The Da Vinci Code is "fiction" people!

[Flying Mullet]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4937754.stm

Why is it when people read a book clearly labeled "Fiction" they immediately assume that it must be based in fact? I understand it's fun to think about the things that the book suggests, but people keep acting like Dan Brown's uncovered the Catholic Church's dark secrets or something. I can't count the number of times I've chatted with people and when something related to religion comes up they try to quote or use something from <i>The Da Vinci Code</i> like it's fact.

[Raistlin]

Because the theories in it are based on a certain amount of fact, as presented in <i>Holy Blood, Holy Grail</i>, a book about the research of a few people whom I can't bother to remember right now.

Now, I don't like <i>The Da Vinci Code</i>. I found it rather dull. But saying "it's all nonsense" is just as bad as taking it for absolute truth.

[Shaun]

I don't see what's the big deal with this. Um, isn't that the Bible code thing where he apparently uncovered certain names and events inside the Bible's messages? Heck, I don't know.

[Flying Mullet]

Because the theories in it are based on a certain amount of fact, as presented in <i>Holy Blood, Holy Grail</i>, a book about the research of a few people whom I can't bother to remember right now.

Now, I don't like <i>The Da Vinci Code</i>. I found it rather dull. But saying "it's all nonsense" is just as bad as taking it for absolute truth.

I'm not saying thta it's all nonsense, I just don't like it when people say that they read about "xyz" in <i>The Da Vinci Code</i> and then continue on as if it's fact.

[Raistlin]

How is that any worse than taking something written in the Bible as if it's fact? I happen to think Dan Brown is Zeus reincarnated after Yahweh killed him 1600 years or so ago and thus the Da Vinci Code is divinely written.

[DK]

How is that any worse than taking something written in the Bible as if it's fact?

[bipper]

How is that any worse than taking something written in the Bible as if it's fact? I happen to think Dan Brown is Zeus reincarnated after Yahweh killed him 1600 years or so ago and thus the Da Vinci Code is divinely written.

The way the bible has been adopted since day one. The fact that the instances of the bible have been found to be accurate (though some cases linger). In all honesty the accuracy of the bible is way above part when compared to any texts that is even close to the Bible's age. For every point that is brought against the book, there always seems to be a direct retort. The book is written to be truth. Dan Brown's book is admitibly fiction, whereas the Bible is not.

Saying that this story [admitable fiction] is as true as this documentation [writen to be fact], is fairly Detrimental in itself.

Bipper

[Flying Mullet]

Who said anything about taking the Bible as fact? If you're assuming that I'm writing this because I am protecting the Bible you're wrong. I think that at least 50% of the Bible is rubbish. I'm writing this because I'm tired of hearing people say that they now know that this or that is how it really happened solely on what they read in <i>The Da Vinci Code</i>, without any other evidence or support. In a way they are treating the book like a new bible, and that frustrates me as I think that blind faith on any one book or idea is a bad choice.

Sadly enough I see it getting worse after the movie comes out.

[Raistlin]

The way the bible has been adopted since day one. The fact that the instances of the bible have been found to be accurate (though some cases linger). In all honesty the accuracy of the bible is way above part when compared to any texts that is even close to the Bible's age. For every point that is brought against the book, there always seems to be a direct retort. The book is written to be truth. Dan Brown's book is admitibly fiction, whereas the Bible is not.

Saying that this story [admitable fiction] is as true as this documentation [writen to be fact], is fairly Detrimental in itself.

So something that's written as truth (aka "non-fiction") automatically makes it true? You have very loose standards of truth. And the accuracy of the Bible is still significantly <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html">open to debate</a>.

Anything taken automatically as truth is absurd. The Da Vinci Code is no exception.

[Zante]

The Da Vinci code is fiction, but its based on a true theory (note: I'm not saing fact). Now I haven't read the original work, and I assume most people who read the Da Vinci code didn't either, so its just logical that they will referene to the book they actualy read instead.

I wouldn't go as far as to compare the validity of the Da Vinci code and the bible, though one could argue that there is much more fiction in the bible than in the code.

[Cz]

The difference between The Da Vinci Code and The Bible is that Dan Brown doesn't proclaim everything in his novel to be absolutely true. He raises some interesting theories that he admits 'may have merit' but doesn't go so far as to state that there is a huge Catholic Cover-up going on, and that ordinary citizens must don their trenchcoats and pick up their magnifying glasses in order to uncover it. Following the teachings of The Bible because you believe it to be the word of God is one thing, asserting that something you've read in a work of fiction that actually advertises the fact is quite another.

[bipper]

So something that's written as truth (aka "non-fiction") automatically makes it true? You have very loose standards of truth. And the accuracy of the Bible is still significantly <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html">open to debate</a>.

Anything taken automatically as truth is absurd. The Da Vinci Code is no exception.

What I am saying, is that you do not take somthing written to be fiction as fact, and somthing writen to be fact, and call it fiction.

And of course the Bible is up to debate man It is not proven anyway, and I will not risk derailing this thread by posting further views on this subject.

That is all.

Bipper

[DMKA]

What I am saying, is that you do not take somthing written to be fiction as fact, and somthing writen to be fact, and call it fiction.

But the Bible wasn't written to be fact.

[NeoCracker]

But the Bible wasn't written to be fact.

Who knows what it was written to be? All we have is speculation on it. It could have been written as fact, but there is no real way to prove it.

[Zeromus_X]

Yeah, it's kinda annoying. Both ways.