Da Vinci Code: Justification for Anti Religion/Catholic view?

[loki09789]

I have been reading Da Vinci Code lately and really like it, but some other readers who I have talked to seem to be getting a real "anti-religion/Catholic" bend/reaction to it. I don't know if it is the sudden exposure to the larger world of religion the author teaches the reader through the course of the story they can't handle or that they already were disillusioned with Relig./Catholicism and this just further supportst their view.

THoughts on the book or backlashes/reactions?

 

[Touch Of Death]

I have been reading Da Vinci Code lately and really like it, but some other readers who I have talked to seem to be getting a real "anti-religion/Catholic" bend/reaction to it. I don't know if it is the sudden exposure to the larger world of religion the author teaches the reader through the course of the story they can't handle or that they already were disillusioned with Relig./Catholicism and this just further supportst their view.

THoughts on the book or backlashes/reactions?

There is a saying, "those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it." I see no good comming from white washing the past. Improvment can only occur by being truthfull with your self and seeking to correct past mistakes. Once on a whim a pope declaired all housecats to be evil; however, cooler heads prevailed, and the reality of having rats chew on your children toes at night, made cats seem a lesser evil.
Sean

 

[loki09789]

There is a saying, "those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it." I see no good comming from white washing the past. Improvment can only occur by being truthfull with your self and seeking to correct past mistakes. Once on a whim a pope declaired all housecats to be evil; however, cooler heads prevailed, and the reality of having rats chew on your children toes at night, made cats seem a lesser evil.
Sean

Well put, thus the Vatican II stance of trying to get back to the 1st/2nd Century goals/purposes of Spirituallity/Relig. I just don't understand the shock that some people are experiencing at the historical/anthropological tid bits that the book uses to create a great story.

 

[WillFightForBeer]

It's true though. I, maybe blindly, believe everything that is said in the book. I have seen factual proof of the meeting Constantine held to decide Jesus' role in Christianity, and the rest just falls in place.

Nothing in Christianity is original.

 

[Blindside]

What proof was that?

Letters, books, or....

Lamont

It's true though. I, maybe blindly, believe everything that is said in the book. I have seen factual proof of the meeting Constantine held to decide Jesus' role in Christianity, and the rest just falls in place.

Nothing in Christianity is original.

 

[OUMoose]

The DaVinci code is an excellent book IMO. I'm only about 1/2 way through with it though, so you can take that with a grain of salt. I think the thing I like most about it is the amount of research the author did before writing it. If you don't believe me, look around for the acknowledements, or any articles about him. He was extremely thourogh (sp?) in his depiction of his fictional world. The thing is that the world is just that... fictional. Some people take this book as fact, when it clearly is not. I guess the same thing could be said about some Roleplayers who, after time and some problems, begin to lose sight of the line between the real and fantasy worlds. I am not anti-religion, but I'm also not a big believer in it. So I would just say this. Read the book as it was meant to be... an excellent story written by a talented author.

 

[Matt Bernius]

The DaVinci code is an excellent book IMO. I'm only about 1/2 way through with it though, so you can take that with a grain of salt. I think the thing I like most about it is the amount of research the author did before writing it. If you don't believe me, look around for the acknowledements, or any articles about him. He was extremely thourogh (sp?) in his depiction of his fictional world. The thing is that the world is just that... fictional. Some people take this book as fact, when it clearly is not. I guess the same thing could be said about some Roleplayers who, after time and some problems, begin to lose sight of the line between the real and fantasy worlds. I am not anti-religion, but I'm also not a big believer in it. So I would just say this. Read the book as it was meant to be... an excellent story written by a talented author.

Thank you for writing this! You beat me to it. I am constantly amazed at how much of the population takes fictional works (books, movies and plays) as historical fact. Yes there is some truth in there. However I also know a lot of academic biblical scholars that can also point out a lot of the innacuracies (or aspects that were changed for dramatic purposes).

- Matt

 

[loki09789]

What proof was that?

Letters, books, or....

Lamont

It may not be original, but the idea of 'free will' was a powerful difference between Judeism of the day and the message of the Christian doctrine. Jewish faith use to work from the idea that a physical deformity was an indicator of a spiritual flaw or punishment. Same with the 'sins of the father stuff'. Christianity, at least according to the gospels - and not even all of them - had aspects of openness, acceptance and tolerance. There was the belief in Grace, spiritual redemption.

And, true, there is a 'lack of originality' but there was a power in the message and the package that was timely and - seemingly universally recognized.

Remember that within even the established Jewish faith there was the Torah and the Kabala that Jews followed. Samaritans were really just one step away from Judeism because they practiced and believed most of the same things - except that Jerusalem was the seat of worship.

 

[Blindside]

Nice post OUMoose.

If anyone is interested, one major pieces of source material for the Da Vinci Code is "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," which at least is considered a non-fiction book. I would recommend it as a read to anyone who liked the Da Vinci Code. Read it with skepticism, just as you would (should) read any other book on history.

Lamont

 

[loki09789]

"Read it with skepticism, just as you would (should) read any other book on history.

Lamont"

Nice point, there is always a slant/bias, no matter how documented or supported.

 

[Makalakumu]

Alot of the symbolism in this book comes from intensive study of Illuminati conspiracy theory. It puts a funny twist on the information, though...so I've heard. I have only read exerpts and have yet to read the whole book.

Has anyone read any of this author's other books?

 

[loki09789]

The idea proposed in the book that Constantine didn't see a Christian Cross but an Ankh image or an Apollo symbol was mentioned to me years ago by a friend who had gone to a Christian college (fundamentalist basis) concerning the 'truth' of certain translations of the bible. His point was that the King James commisioned version was an attempt to get back to a truer version than the one used by the Catholic church.

I still have reservations about the 'handing over'/'betray' translation concerning Judas.... came up during a Theology class where the Professor was trying to draw parallels between the convention of greco/roman hero tales and imagery and the cannonized gospels of the new testament. We also read from the Apocrypha - very eye opening.

 

[heretic888]

It may not be original, but the idea of 'free will' was a powerful difference between Judeism of the day and the message of the Christian doctrine. Jewish faith use to work from the idea that a physical deformity was an indicator of a spiritual flaw or punishment. Same with the 'sins of the father stuff'. Christianity, at least according to the gospels - and not even all of them - had aspects of openness, acceptance and tolerance. There was the belief in Grace, spiritual redemption.

That's not entirely true.

Both "Judaism" and "Christianity" of the time were typified by extreme religious diversity. Some groups were tolerant of others and some groups weren't. This is actually keeping in line with the Hellenistic culture of the time as a whole, in which religious diversity was openly embraced and pervasive (as opposed to the elitist slaughterings that were initiated upon the establishment of "Christianity" as the state religion).

Contrary to what many "Jews" and "Christians" have been handed down, neither of these religions were particularly uniform or homogenized during the 1st and 2nd centuries. In fact, they were probably far more diverse and variegated than they are now (a fact that many so-called "true believers" find infuriating).

You can even see this in the New Testament itself. The writer "Paul" has very different takes depending on which of "his" letters you're looking at (the overtly Gnostic tendencies of Galatians contrast greatly with the fundamentalist/literalist rantings of the Pastorals). This was because the Pauline letters, attributed to a single man, were actually written by various different individuals --- obviously proponents of different schools of "Christianity". The same could probably be said for the Synoptics themselves, as well.

"Christianity", by its very nature, is an inherently diverse and variegated religion, with very different views and schools of thoughts on things. I could find parts in the New Testament that support free will and parts that support fatalism. I could find parts/passages that support relativism (particularly in Paul), and parts that support the moral absolutism of the fundamentalists. I could fine parts that support monotheism, and parts that support a Buddhist-style monism or pantheism. I could find parts that support the trinity, and parts that do not.

Think about it.

 

[loki09789]

That's not entirely true.

Both "Judaism" and "Christianity" of the time were typified by extreme religious diversity. Some groups were tolerant of others and some groups weren't. This is actually keeping in line with the Hellenistic culture of the time as a whole, in which religious diversity was openly embraced and pervasive (as opposed to the elitist slaughterings that were initiated upon the establishment of "Christianity" as the state religion).

Contrary to what many "Jews" and "Christians" have been handed down, neither of these religions were particularly uniform or homogenized during the 1st and 2nd centuries. In fact, they were probably far more diverse and variegated than they are now (a fact that many so-called "true believers" find infuriating).

You can even see this in the New Testament itself. The writer "Paul" has very different takes depending on which of "his" letters you're looking at (the overtly Gnostic tendencies of Galatians contrast greatly with the fundamentalist/literalist rantings of the Pastorals). This was because the Pauline letters, attributed to a single man, were actually written by various different individuals --- obviously proponents of different schools of "Christianity". The same could probably be said for the Synoptics themselves, as well.

"Christianity", by its very nature, is an inherently diverse and variegated religion, with very different views and schools of thoughts on things. I could find parts in the New Testament that support free will and parts that support fatalism. I could find parts/passages that support relativism (particularly in Paul), and parts that support the moral absolutism of the fundamentalists. I could fine parts that support monotheism, and parts that support a Buddhist-style monism or pantheism. I could find parts that support the trinity, and parts that do not.

Think about it.

Totally right, each community of Jews or Christian had unique pratices and views on how it should or should not be. One of the major differences between then and now for Christians is that back then, there were those who expected the Christ to come soon. Modern Christians tend to expect it, but not with the same immediacy of the ancients. I was speaking to the common trends of the day, not the disparity of individualized practices.

There were Christians who were more Jewish in orthodoxy and those who were more gentile (pagan/roman...) depending on group/values and goals.

The variances in Paul's letters speaks also his ability to use different approaches with different groups to get to a common end - if he was the single source author of the letters. If not, it lends credence to his willingness to accept different views amongst his disciples - as long as they knew him directly. His audience for LTR's was different -either because of location, need or timing.

According to the book (Da Vinci), there was dissention about whether Mary was accepted as Jesus' appointed. Even in the conventionally accepted gospels, personallity conflicts/dynamics are evident. Scholars acknowledge that some of the gospel translations may have been altered to fit the motif of a classic Greco/Roman hero tale by the Constantine appointed translators/publishers.

 

[Nightingale]

The author did some excellent research.

What he did was write a book placing fictional characters into a world of historical fact.

Fact: Constantine had a hand in organizing the Bible as it is presented to us today.

Fact: There were many other "gospels" that were suppressed.

Fact: There is debate over whether or not the person sitting next to Jesus is male or female in Da Vinci's painting.

Fact: Many grail scholars do, in fact, believe that the grail legend refers to Jesus' bloodline rather than an actual cup.

Fact: Jewish men were expected to marry. It would be odd if Jesus hadn't married.

Fact: Christianity has consistently borrowed from other religions in the manner described by the author.

 

[Kreth]

Apologies for reviving an old thread, but I'm about 3/4 through this book and find it fascinating. I can't help noticing though (having done some digging around online), most of the "anti" sites are religious in nature and most of the "pro" ones are Grail/Templar/Priory of Sion conspiracy-type sites. I plan to start working my way through Brown's references once I've finished the book itself.

Jeff

 

[Darksoul]

-All I can suggest is read it with a grain of salt. The nice thing is, one doesn't have to read the book and take everything as true, meaning that certain ideas that were expressed are more important than facts presented. If you read this book, read Angels and Demons as well, it helps balance Da Vinci Code. Good reading!

A---)

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Started a fiction work about 12 years ago, based on the priori/scion dealio, and used some of the same seed info from the templar/masonic sources. Makes for fun reading.

There are a couple of morning DJ's around here who make an excellent point about centuries-old conspiracy theories...when have you ever known any small group of people to be ale to keep a secret, secret? Someone always leaks it to someone else in confidence, and it's only a matter of time before it's all over. How much harder would it be to keep something of this magnitude secret?

Holy Blood, Holy Grail makes a fun point about it not being kept secret...as a matter of fact, known well-enough to entice members of the greatest royal families of Europe to marry in to this throne family (Hapsburg-Lorraine's, etc.). In parts of France & Belgium, you can still see the crest for the family of the early lords of the area described in the book. Sang-Regel? Who really knows. But the implications are entertaining.

Dave

 

[heretic888]

-All I can suggest is read it with a grain of salt. The nice thing is, one doesn't have to read the book and take everything as true, meaning that certain ideas that were expressed are more important than facts presented. If you read this book, read Angels and Demons as well, it helps balance Da Vinci Code.

*shrugs* :idunno:

I don't see any of what Mr. Brown is saying as being fundamentally more dubious or historically flimsy than anything currently accepted in modern Christian theology. Many of the arguments that Christian intellectuals level at Brown's ideas (that its based on unproven oral traditions or stories that didn't come about centuries after the first century) can be said of their gospel traditions, as well.

 

[GAB]

*shrugs* :idunno:

I don't see any of what Mr. Brown is saying as being fundamentally more dubious or historically flimsy than anything currently accepted in modern Christian theology. Many of the arguments that Christian intellectuals level at Brown's ideas (that its based on unproven oral traditions or stories that didn't come about centuries after the first century) can be said of their gospel traditions, as well.

Hi, Probabaly a lot of you know that "I think, therefore I am". Well that is one of the best in the Books.

Heretic that makes to much sense you need to turn that into a koan or riddle.

Regards, Gary