The Da Vinci Code

[maggie2]

One reason I think there is such a big hullaballoo is that the Church is afraid the ignorant masses will believe this as truth. I agree with them, I've seen this in my own life over issues with the LDS Church, people who don't know the difference and aren't educated enough won't know the difference. I think that's their problem here.

If the church thinks the masses are ignorant then the church has a major problem and the poor ignorant masses have a bigger problem...their churches have a pretty horrible view of them. Sad to say I don't necessarily disagree with you that the church thinks that way. What I disagree with is the characterization of the masses as ignorant. I think that is insulting to the vast majority of people.

 

[Ramacharaka]

the story in the Da vinci Code is supposed to be fiction, not the ideas presented. the story in Da Vinci code is made to sound hokey sometimes presented nicely in disney's National Treasure movie, a possible pre-spoof on this, (great movie)
There is plenty about the Grail legend dating back to the 1900's at least in writings by Frater Achad such as the ones linked to here:
http://www.hermetic.com/browe-archive/pdf/parzival_letter.pdf
http://www.hermetic.com/browe-archive/pdf/Chalice of Ecstasy.pdf

So no, the fact of jesus having children is not a new idea although things like the grail hunt were to confuse it into a differant form of quest. to kind of see what some of them looked like in recent generations just look to www.peewee.com but other than that, you are on a ghost hunt, I think the controversy was just to protect the children as always. I don't think religious establishments are part of a conspiricy here, but some people might be stupid enough to have this affect their faith, and there are alot of strange and multivariate christians.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Uhhhh... when did this happen?

On a History Channel interview. I don't remember the exact title, but it did deal with the Da Vinci Code.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't see the DeVinci Code as a threat to Christianity, but rather as something that might create more interest in Christianity, and also raise the issue of the role of the feminine in it.

As for it's being misleading fiction, since when was fiction ever required to be true? The churches are right to get out the message that it's fiction, but merely because it's fiction is no reason to claim that it is not valuable fiction.

 

[robtex]

One reason I think there is such a big hullaballoo is that the Church is afraid the ignorant masses will believe this as truth. I agree with them, I've seen this in my own life over issues with the LDS Church, people who don't know the difference and aren't educated enough won't know the difference. I think that's their problem here.

I liked this post Becky. I have just added hullaballoo to my vocabulary. But seriously, the word choice is interesting. in specifics:

the Church is afraid the ignorant masses will believe this as truth.

I think if you change the word truth to faith the statement becomes more accurate. However, since being on RF I have noticed many theists see faith and truth as the same word when tied to their belief. For instance, many christians see the conception of Heaven as a truth based on belief as opposed to a faith (in the absesne of evidence).

I've seen this in my own life over issues with the LDS Church, people who don't know the difference and aren't educated enough won't know the difference. I think that's their problem here.

And in this one I would substitute educated with indoctrinated. What is presented as religious history by any group is actually predicated on belief.

The end note could be that any belief is equally valid if they all have equal evidence to support their proposed existance. If someone chooses to follow the gnostic way based on that movie it seems as valid as them studying jedism after seeing star wars or become a catholic after watching the movie "The 10 commandments".

I can't find the justification for the idea of a "proper education" or "correct belief" when it comes to mattters of faith.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

For instance, many christians see the conception of Heaven as a truth based on belief as opposed to a faith (in the absesne of evidence).

It demonstrates the power of faith just as much as a depth of ignorance. By faith one participates in the myth: myth becomes truth by faith. Science is not the best way to measure religious expression. We would never review art, poetry, or music with science. Religious expression is an art, a "humanity" and not a science.

I have no doubt that many Christians do not recognize the difference between scientific truth and religious expression. Part of the confusion is the difference in the evaluation of information. Jesus said "I am the truth" - an empirically unverifiable statement, but accepted by faith as the truth. As No*s said, there is more than one way to identify or recognize truth, despite the popularity of the scientific method. It is wholly inadequate when we ponder the supernatural.

I was lecturing in a Christian private school a few weeks ago, and talked about the problem of evil. The students occasionally protested that Jesus is the Truth... stuff like that... I definately can personally relate to your distinction between truth and faith as not being generally recognized. The students definately could not draw the distinction.

 

[cardero]

angellous_evangellous writes: Religious expression is an art, a "humanity" and not a science.

Yes, but even the most abstract artists kept the canvas in front of them with both hands free and both eyes open.

 

[fantome profane]

There are a couple different churches in my area that I know of that are actually encouraging people to read the book and/or go see the movie. One that I know of has actually organized a private screening for its members. The idea is that people will see the movie, and then go to the church to discuss it. They seem to see this as an opportunity to get people taking and thinking about religion and spirituality. As hard as it is to believe there are actually some religious organizations that believe that thinking is a good thing.




Personally having read the book I feel no need to go see the movie, but I would like to share a thought or two.

The concept of the Divine Feminine is a wonderful and trans-formative idea and I believe that the more people are exposed to this idea, the more it will benefit our culture. The idea of the sacred feminine exists in many forms and myths, and has existed long before the time of Christ. But in this case the Divine Feminine is presented in the form of Mary Magdalene as wife of Jesus and mother of his children and for that reason people are again being blinded to this beautiful imagery and what it is truly meant to represent. I would like to say to anyone who is offended by the suggestion that Christ was a husband and father, try to see past that. Forget about the question of whether this is historically valid (I don’t believe that it is) and try to see it as a myth, but as a myth that has powerful meaning.

Dan Brown actually makes this point in his book (or a couple of his characters make it), but then they seem to completely miss their own point. The representation of Mary Magdalene as the Divine Feminine (or Goddess) is even in the context of this book only a metaphor. The idea of the church trying to marginalize the feminine is not completely without merit, but I also think that the Catholic Church gets a bum rap on this one. They get attacked from both sides. From one side people like Dan Brown accuse them of ignoring feminine spirituality, and the other side accuses them of worshiping the Virgin Mary. And neither is true or fair.

Of course this book is fiction. The literary critic in me only gives it a C+. And not only is it fiction but it is a murder mystery and an action thriller. Dan Brown depicts the Catholic Church and Opus Dei in a way that works for the fictional story he is trying to tell. The spiritual aspects are barely touched on and even the controversy often takes a back seat to car chases. But sometimes the mere suggestion of a deeper spiritual concept is all it takes to awaken someone and get him or her thinking. And that cannot be a bad thing.:rainbow1:

 

[onmybelief]

I am wondering, Why do some people get so p***ed off over the Di Vince Code, when the book is clearly marked "Fiction." Also, the author of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" which first theorized that Jesus was married, admited he has very little evidence to back it up, and it shouldn't be taken seriously.

History channel is re-showing the Di Vince Code shows, so feel free to watch them if you need conviencing, or want to feel some reliefe.​

You know when I first seen the title to this thread I was gonna say how people are just blowing this out of proportion and that people need to know the fact that it is fiction. But you have taken the words right out of my mouth. I don't have to say anything about it now.

 

[finalfrogo]

You know when I first seen the title to this thread I was gonna say how people are just blowing this out of proportion and that people need to know the fact that it is fiction. But you have taken the words right out of my mouth. I don't have to say anything about it now.

Yes, but the ideas are historically theoretical. Although they may or may not be true, they are real ideas.