or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › The Davinci Code
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Davinci Code - Page 4

post #46 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdawson808
Oooh, I just listened to this on audio book (so shoot me I have a 2 hr commute roundtrip) and it is REALLY good. I really liked it.

Not quite on par with my favourite Foucault's Pendulum (which I'm sure I just spelled wrong), but it was good.

Won't see The DaVinci Code simply because the "art historian" keeps calling him DaVinci rather than Leonardo.

bob

You know after this movie everybody will think they are experts on Leonardo, without even knowing what to properly call him, or why they should call him Leonardo and not Da Vinci.

Jon.
post #47 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve B.
I forgot about that one... I would think it'd be pretty difficult to improve on Seuss" original.
the animated one is okay, but it's not Seuss. it's those guys who made bugs bunny, i think. the drawings are totally different from the book. boris karloff rocks on toast, though.
post #48 of 117
Thread Starter 
I just think its amusing reading the variety of replies to this thread I started. The DaVinci Code was an alright book, as far as I'm concerned. Not as good as Angels And Demons IMO, and definitely not high art. But decent enough for what it is. I could personally care less about the Catholic church as an organized religion, I'm not a fan of most organized religions anyways, so don't feel too special. As far as business goes, They are one of, if not THE LARGEST corporation in the world. They are worried about a movie? How fragile do they think their religion is? Will this one idea from a fictionalized novel tear apart the very foundation of your church? Doubtful. Are people going to stop going to church because they read that Jesus was married? Again, doubtful. Its great if you have faith in whatever your particular translation of the Bible tells you. But arguing a faith based point (Jesus was divine, and therefore never married, had sex, or crapped on a public toilet) is totally beond me. In fact, I don't even think that it's even an important point. I think what REALLY has the Catholic church riled up is that the books subject matter insinuates that they have covered up, omitted, and/or altered Jesus's message to serve the greater good of the church as an organization. Knowing some about the history of the Catholic church, and organized religions in general, I wouldn't find this to be extraordinary news at all. And neither would anyone else smart enough to understand how things in the theological world work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanC
I don't speak for 'the church', however Brown has played both sides of the issue of fiction. He makes several claims of "FACT" in the front of the book, however his claims of fact are not true.
The only things that it says are facts are that the Priory of Scion existed. It did. That Opus Dei has been the topic of recent controversy regarding some of its practices. It has. And that the descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and "secret" rituals in the book are accurate. As far as I can tell, they are. I have never personally been privy to Hieros Gamos, but there are plenty of online resources that spell it out, and ancient Greek paintings that depict the proceedings. So what then does he claim as true that you object to?
post #49 of 117
Mostly I care for the Catholic Church on a basis of aesthetics. As with the Orthodox Church.
post #50 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS
You know after this movie everybody will think they are experts on Leonardo, without even knowing what to properly call him, or why they should call him Leonardo and not Da Vinci.

Jon.


Wasn't he the ninja turtle with the nunchuks?

koji
post #51 of 117
i thought he was that dude in Titanic.
post #52 of 117
Saw the movie.

Thought it was great.

<====== Loves conspiracies.

And pagan fertility rites.
post #53 of 117
I read holy blood about 15 years ago, a very interesting book, but I remember feeling that it had very shody methedology - it seemed to make a lot of suggestions that it couldn't back up and present them as fact.

not to create a whole shitstorm, but I think that a large part of the issue is that most people don't realize how their religions evolved, and the various options and "heresies" that branched off on the way. when a person with a basic education, circa 2005, is presented with a book that tells about some of these heresies and branches, because it is new to them, it sounds like it is a newly discovered truth.

the issues of jesus's virgin birth, his divinity, and his death for humanities sins, as well as who were the disciples that counted, which of the gospels should be included in the canon, etc. have all been part of discussion and even wars over the years. hundreds of heresies with unorthodox views on these have been wiped out over the years, and have fallen from view.

I would think that what the present churches have as standard beliefs is what is important to a believer, although knowing about the history and the other streams of beliefs is valuable to anyone, for basic knowledge.

Why I believe the Devinci code is so successful is that most people have no idea that all of these discussions and conflicts were going on, and the very introduction of the idea of these herisies is facinating. because of it novelty, and the way it is presented, huge numbers of people start believing that it what is being presented is fact.
post #54 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
So what then does he claim as true that you object to?
I object to all the things he claims are true that are not.

The Priory of Sion only existed in the imaginings of a 20th Century Frenchman. If the Priory did not exist then Leonardo was not a member then he had no supposed "secret" to know and thus leave clues to in his artwork.

There is no evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene nor that he fathered a child. Anyone can assert anything and dare others do disprove it.

There is no secret tomb of Mary Magdalene in the Louvre although Brown asserts that it is "FACT" that all his architectural descriptions are accurate.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain no information at all about Jesus as they were pre-Christian Jewish writings although Brown declares as "FACT" that all his descriptions of documents are accurate.

The Gnostics were ascetics and certainly would have thought that any ideas of the "sacred feminine" and pagan fertility rites would be repulsive....

It would probably be easier to list the things in the book that are actually true.
post #55 of 117
Well, here's Ebert's review:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...VIEWS/60419009
post #56 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanC
I object to all the things he claims are true that are not.

The Priory of Sion only existed in the imaginings of a 20th Century Frenchman. If the Priory did not exist then Leonardo was not a member then he had no supposed "secret" to know and thus leave clues to in his artwork.

There is no evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene nor that he fathered a child. Anyone can assert anything and dare others do disprove it.

There is no secret tomb of Mary Magdalene in the Louvre although Brown asserts that it is "FACT" that all his architectural descriptions are accurate.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain no information at all about Jesus as they were pre-Christian Jewish writings although Brown declares as "FACT" that all his descriptions of documents are accurate.

The Gnostics were ascetics and certainly would have thought that any ideas of the "sacred feminine" and pagan fertility rites would be repulsive....

It would probably be easier to list the things in the book that are actually true.

Sitting back for too long and not attending to its problems as the Catholic Church did, made it ripe for plunder. Salacious fiction is more exciting for most readers because someone has already done the thinking for them. Most institutions suffer similar indignities ultimately.

A couple of years ago, Ignatius Press ( http://www.ignatius.com/index.aspx ) published Olson and Miesel's scholarly debunking of Brown's book. The item-by-item refutation of Brown's "facts" is an interesting, if dry, read. It is fully annotated and complete with citations.

Although Brown's book is pop-fiction, his assertions of fact-based research fan the flames of controversy and sell more books. Brown is in it for the money. Eavesdropping in elevators and offices will prove to most knowledgeable listeners that although it's pop-fiction that's being read . . . the readers regurgitate it as gospel.

______________________________________
post #57 of 117
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanC
I object to all the things he claims are true that are not. There is no evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene nor that he fathered a child. Anyone can assert anything and dare others do disprove it. There is no secret tomb of Mary Magdalene in the Louvre although Brown asserts that it is "FACT" that all his architectural descriptions are accurate. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain no information at all about Jesus as they were pre-Christian Jewish writings although Brown declares as "FACT" that all his descriptions of documents are accurate. The Gnostics were ascetics and certainly would have thought that any ideas of the "sacred feminine" and pagan fertility rites would be repulsive.... It would probably be easier to list the things in the book that are actually true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Brown
"The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as the Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci."
It seems to me that there is a fundimental difference of opinion about what is stated as "fact" and what is not, and yours is heavily influenced by your faith. There is nothing wrong with that, and I'm not here to criticise it, change your mind, or sway the opinions on others. We are dealing with an issue of wording here that may have been obviously biased by Dan Brown's personal viewpoints, but is careful enough to avoid saying exactly what you assume that he said. First of all, the Priory of Sion DID exist. Whether it was a fabrication or not, it was registered with the French government in 1956, therefore it was a real organization. The only questionable "fact" actually offered on the first page is that it originated in 1099. The evidence that ties the new Priory to anything historical is shaky at best, though it does exist, as there are references to Sionists and etc. in texts long before 1956. But I'll give you that as a fallacy (or at least an unproven assumption, but not a fact). There is evidence that both Plantard and/or Sauniere forged many if not all of the modern documents and findings regarding the Priory, but the documents WERE found in the Bibiotheque Nationale in1975, and they DID list the above mentioned people as members. Nowhere in the statement taken directly from the "Fact" page of the book does it say that the documents were real or that Leonardo WAS IN FACT a member. I sometimes think that Dan Brown worded these statements exactly the way he did to purposefully draw out the pointless criticism of the Christian faction over something he never actually said. He also never states as a fact that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married or had children on the facts page, everything in the body of the book, past the page that is listed as "FACTS:" is clearly a work of fiction.It is based on the opinions and theories of other people that one could be inclined to call "conspiracy theorists" who draw questionable conclusions about such things. Regardless, Dan Brown has repeatedly stated that everything in his book aside from the facts page is fiction. And its not the first fiction book to broach the subject either by the way, just the most recent and probably the most popular. IMMSMC, the book never actually states that there is a tomb hidden in the Louvre. The main character comes to that conclusion that what he's looking for is buried under the inverted pyramid, but never actually spells it out as clearly as "there is a hidden tomb in the louvre that contains the body of Mary Magdalene", and in the book he never proves this assumption is correct. These literal accusations that you are flinging are based on YOUR assumptions of what was written, not what was actually there. The Dead Sea scrolls are pre-Christian and Jewish... yes. Just like the Old Testament, which is also Pre-Christian and Jewish. Once it was adopted by Christianity in the Bible, it becomes shared theology. A more accurate descripton of the Dead Sea Scrolls would be scriptures predating the church, some of which was compiled and assembled as the Old Testament by Constantine. The real problem you SHOULD have with the description of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that he calls them "Gospels" which is easily misinturpreted because of the fallacious Christian association of the word "Gospel" with the New Testament. Rest assured, however that the word Gospel is also closely connected to the Old Testament prophesies of the Messiah and conveys the idea of foretelling and proclaiming the fulfillment of the promised Messiah by Jewish scholars. The root of the word Gospel means God's tidings or good tidings. I'm not trying to nitpick, but we all have to realize that both Dan Brown as well as the Christian church have a political stake in promoting their particular agendas. I personally enjoyed the book as a work of fiction, and I think that the protestations and all the attention that the church is giving to this movie will only make more people go watch it. To be honest, in my opinion, the evidence supporting the literal wording of The DaVinci Code is more plentiful than the evidence supporting the literal wording of the Bible, but the Bible's messages should be more important to a Christian than the various factual inconsitancies and theological contradictions found within either book. If you truely attempt to live your life the way Jesus hoped you would, The DaVinci Code is a non-issue. Be happy that you have faith in whatever it is you have faith in, praise the Lord, don't judge others lest you be similarily judged, and love thy neighbor. Those are pretty simple tenants that I find most Christians either completely ignore or find extremely difficult to apply in a practical sense, though they are the cornerstones of their religion. Best of luck to you Alan. I wouldn't worry about the movie too much. OK, I'm done.
post #58 of 117
I loved the book and found the movie very dull.
post #59 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
It seems to me that there is a fundimental difference of opinion about what is stated as "fact" and what is not, and yours is heavily influenced by your faith.

Well, I do believe the Bible to be true. However, I'm not talking about a matter of establishing whether or not Jesus walked on water, but something more to the effect that 2+2=4.

Brown's discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls is simply factually incorrect. Ask anyone with a knowledge of the Scrolls--or do some reading--whether a Christian, a Jew or not, and you will find that they are pre-Christian writings written by an ascetic apocalyptic Jewish sect and that they have no references to Jesus Christ, much less secret information about Him. He also states that Nag Hammadi texts were Aramaic scrolls when they are Coptic codices. Keep in mind, he asserts as "FACT" at the front of his book that all descriptions of documents are correct. He can't even get the basics right.

Now those are simply two examples, and they may seem like nitpicking, but Brown basis his entire fabrication on these little threads of assertions that simply aren't true.

It boggles the mind that people who would be far too sophisticated ever to believe the Bible are willing to swallow Brown's imaginings hook, line and sinker.
post #60 of 117
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanC
Well, I do believe the Bible to be true. However, I'm not talking about a matter of establishing whether or not Jesus walked on water, but something more to the effect that 2+2=4.

Brown's discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls is simply factually incorrect. Ask anyone with a knowledge of the Scrolls--or do some reading--whether a Christian, a Jew or not, and you will find that they are pre-Christian writings written by an ascetic apocalyptic Jewish sect and that they have no references to Jesus Christ, much less secret information about Him. He also states that Nag Hammadi texts were Aramaic scrolls when they are Coptic codices. Keep in mind, he asserts as "FACT" at the front of his book that all descriptions of documents are correct. He can't even get the basics right.

Now those are simply two examples, and they may seem like nitpicking, but Brown basis his entire fabrication on these little threads of assertions that simply aren't true.

It boggles the mind that people who would be far too sophisticated ever to believe the Bible are willing to swallow Brown's imaginings hook, line and sinker.

I think that the number of people who buy The Davinci Code as fact "hook, line, and sinker" already dislike or distrust of the Christian/Catholic church, in which case, the Church's protestations are meaningless. They are grasping at anything they can get ahold of to justify their beliefs that the Church is bad. You will never change their minds with picket signs.

I doubt anyone who is serious about their faith is going to stop believing in the divinity of Christ because of a movie. I also doubt that anyone who doesn't already know what Jesus was all about, but is NOT a Christian, is going to irrationally decide to not investigate and make up their own minds about it.

In my opinion, the only people you are actually picketing are people within your own religion, who are in it for reasons OTHER than their absolute faith in Christ. In which case, the church is as much to blame as the DaVinci code for the lack of standards and apathy within your ranks.

Of course, this is all my view from the outside. I'm still not convinced that I believe in Jesus as an actual person, or Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Muhammed, or any of the other Icons of faith. Their messages are more important than the fact that they existed, IMO.

So Alan... have you seen it yet?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › The Davinci Code