Printable View
It was probably written to warn us about The Ever Impending Doom. Incidentally this is very quickly going from The Lounge material to General/EoEO, so I'll try to put things back on pace. The Da Vinci Code is indeed fiction based on theories around the (SPOILER)bloodline of Christ, but I think that some elements are made up, namely the bits about (SPOILER)self-flaggelating albino monks.Quote:
Originally Posted by corncracker
But it wasn't written in the hopes of being published by Doubleday Fiction to make a living for the author either. The point is The Da Vinci code has the word fiction written all over it whereas the Bible doesn't. You probably won't see many bibles in the fiction section, will you? Whether you believe the bible is a guide, a scam, a religion, or whatever you were implying you've got to atleast dignify that most people adhere to the Bible like fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKA
"let the biblical scholars and historians battle it out".
I'm not going to come out and call anyone an idiot for believing in the holy grail/blood line or whatever. I haven't looked into it much and I'm not even Christian to begin with. But if this is someones personal belief and it is a load of BS... well atleast it's not Scientology.
People who lose thier faith so easily after reading a book that contradicts the Bible...were never true Christians in the first place. Anyway, I doubt that the Bible is 100% accurate...and I really doubt a fictional book based on some truth is accurate either. But I understand Mullet totally...it's just sad to hear people talk and quote The DaVinci Code, like it's a damn factual documentation.
I think a large part of it is because in the beginning of the book he starts off with FACT: and then lists a bunch of things that he claims are factual and correct (and a lot of this stuff isn't) and a lot of people, and I mean a LOT of people are taken into the idea that the ideas he presents are true as well. I get people saying to me, "hey did you read da vinci code? Did you know Jesus had a wife and child???" And it's like, uuhhhh... >_>
And also, he presents a large number of things in the book as though it were fact. Stuff about Disney and and ridiculous notions of secrets and conspiracy hiding in Little Mermaid. And because he relates his fictional ideas to real world stuff like Disney, a name everyone recognizes, people are inclined to believe the other secrets and conspiracies dealt with as well.
Yes, it's fiction, but he does present the whole thing as though it were fact. I think that's what bothers people. And honestly, a lot of people have been suckered in by the book.
As long as Christians are saying it was written to be and is fact, I'm going to say it wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by corncracker
only those misled that allow themselves to be misled. this applies to both novels and the Bible.
this topic raises more questions.
how do we know if there is a foundation outside of our conscious mind?
or.... is an udder really a cows private part.
its up to fact.... and I still dont reckon theres a point in the amount of evidence... cause it still doesnt give away anything major about this... "code"
This thread was supposed to be about The Da Vinci Code. Let's get back to it, please? I don't like hijacking.
I agree with this. There is definite factual support for some of the ideas posited in the Da Vinci Code, but they are by no means 'proven.' A novel may contain certain points which are facts in our world, but this does not mean that all or even any ideas or theories in such a novel are true.Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
By the same principle, the Bible is not 'proven' either, not by a long shot. Belief in the Bible's truth and message is usually based on faith. There is historical evidence to support events occurring in the Bible, but this does not mean that everything or even anything else in the Bible is true. The Bible itself was by no means written all at once: it was compiled over the centuries and did not even acquire its present form until towards the end of the Middle Ages. Some books of the Bible have been excluded, and some books (the one's we see today are usually Bibles approved by the Vatican) were deemed worthy for inclusion. I believe it is tradition, not truth, which has given the Bible its continued strength and endurance up to today.
L. Ron Hubbard, author of Dianetics and founder of Scientology, has a certain degree of logical validity to some of his ideas, but this does not prove that 75,000,000 years ago, Xenu, the ruler of some Galactic Confederation, dumped billions of people into Earth's volcanoes and then blew them up with H-bombs (which is what Scientologists believe).
If thousands to millions of Scientologists believe the writings of a science fiction writer who died 20 years ago (Hubbard), then why is it all surprising that people believe in books such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail, or the Da Vinci Code? Not only is the Da Vinci Code supported by much more historical fact than Hubbard's Dianetics, but it is elaborately linked to the largest religion on the face of the planet. That religion is Christianity, a religion which is not proven, but is supported by a much stronger tradition than the tradition of the relatively new Da Vinci Code. These two 'traditions' are in conflict with one another because of apparent contradictions and other details which I won't go into here. Some people are choosing the new tradition, and there is nothing wrong with this.
The Da Vinci Code has started a revolution, and the Inquisition ain't around to murder and torture the instigators of this glorious movement. For people who play Final Fantasy, a lot of you appear to be close-minded.
-LYCHON
Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I've had people say similar things and when I ask how they know that they say, "Didn't you read The Da Vinci Code?" and give me this "you dumbass" stare like I don't know something that's now intuitively obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
Well, I think at the very least its an interesting read, and it makes you think about certain religious themes rather than just accepting them as straight truth (else rot in hell forever!). I believe its time for us to shake the stigma of condtradicting biblical "fact" that the 16th century Catholic church has instilled in us via their bloody massacres and burning stakes. By no means am I saying that the Da Vinci Code is the harbinger of the future, or that anything in it other than descriptions of art is completely true. But anything that opens up new socially acceptable channels of debate in terms of religion is swell in my book. I hope to someday walk down the street and scream at the top of my lungs, "THE BIBLE IS A SMURFING LOAD OF HYPOCRITICAL PROPOGANDA!" and not get smacked across the face by shopping bag with a brick in it.
That is neither here nor there in the context of my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKA
:cool:
Why just hate Christians on premise? So if Christians gave up on god, would you then accept him? lawl
Anyways, I have a good friend whom always keeps up with Samantha Brown's blunderings as well as anything that tries to discredit how Christianity works, or is remembered. He also claims he is Christian as well. I think it is just the nonconformist lifestyle we lead or prehapse the intense need for drama and a feeling of importance in the grand scheme of things.
:rolleyes2Quote:
"THE BIBLE IS A SMURFING LOAD OF HYPOCRITICAL PROPOGANDA!" and not get smacked across the face by shopping bag with a brick in it.
That scream was illustrative purposes alone. My blasphemous opinions on the Good Book do not factor into this academic debate. All I mean is that people are not entirely free to express opinions on religion in this day and age, unless they plan to be the target of some terrorist attack. Or a brick.
Well Fallenangel, It so happens to be the common beleif that one should be liable for thier actions. We would be opening a can of worms here, but I do not believe that freedom of speech without liability is a good thing. Insulting someone, or thier religon, is both unjust and wrong. That was the ilistration brought to my mind.
Now, if you are like Dan Brown and ponder and bring up undirected points not meant to insult or directly undermine anyone, that should be just ducky. Now the subject at hand is when people begin struting fictional ideas as fact; that is just blantant stupidity. Insulting or no, the person needs a right smack.
Bipper
The Illiad begs to differ.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper