapback]

 

Actually, the author specifically mentions that it is fiction.

 

"The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction." - Dan Brown

 

Linky Thingy

[Tux of Borg]

Saw a documentary on it a few weeks ago. Basically, most of it is nonsense. However, the idea that Mary Magdalene was a far more important figure than has hitherto been realised has more or less been proved to be true by some (fairly) recently discovered manuscripts (I think someone found them in Egypt and was using them to burn on the fire before their importance was realised!). Basically, the church covered up her role (and made her a prostitute).

302503[/snapback]

 

I'm waiting on the political correct version of the bible to come out. Where they make Jesus an African American, and give Mary a larger role.

[beausox]

Actually, the author specifically mentions that it is fiction.

 

"The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction." - Dan Brown

 

Linky Thingy

302881[/snapback]

Thank you for the link. i am computer challenged so i am incapable of returning the favor except to direct you and others to a critique of the novel;

 

 

tektonics.org.......... the title is "Not Indavincible"

 

 

or google davinci Code for more than you would ever want to know

 

Nota bene. I said he presents the works noted in his bibliography as real books. He, subsequently in interviews, said he, Brown, believes in the conclusions of his novel. The novel itself plays a double game claiming to be factual and fictional at the same time. I did not say the work was factual- it is riddled with errors ranging from serious to juvenile- but he makes a claim of FACT on first page in areas he has been proven, empirically proven, to be wrong.

[John Adams]

I am sorry i offended your fixation on "getting things right". Who knew? someone accepting as truth fiction and not forgiving a misplaced vowel. The fact is it is not a fictional bibliography. Brown is serious. He truly believes the work and scholarship(sic) of these academic charlatans support his thesis.

302868[/snapback]

 

When did I say I "accepted" the DaVinci Code "as truth"? You need to work on reading comprehension. I'll say this again... take as much time as you need reading it: the DaVinci Code is FICTION. The author says it's fiction. It's sold as fiction.

 

That Brown lists sources does not make the book non-fiction. It just means he relied on the works of others to write his fictional book.

 

Fiction is make-believe. It ain't real. The DaVinci Code is not real. Nowhere does it say otherwise.

 

Is the word "fiction" confusing you?

 

Who feeds you your thoughts? You may want to seriously consider whether or not it benefits you to say you reach your conclusions on your own. Maybe you should bite the bullet and admit a source for all this nonsense.

[beausox]

Aren't you the genius who compared the moderators to Our Gang for juvenile behavior? Thanks for raising the level of discourse.

302864[/snapback]

 

and thanks for reviewing my demi sonnet