The Da Vinci Code

[Zack]

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.

I agree. The bible, however may be fictional, it may not. Religion was essentially created to explain the unknown. For instance, imagine 3000 years ago trying to comprehend a massive flood that wiped out your entire village. You wouldn't have the technology to do so, and creating an idea to explain it might be the best choice. However, ten plagues(?) that occured when the Jews(?) were not released have strong evidence of occuring.
The Da Vinci Code, however, takes completeley false situations and makes the reader believe they actually happened. The Da Vinci code can be proven wrong, but the Bible has no hard evidence against it being completely wrong (sure staying alive after being eaten by a fish is a bit farfetched).

 

[Kenneth R.]

anyone who says the bible is certainly a work of complete fiction, i challenge you to show me this "proof" because i have yet to see anything at all in that vein.

anyone who says religion and faith are inconsequential and irrelevant today or at any point in history needs to retake history. if it were inconsequential it would not be so frequently discussed and fought over. if it were inconsequential, it would be forgotten entirely. that argument holds nothing. whether or not you personally believe in the same religion as me, a different one, none at all, or whatever reasons and thoughts you have, they are your own and mine are my own. yet still, there are millions (perhaps billions) of people who adhere to or invent some form of religion. inconsequential is a vastly pedestrian claim.

 

[spaffe]

the gospel of phillip, i think

Well he used the gnostic gospels in general and especially parts of the 1945 finds from Nag Hammadi I belive

 

[Etaoin]

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.

I neither said or implied either. This is what I wrote:

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.'

Let me add the emphasis on the writings of today's organized religions.

I also never said or implied this, either:

anyone who says the bible is certainly a work of complete fiction, i challenge you to show me this "proof" because i have yet to see anything at all in that vein.

anyone who says religion and faith are inconsequential and irrelevant today or at any point in history needs to retake history.

Just in case I haven't been misinterpreted sufficiently, let me give you more. In my opinion, the bible, torah, quran, and other writings of major organized religions are a collection of philosophical entreaties which are apparently designed to give comfort, hope, and guidance, purportedly from god. They have some good ideas and ideals, which have been twisted and exploited by men in the world to suit men's purposes. I have no complaint with whatever belief system one chooses to guide their life. I have a complaint with historical philosophy being presented as history, and then used as a basis for the argument that an obvious work of fiction, The Da Vinci Code, is in fact wrong. No one ever said it was correct. opethekorn wanted people's opinions about the book, and what he got was how "wrong" it was, which although an opinion, set off a tangent that it is wrong because the bible says so. I disagree.

I liked the book, but mostly because I love many forms of art, and would love to spend many months just browsing the Louvre. I've seen a hardcover edition of the book with colors plates of every single work of art he references in the story. I'll re-read that version most certainly.

 

[Under The Oak]

Ok, I understand more where you're coming from now. Most historians and scholars, creationist and even evolutionist, do accept the physical existence of a man named Jesus Christ though, but it's still within our ability and right to deny he was God or to believe he was.

 

[Etaoin]

Ok, I understand more where you're coming from now. Most historians and scholars, creationist and even evolutionist, do accept the physical existence of a man named Jesus Christ though, but it's still within our ability and right to deny he was God or to believe he was.

Thanks. There is a lot of concurring historical data to fairly document the existence of the great flood, and that people like Jesus and Mohammed lived, etc. I was just saying it is illogical to use faith/belief to argue whether or not something is a fact.

 

[Kenneth R.]

ah, i misinterpreted you. my apologies. in the same sense though, i think it is illogical to try and use facts to argue about faith, as many tend to do

 

[marduk1507]

Reading this book was fun, but I prefer Foulcaults Pendulum from Umberto Eco, when talking about conspiracies, that is.

 

[speed]

Well who wouldnt? Eco is a skilled and masterful writer whose writing has depth, wheras Dan Brown is skilled writer, but he does not develop characters or ideas in depth, just action and cliffhangers.

 

[Etaoin]

in the same sense though, i think it is illogical to try and use facts to argue about faith, as many tend to do

I agree

Dan Brown is skilled writer, but he does not develop characters or ideas in depth, just action and cliffhangers.

Again I agree. I've read 4 other of his books, and I could guess the plot twists and who the surprise baddie was about 1/4 way through in all of them. Junk food reading, but entertaining.

 

[Korona]

I havent read the Da Vinci Code but I have read the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, and a few other books of a simmilar vein. If you are new to the whole thing I would reccomend "Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed" by Laurence Gardner. It's probably the best. While I am skeptical of some of the conclusions drawn the most interesting parts for me have actually been the things that have recieved the least discussion. The supression of the early branches of Christanity from Rome, the Cathar heresy and the supression of most of the early Gospels are all very interesting. The bloodline of Christ while providing a nice backdrop to this seems beside the point. The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail is supposed to shatter the world with the relvalation that Jesus had decendants, but so what. So some guy is decended from Jesus, what relevance does that have today? None. It seems that everyone got sidetracked by this from the the far more interesting stuff about the early church.

Basically - early conspiracies, religion forming, supression, concealment, = interesting
Bloodline of Christ = who cares?

 

[Kenneth R.]

i would agree with some of that... i found all aspects of it interesting, but the research not quite convincing enough.

 

[Alwin]

The truth about the Priory of Sion hoax can be found on this site: http://priory-of-sion.com/

 

[Kenneth R.]

i wouldn't go so far as to say "truth". perhaps a new perspective on it, just as the priory could be a hoax, so could your source site.

 

[Alwin]

nearly every claim on that site is documented, so it gets as near to anything we call truth in other circumstances

 

[Kenneth R.]

documented but not substantially enough to prove anything, just as the information supporting the existance of this society is. at this time, you either think it's real or it isn't, because neither side has proven the other conclusively wrong.

 

[Hypnos]

my point is that the 'official' history of christianity as presented by the catholic church is as far from the true events as the theories shown in these books like 'Holy Blood Holy Grail' etc are. and the same goes for Dan Brown's writings. all of them are fiction. Vatican did the hell of a good job to blur its origins. my opinion is, they knew what they did and they ad the purpose...

 

[Kenneth R.]

these books are fiction based on fact, what level of fact and fiction is up to research to conclude.

as i'm sure you know, catholicism is not representative of christianity, they are not interchangeable.

 

[Hypnos]

the problem (not mine, i'm atheist) is, catholic church usurps the position to be the one and only true religion that leads to salvation. this is stated in 'Dominus Iesu' written by our new pope some years ago.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i have a problem with that because Jesus didn't say "Follow the Pope!" he said "Follow Me!"