Ad
Page 1 2 3 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
The Da Vinci Code Login/Join
 
<w.c.>
posted
Markle:

Doesn't it work both ways? Where's the sport in it, as you allude, if the author can generate a fiction that has an impact during an especially volatile era in which religion and politics are being redacted re: their relationships, and not be able to level criticism at the choice of themes and the author's publicized views?

All such "fighting back" simply drives his sales, and Catholics critical of the book's content, and the apparent additional poltical message the author seems to be peddling, are aware that Christianity is no worse for wear in the free market of ideas.

Were you actually expecting Christians not to enter the dialogue at all? Heaven help us if we step outside of the PC circle and critique Islam, and few would expect a lack of response from the Muslim community to indicate they were secure in their beliefs.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
I agree wholeheartedly with your points, WC. And I think this article by Jonah Goldberg was written specifically for brother Markle. Wink

quote:
I'm all for what she's trying to do. Yes, she appears to be � say it ain't so! � slightly partisan. But since when does being slightly partisan disqualify someone from having an opinion? Rightwing bloggers would have us believe that, unless you're a Republican (and an R who supports the war, no questions asked), you have no right to speak out about the war. � Dan Savage, subbing at Andrewsullivan.com
Jonah said:
quote:
Confusion on this point seems to be a form of paranoia which pops-up on both sides of the ideological spectrum, but it's particularly acute on the left. After 9/11 we heard from all over the place that free speech was under assault because the usual idiots were getting criticized for their usual idiocy. Again, I hate to be such a pain in the butt to Cynthia McKinney, but as I've noted before, it is the quickest route to her brain. When, after 9/11, McKinney behaved like, well, McKinney she was roundly criticized and rightly so. She immediately asserted that her "right to speak" had been questioned. No such thing occurred.

Don't Question the Left!
The great irony is that the people who resort to such "arguments" (they're really just insults) are the ones questioning free-speech rights, because they are suggesting the criticism was inappropriate and, in some vague and stupid way, unconstitutional. Right? That is the upshot of what they're saying. I mean, if you immediately assert that someone has the right to say something as a way to rebut criticism, aren't you implying that such criticism violated their rights � which is, by definition, unconstitutional.

The paranoia enters into it when you consider the nature of the accusation. If you immediately assume that criticism from the political Right is tantamount to questioning someone's constitutional right to speak in the first place, what you are really saying (Pace Dan Savage) is that if you scratch a conservative you'll find a Storm Trooper just under the surface. We knuckle draggers may say we're just offering criticism, but what we really mean is that anyone we disagree with has no right to say so. That so many on the Left seem to believe this, says a lot about the intellectual and psychological state of Lefties while saying nothing of interest about conservatives. I don't think it's always a matter of projection � assuming your enemy sees things the same you do � but I do think this knee-jerkery illuminates in a small way the bad faith of the Left. Not only does the "I have the right to speak" tantrum dodge the merits of specific criticisms, it starts from the assumption that as a matter of first principles left-wing protest should never be questioned.
Markle said: We wouldn't have any fiction at all if every detail of the historical context was examined with a microscope for every little flaw.

What in Sam Hill has that got to do with the price of tea in China? This author puts out a work which he says is based at least partially on fact. Many of these so-called "facts" are shown to be either extremely suspect or outright bogus. So once again, the rules of engagement seems to be (and I found this philosophy time and again at thalo.net) that the left can swing away however they like but if they are challenged on their facts, arguments or logic, then it is the right getting all heavy-handed and out of line. What kind of screwy logic is that? And as you can see by the Goldberg article, this is out they often operate in the political spectrum as well.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Good points, w.c. (and Brad -- we cross-posted)

All I've been trying to say is that some of what's presented in the book as "historical" or "likely" isn't so. And it seems there's quite a difference between making up a train line or something like that and revising the historical record to suggest all kinds of sinister things about the Church.

My recent post of this was simply to note that Brown actually does believe the nonsense he's peddling, which belies the point that his historical schema is merely a fictional ploy.
 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 09 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Wow, that was quick...and on a Sunday!

I'm starting to think this book and this topic are one of those blank slates (like a deconstructionist-theory "text") that anyone can read anything into that is on their individual minds. Attacks on Christianity, political Left-vs. Right, whatever.

Interestingly, Brown wasn't out there standing up for the premise of the book until just recently. It's like the book got so big, and demands for interviews and quotations from him got so much, that he felt compelled to make more serious comments on the subject than just, "Hey, I just read that 'Holy Blood' book and got the idea for a mystery story, OK!?" Kind of like actors become authorities on the characters and movies that they're in and become spokesmen for them on Leno and Letterman.

<< Heaven help us if we step outside of the PC circle and critique Islam, and few would expect a lack of response from the Muslim community to indicate they were secure in their beliefs. >>

Yeah, isn't it amazing that we NEVER see the slightest criticism of Islam, huh? Speaking of PC, Muslims don't seem to be able to let ANYTHING get past them. Seems like everything they do is in defense of a god who doesn't seem to be able to do anything for himself and has to be protected by his human subjects...in return for a 71-virgin reward, of course. But I thought in the West we were more mature and secure than that.

True or not, apart from that book and actual history, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what would be so bad if Jesus HAD been married.

Markle
 
Posts: 51 | Location: Agoura Hills (Los Angeles), California | Registered: 10 November 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
<< This author puts out a work which he says is based at least partially on fact. >>

So what? Like Brown's recent comments promoting the book, that disclaimer at the front of the book could be just as much a part of the story as the rest of it. You're looking at this whole thing much too narrowly. It's a piece of entertainment, not a theological treatise. It's not worth this much outrage.


....................

"Brother Markle?" Brad, I think you forgot which forum this is! Must be my atypical presence! Big Grin
 
Posts: 51 | Location: Agoura Hills (Los Angeles), California | Registered: 10 November 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<w.c.>
posted
"Yeah, isn't it amazing that we NEVER see the slightest criticism of Islam, huh? Speaking of PC, Muslims don't seem to be able to let ANYTHING get past them. Seems like everything they do is in defense of a god who doesn't seem to be able to do anything for himself and has to be protected by his human subjects...in return for a 71-virgin reward, of course. But I thought in the West we were more mature and secure than that."

Yes, I saw that one coming. You certainly have your bone to pick, Markle. I can remember you carrying on like this before. But you've missed the point, deliberately I'd guess. The analogy with Muslims was just to point out that some groups are less able, or willing, to withstand criticism, and since you seem to be putting the entire Christian community, or religion in general, into the same liberal spitoon, it's useless to point out those differences. Needless to say, Christians aren't calling for a gag-order on the movie, or a lynching of the producer, just an opportunity to debate the issues for which they have scholarly investment. Muslims are less known for such tolerance, and might not even consider such a debate healthy. You libs seem to have about the same amount of tolerance for conservative rebuttals, which Brad has already pointed out. Interesting bed-fellows you make.

"True or not, apart from that book and actual history, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what would be so bad if Jesus HAD been married."

You already know the answer to this, so why the rhetoric?
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
<< But you've missed the point, deliberately I'd guess. The analogy with Muslims was just to point out that some groups are less able, or willing, to withstand criticism, and since you seem to be putting the entire Christian community, or religion in general, into the same liberal spitoon....You libs ..... >>

Rein yourself in, pal. You don't know who or what I am. You seem to have just one or two rhetorical molds on hand, and the discussion has to be shoe-horned into one of them. The world is bigger than that. Springboarding from the discussion of a mystery novel to all this political and conspiratorial condemnation is just something out of the Twilight Zone.

Markle
 
Posts: 51 | Location: Agoura Hills (Los Angeles), California | Registered: 10 November 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Markle, no problem with Jesus being married and having kids. Big problem with saying that the Christian community only viewed him as a great moral teacher and didn't really affirm his divine nature until the Council of Nicea. Lots of other problems with what's being said about the early Church. I have a good summary of all this in this slideshow. You can just jump to slide 17 for a beginning summary of the errors and distortions.

I'm not following your point about why TDC being "just a novel" should somehow exempt it from the kind of critique going on here and elsewhere. Brown can write whatever he wants, of course, and he's under no obligation to be factual. But that doesn't mean a reviewer of the book should give him a pass on his view of early Christian history. What's wrong with a reviewer saying something like, "engaging story . . . average writing ability . . . the historical perspective is nowhere close to what actually happened and here's why." I don't see a problem with reviewers bringing out the historical inaccuracies, which is primarily what I've been doing. If one wants to chalk that up to a fictional "ploy" of some kind, that's fine with me; interpreting Brown's motives is a tricky matter indeed. But what's wrong with pointing out the historical discrepancies? That's fair game in a book review, I believe.
 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 09 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Markle said: It's not worth this much outrage.

I�m on record of not only liking the book, but recommending it to others. Where�s the outrage? But even if I were angry about it, so what? I don�t get why I have to eat my emotions and my rights of free speech because somebody else wrote a book.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
I'm starting to think this book and this topic are one of those blank slates (like a deconstructionist-theory "text") that anyone can read anything into that is on their individual minds. Attacks on Christianity, political Left-vs. Right, whatever.

One of the most interesting genera of books (I have an uncle who is an avid reader of them) is the historical novel. These books intentionally mix fact with fiction. Often there is some obviously fictional story being played out within factual history. These novels, at their best, both entertain and inform. Sometimes they play "What if?" as in "What if the Nazis had won the Second World War?" There is a certain built-up expectation, at least regarding the better authors, that the history will be solid even while the story contained within this history will obviously be fictional. It is the interplay between the two that is so intriguing. There is, of course, no requirement for a novelist to get the history right. No one, even if one is trying one�s hardest, can ever be sure of getting it exactly right. And one�s prejudices and biases, without a hint of intentional dishonesty, is going to give different flavors and shades to history. This is to be expected. But I think what the author of TDC has done is to create (or copy�surely he can�t be the first) a new type of historical novel: The MoveOn.org or Michael Moore historical novel where the point is to obfuscate, not enlighten. And anyone who cares for the genera of historical novels ought to point out that TDC, while an interesting read for 3/5 of it, is not to be taken as factual even though the clear intention is that it should be.

No one does (at least in this country) or should go to jail for using the form of the historical novel to intentionally obfuscate (which I think is one of the author�s intentions). I simply see no harm in giving an opinion that the author of TDC has done what some movie makers have done (something that isn�t particularly controversial to complain about) and that is to somewhat pervert their art form for reasons other than artistic ones. In the case of movies it is adding all kinds of blatant advertisements for products throughout the movie. In historical novels, such as TDC, it is intentionally smudging the facts in order to satisfy or espouse one�s political and religious views.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Rein yourself in, pal. You don't know who or what I am. You seem to have just one or two rhetorical molds on hand, and the discussion has to be shoe-horned into one of them. The world is bigger than that.

You did a nice job of attacking WC, Markle, but what about his points?
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
"Brother Markle?" Brad, I think you forgot which forum this is! Must be my atypical presence!

LOL. Yes. Surely that happens. I get confused. But generally speaking, now when you hear me say "god damn it" it�s a request, not an exclamation.
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
<< But what's wrong with pointing out the historical discrepancies? >>

Absolutely nothing at all. It's just that the level of rhetoric, from some quarters, was getting weird. I thought that the thing was being taken a little too seriously. How many times, in how many ways, can I say "It's just a story?"

<< In historical novels, such as TDC, it is intentionally smudging the facts in order to satisfy or espouse one�s political and religious views. >>

I think he was just looking for a hook to tell a story. Saying it was all about pushing his personal �political and religious views� (political???) seems to me to be making more of it than there probably was.

Brad, those "points" from the third party were just an outburst of accusations and name-calling, and I don't have any further response to it. In fact, I think I've said everything I have to say on this subject, and I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll retire from this particular thread. Catch you later.

Markle
 
Posts: 51 | Location: Agoura Hills (Los Angeles), California | Registered: 10 November 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<w.c.>
posted
"Rein yourself in, pal. You don't know who or what I am. You seem to have just one or two rhetorical molds on hand, and the discussion has to be shoe-horned into one of them. The world is bigger than that. Springboarding from the discussion of a mystery novel to all this political and conspiratorial condemnation is just something out of the Twilight Zone."

Now that's choice! You only wander onto Shalom Place when you want to sneer at conservatives, and having assumed Christians are no more tolerant than radical Muslims, now want us to appreciate how misunderstood you are!

But should you ever be interested in a real discussion, just let me know what one or two rhetorical models you're referring to, and I'm sure we could manage a genuine exchange.

As for the world "being bigger than that," does that bigness include the varying angles of the conservative POV, or just the world according to liberals? If only the latter, then our prospective discussions would be short-lived, just as this one has been.

And, predictably, it wasn't the Twighlight Zone when libs questioned Saddam's WMD programs, or the evidence for OBL's involvement in 9-11.

It has to work both ways, Markle.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<w.c.>
posted
It is fascinating how libs defend such an obviously self-implicating view on this issue by taking exception to conservatives critiquing the distortions of history the author indulges in to write his fiction. If a piece of U.S. history, or European history, were treated the same way, criticisms would follow naturally, and be undestood to have their merit; but because this is relgion, and in particular Christianity, the agreement over historical facts doesn't apply.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Absolutely nothing at all. It's just that the level of rhetoric, from some quarters, was getting weird. I thought that the thing was being taken a little too seriously. How many times, in how many ways, can I say "It's just a story?"

In addition to the criticisms by Christians who object to the historical inaccuracies, I'm thinking you'd want to include the author himself, here, as he has now stated that he believes the truth of the basic story line. Then there are all those web sites that are studying TDC and are taking its basic premises seriously. Perhaps you'll show up on some of them to say, "It's just a story." Razzer

wikipedia has a good review of the book and attendant controversies, noting Much of the problem of the book is its readiness to assert as fact opinions on debates that have not been resolved by scholars. And for many, because of its claim to fact, the line where 'fact' ends and fiction begins (as the novel is certainly fiction) is blurred. This, combined with the controversial religious opinions that combat or offend the communities discussed, has caused a great deal of debate and partisan material to erupt. That's very well-stated, imo.
 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 09 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<w.c.>
posted
"I think I've said everything I have to say on this subject, and I'm starting to repeat myself . . . "

Tends to happen when what is said lacks substance.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asher>
posted
Haven't read the book, but the view of Christ married to Mary Magdalene is taken for theosophical view of Christianity and resounds with "The Aqauarian Gospel," although the latter text never goes so far as to suggest Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. So nothing that new and interesting in Brown's text. He seems to align himself with these pseudo mystical groups. The whole thesis behind theosophy is an attempt to usurp the best in Christianity and align Christ's life with texts that have no theological or historical basis. They are based on subjective experiences by occultists, rather than on historical facts etc.

Anyway, anyone who believes this is fact has to be nuts, or a theosophist. Even the most left wing newspaper says:

"Mention of this book is often suffixed by how many copies it has sold, as if sheer weight of numbers obviates all consideration of how rubbish it is. And it's a bit late to launch into a critique of a work that makes people feel physically sick when they finish it, like a pound of strawberry bonbons, but the question remains - why aren't they embarrassed? Why aren't they at least pretending a greater intellectual evolution than this? What are they trying to hide? That they really prefer Enid Blyton?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Colu...5673,1554543,00.html

Oh, and here's a snippet about the co-founder of Theosophy so you get an idea of her skewed notions which Brown seems to adhere to:

"Madame Blavatsky, founder of Theosophy, stated in a letter to A.P. Sinnett that the "greatest statesman in Europe, the Prince Bismarck, is the only one to know accurately all their secret plottings. . . . He knows it has ever been the aim of the Jesuit Priestcraft to stir up disaffection and rebellion in all countries to the advancement of its own interests."

Anyhow, the DCode seems to be an attack on the person of Jesus and as such, it is normal for people to react strongly to it, especially if its author argues that it is fact.

Hopefully the "New Age" is over now.

PS. One shouldn't even compare a gifted occultist like MB to Brown; the latter is surely after attention, whereas the former did much to create bridges between East and West, even if those bridges were made of dreams.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asher>
posted
Ironically, I think a lot of recent movies and books on Christ have roots in a blend of theosophy and postmodernism, although I would suggest that the former has had a greater impact over the years, especially with the onslaught of the New Age. Theosophy suggests:

"Jesus was an initiate of a 'secret group' possibly Gnostics. All miraculous stories about him are legends, he was just a man."

This point has been emphasized over and over in the media, but its intriguing to find its roots in theosophy first and foremost. Where else, I wonder? Even Islam suggests that he is a prophet but secular society will not believe even a prophet exists; that there is the possibility of religious genuis in a man.

Reading Camus again today and his blend of existentialism drives much deeper than any secular or New Age thought which always circles around self.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Lonely Days, Lonely Nights
by Jonah Goldberg

quote:
A third of Germans under 30 think America ordered the 9/11 attacks. The "theory" that the Pentagon attack was self-inflicted stagecraft is in wide circulation in France, and the subject of a best-selling book. Throughout Europe, it's easy to find commentators who take it at face value that Bush's failure to sign Kyoto led to Katrina. (It's worth noting: Clinton refused to sign it, too. And rightly so.)
This is a good reason why it�s useful to critique The Da Vinci Code. It helps people to separate fact from fiction. Having talked to a number of people regarding hurricane Katrina, it�s apparent that disinformation, distortion, and outright lies have become like some sort of parlor game that many people enjoy playing. It�s pure fantasy, but it�s treated as fact. And can anyone doubt that there are, have been, and will be ill effects because of this?

When the subject of religion comes up in this culture, some tell us that we mustn�t engage in such fantasy, or if we do, to keep it to the privacy of our homes and churches. Science and reason, they say, is how we are to order our lives. Well, when are you going to start doing that? Big Grin
 
Posts: 5413 | Location: Washington State | Registered: 21 September 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Well, I've just come back from the movie, and I enjoyed it. The plot stayed rather close to the book, although Langdon challenged Teabing on some of his revisionist views of early Church history, which differed from the book. Opus Dei will be upset at how they were portrayed, I'm sure, and rightly so.

As with the book, the same glaring fallacies remain:
- the early Church wouldn't have been upset if Jesus had been married;
- Christ's divinity isn't premised on his celibacy;
- if Christ is just a wise man in the Davidic lineage, then Mary Magdalene would have been no more a holy grail than the wives of hebrew kings and their descendants.
- if Leonardo intended for Mary M. to be seated next to Christ, then where was the 12th Apostle?

Good acting and I enjoyed the musical score.
 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 09 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
- see my brief review of the movie above, if you missed it.

----

This was interesting and shows the hypocrisy of the media.
quote:
When Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was released two years ago, something strange and unprecedented happened. The secular news media could not get enough of the Gospels. Of course, this mass Bible study had a twist and a purpose: to show how Gibson got it wrong.

The criticisms began in 2003, well before the film's release, when a committee of scholars obtained a copy of the script. It issued a highly critical 18-page report, the views of which were summarized in a New Republic article by one of the committee members, Paula Fredriksen of Boston University. The article was called "Mad Mel" and centered on the issue of culpability for Jesus' death and purported anti-Semitism in Gibson's version of events.

The template was set. For two months before the release of the film, which broke box office records with $370 million in the USA alone, the question was raised in countless articles, culminating in Newsweek's cover story a week before the film's release: "Who Killed Jesus?"

After more people had actually seen the film, the controversy intensified as TV talk shows hosted pseudo-scholarly debates in between commercials for American Idol and laundry detergents.

All of a sudden, a movie's faithfulness to the biblical record was extremely important to a lot of people.

Now, two years later, The Da Vinci Code, another movie with biblical implications, is about to be released. Like Gibson's film, it tells a story about Jesus, but one that self-consciously has nothing in common with the New Testament. Indeed, its scholar characters proudly proclaim that the New Testament is completely wrong about Jesus.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/o...-vinci-welborn_x.htm

It goes on . . .
 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 09 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Michael Novak didn't much like it. See his NRO review.
- http://article.nationalreview....MmE3NGZhOGNjZjcxYTQ=

I don't agree completely with his review, but this part was rather well stated:
quote:
All that matters, Tom Hanks tells the only living descendant of Christ, is what you believe. Not truth, not reality, but whatever you believe. That's what matters. You make up reality as you go. The professor Hanks plays makes plain that he believes that Jesus is only a man�a man and that's all. A great moral teacher, perhaps, but only a man.

That, of course, is the one thing that the Jesus himself does not allow us to believe. If Jesus is only a man, he is no great moral teacher. He is on the contrary a fraud, a pretender, a horrible spendthrift with his own life and the lives of his apostles�all twelve of whom met a martyrdom like his, some of them crucified, all of them most brutally killed without the utterance of a single recantation. If He was not the Son of God, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, he was either a mountebank or a lunatic, and deserves our contempt, not our praise. His every moral teaching would be vitiated by its radical emptiness and fraudulence.
 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 09 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
I bring this point out in my lectures on this topic, but this writer does it nicely:
quote:

This sex stuff might have nudged some theatergoers awake, but it�s been removed from the plot. Now the supposed reason that Christ�s marriage to St. Mary Magdalene was concealed is because it would be proof of his �mortality.�

Characters had to say this several times before I figured out what they were trying to express. Apparently the idea is that, if Christ was married, then he didn�t rise from the dead. Which is nonsense. The Bible, in fact, doesn�t say that Jesus never married, though if he had it probably would have popped up in the communal memory somewhere. If it turns out that that detail somehow slipped the first evangelists� minds, it would make no difference to the Christian claims. Great teachers, male and female, have come and gone through the millennia, and their marital status was rarely relevant. What makes Jesus different is that he�s something more than an instructive memory; on the contrary, he keeps manifesting himself to people, even today, as an undeniable living presence. He keeps giving people first-hand proof that he is alive.
http://article.nationalreview....NjE2OThlYjJmZTc1Mjc=
 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 09 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
I wonder what the outcry would be if a book or movie altering Jewish or Moslem history to show these religions in a bad light had become popular? How long would it take for the accusation of anti-Semitism or Islamophobia to be spouted by the very ones who tell us that The Da Vinci Code is "just a work of fiction." Without denying the latter, one can nonetheless assert widespread hypocrisy when it comes to bashing Christianity. And that, dear friends, is one of the signs of the times.
 
Posts: 7539 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 09 August 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3