The Da Vinci Code

[forestofmyths]

Anybody read this book? I have read it and I am wondering what your thoughts are. This is the only book that have taken an interest in for a long time. It blew me away, I could not put it down.

 

[no country for old wainds]

From what I hear from reliable sources, the book is a streamlined rehash of various preceding material, but a fun read.

 

[Kenneth R.]

what are those preceding materials? i'd like to read them, because i too loved the Da Vinci Code. interesting concepts.

 

[spaffe]

what are those preceding materials? i'd like to read them, because i too loved the Da Vinci Code. interesting concepts.

This is one book it drew heavily from: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...002-2443183-1237609?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[no country for old wainds]

the gospel of phillip, i think

 

[NeverIsForever]

This is one book it drew heavily from: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...002-2443183-1237609?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I've read part of that...don't remember why I didn't finish it, but I definitely will now. It was the book that came to mind for me when you mentioned works that Dan Brown rehashed.

I've read The Da Vinci Code--very good. I really liked Angels and Demons as well.

 

[Kenneth R.]

interesting book. i may have to check that out.

 

[speed]

its entertaining, but i wouldnt put much stock in the ideas and research behind the book.

 

[unknown]

I found the da vinci code to be pretty entertaining. They're supposedly making a movie out of it. Makes you want to do a little research for yourself. But, with everything, you have to take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Kenneth R.]

its entertaining, but i wouldnt put much stock in the ideas and research behind the book.

why would you not put stock in research? this goes against what i percieve your mentality to be as a logic-based thinker. i understand not accepting all the propositions in a book as-is, i wouldn't either. but research is evidence leading towards conclusion, that you can choose to form on your own regardless of what the author says. your conclusion and theirs don't have to coincide.

 

[Zack]

The Da Vinci Code was a great book, don't get me wrong. But we have to remember that it is completely fiction. I get really annoyed when people derive basic history lessons from this book, because 90% is fake. For instance, the Priory of Sion was a hoax created in the 1950's just to make money. There's loads more stuff that is wrong with the book, but I still think it was a great Thriller. I thought Angels and Demons was much better (quite possibly my favorite book), but I think the antimatter part could've been completely wrong, not sure though.
-Zack

 

[Kenneth R.]

For instance, the Priory of Sion was a hoax created in the 1950's just to make money.

explain?

i'm aware that the "story" is fake, but what of this?

 

[speed]

why would you not put stock in research? this goes against what i percieve your mentality to be as a logic-based thinker. i understand not accepting all the propositions in a book as-is, i wouldn't either. but research is evidence leading towards conclusion, that you can choose to form on your own regardless of what the author says. your conclusion and theirs don't have to coincide.

Ha, I may seem logical, but I am really a hedonistic and indifferent nihilist. Logic is only useful to destroy others logical systems.

no i was trying to say what hatecrewdoll did without writing too much. I am just saying Dan Brown's historical research is suspect, and should not be believed at face value. However, he does bring up alot of relevant and interesting issues; women in the early church, the gnostic gospels etc. It is just his fantasy about mary magdalane, the knights templar and all that nonsense, that is a bit far-fetched, but makes for good popular reading.

 

[Kenneth R.]

in that case i'd agree with ya.

 

[Zack]

explain?

i'm aware that the "story" is fake, but what of this?

Well... I heard about this at a seminar about a year ago so lets see if I can remember.
All I can really come up with is that he was this guy, who I believe lived in Europe, and he had learned something about the Knights of Templar and decided to kinda "add" a little of his own taste to it. It's still a little sketchy though. He sold a report about it or something.
-Zack

 

[Under The Oak]

I've heard Dan Brown's next book is called "The Solomon Key", and in that case it seems like another rehash of stuff found in "The Hiram Key". I'm not too keen on all these "religious conspiracy theories", because so many of them make loose assumptions and draw shaky conclusions based on half-truths or complete fiction. Yeah, they may be entertaining to read, but some of them contain little to no sources for their "facts", and most of them are, as GoD pointed out, simply a streamlined rehash of various preceding materials. I haven't seen much new information for years now, and these books keep popping up with tired old arguements that have either been disproven, shown to be inconsequential, or just plain reiterated to gross amount in a ridiculous fashion with no support.

 

[Etaoin]

I've heard Dan Brown's next book is called "The Solomon Key", and in that case it seems like another rehash of stuff found in "The Hiram Key". I'm not too keen on all these "religious conspiracy theories", because so many of them make loose assumptions and draw shaky conclusions based on half-truths or complete fiction.

And my perspective is most of the writings of today's organized religions are also based on 'loose assumptions and draw shaky conclusions based on half-truths or complete fiction.'

Yeah, they may be entertaining to read, but some of them contain little to no sources for their "facts",

So you're taking the bible and other religious writings as 'fact'?

and these books keep popping up with tired old arguements that have either been disproven, shown to be inconsequential, or just plain reiterated to gross amount in a ridiculous fashion with no support.

yep, that's how I view almost all writings involved in organized religion

 

[Etaoin]

The Da Vinci Code was a great book, don't get me wrong. But we have to remember that it is completely fiction.

so is the bible

 

[the alumnus]

the divinci code is cruise ship reading, no more factually correct than tom clancy or john grisham. in fact, there are alot of basic assumption about the "golden ratio" presented in the da vinci code that are factually incorrect, let alone alot of historical inaccuracies. do a little research, see what you find.

 

[Under The Oak]

And my perspective is most of the writings of today's organized religions are also based on 'loose assumptions and draw shaky conclusions based on half-truths or complete fiction.'

So you're taking the bible and other religious writings as 'fact'?

yep, that's how I view almost all writings involved in organized religion

You're entitled to your opinion, and I even agree with you on some instances. But I find it laughable how quickly you jump to assume things about me. I believe that all we can know is the result of our experiences, but even in the grand scheme of things - what we know is so miniscule. Whether you have faith in God, faith in yourself, or faith in Satan, it's a belief system all the same. It's ignorant to conclude that you're more enlightened for "accepting the harsh truth", and I certainly don't think I'm better because of my PERSONAL, non-religious faith.