dxlightning
Platinum Membership
[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 1,246
|
Post by dxlightning on Dec 5, 2006 20:40:53 GMT -8
This is from an earlier post I made, and I think it deserves its own debate. Do you think that the Da Vinci Code presents its ideas too much as fact? In other words, is the church correct in feeling as though the book is spreading lies about its religion? I personally don't believe so. While the writer does present his ideas somewhat "matter-of-factly," you can't possibly blame him when people take his ideas too literally. There's a reason why this book is located in the fiction section of the libraray, and in the fiction section of the book store. You don't see people getting angry at Star Trek when they go into the logistics of a warp drive, do you? Oh god, I can hear it now... "That's completely illogical the way that works! I can't believe they would be poisoning our youth with this rubbish! They're giving the kids false hope that some day we'll be able to teleport or move at ten times the speed of light!" Okay then, that's why the call it science fiction. Or an even better one. When my brother was watching Batman Begins, a personal favorite movie of mine, he turned and said to me.. "This movie is stupid. There's no way a microwave emitter would work. Some kid's gonna try this at home and fry himself!" Okay brother, if it's so easy to make a high tech supermicrowave emitter that has strong enough radiation to vaporize water 300 feet away and through stone and steel, then you try to make one. I'll test it out myself, just to show you you're being ridiculous about it, and that no average person could make one of these emitters. In fact, the only people who COULD make one of these machines is smart enough to know that it won't work like it's supposed to. People tend to take things too personally. A fictional book, a fictional TV show, a movie based on a freaking comic! There's a reason why you're seeing it on your sony DVD player or on the Sci-fi channel and not on the news. Da Vinci Code presents it as a fact that the plot is based on, but never does it claim to be a non-fiction book, and never does it site sources or claim that anything they say about Mary Magdeline or the Holy Grail is true. Now I know that this forum has quite a few evangelical, or radical, if you will, christians. I'm hoping this can turn into a good debate
|
|
PhoenixFlare500
Diamond Membership
I like chocolate[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 896
|
Post by PhoenixFlare500 on Dec 5, 2006 20:55:18 GMT -8
I don't think the problem is that Christians take it too seriously. The problem is that some people actually think that this book is factual in its entirety.
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Dec 5, 2006 20:59:16 GMT -8
Glad you put this up to keep the other threads on topic. Plus this should make for an interesting debate.
I actually just watched the movie last night(read the book over a year ago). Book is far superior but at the same time far more "blasphemous" to some(movie has tom hanks as the defender of the christian view whereas in the book he's quite paganistic).
I say yes the Da Vinci code presents it's theories as fact BUT In the Davinci Code Universe.
ie like most books the Da Vinci code creates a new or alternate reality in which 1) All the characters that don't exist in our world DO exist in the book's world. 2) All the facts or evidence that does not exist in our world DOES exist in the book's world.
This part is where it can get dicey because the BOOK actually does cite real-life sources. The most notable being the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln,.
That book really does claim that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus and had at least one child. I haven't read the book but one of my professors did and she said that the authors use a theory to prove a theory type of circular reasoning.
Kinda of like: IF we can prove X, then Y must be true. And if Y is true then Z is true. So let's assume X is true even though we can't actually prove any of it.
One of the biggest assumptions was that the Priory of Sion is real(Holy blood, Holy grail claims this as does DVC) when in fact it's been proven to be a hoax.
And now those authors are starting to restate their findings as a "hypothesis" instead of facts.
In conclusion the book's facts are a mix of alleged facts taken from real books and total fiction.
It remains however that the book is a great read that hooks you in right away. I like Sir Ian McKellen's comment on the book which is very similar to my own opinion:
"While I was reading the book I believed it entirely. Clever Dan Brown twisted my mind convincingly. But when I put it down I thought, 'What a load of ... [eloquent pause] potential codswallop."
|
|
dxlightning
Platinum Membership
[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 1,246
|
Post by dxlightning on Dec 5, 2006 21:13:05 GMT -8
See and the thing is, the people who are complaining are only complaining because they know that it's not true. Well no d'uh, because the information is seconds away from your fingers! The problem is the ignorant reader, who just believes everything they read in the book. Honestly, if I had a church, and someone was so gullible that they believe something they read in a fiction book(taking someone's word for it, kind of like tech listening to his teacher without reading the book) is true without doing any research for themselves, then I wouldn't want them in my church.
Luckily Tech has proven he's done his research with McKellen's quote, and therefore isn't gullible.
However, I think that it's ridiculous to blame Dan Brown because people are ignorant and don't do their own research.
I mean, the entire time I was reading the book, I was thinking,
"There's no way that can be proven, otherwise the church would have been deserted years ago."
This promopted me to actually look it up, as anyone who's attempting to form an opinion would.
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Dec 5, 2006 21:20:40 GMT -8
Most of my debate posts are done after I do research. Along with reading all the posts in that thread. Plus the fact that I mentioned that it was my teacher's opinion and not my own precludes me from gullible status(and yes Dx agrees with that later on in his post) To me the big fact is IF it could be proven, then Dan Brown's book wouldn't have been popular because he would be writing about a well known proven fact instead of a book of fiction. But I'll let some other people join in the debate before I post again, maybe.
|
|
|
Post by tyrantisius on Dec 6, 2006 9:54:17 GMT -8
Damn you Ron Howard?
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Dec 8, 2006 0:34:09 GMT -8
Man even the semi-controversial topics aren't generating enough "heat."
Come on people we need more discussion. Too bad mortalcry wussed out of the forum. It was so fun picking his posts to threads.
Controversy, come back, come back!
|
|
|
Post by dpgunit on Dec 8, 2006 1:39:37 GMT -8
if you want controversy say something about minorities while wearing a man-thong. (not here, of course.)
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Dec 8, 2006 7:24:43 GMT -8
I know for a fact that the Da Vinci code tries to explain matters that haven't been explained thoroughly or even at all in the bible. It states things that no one would have ever thought. I think that is done through "hidden truths" within the bible.
Techno, would you think that this was true? If that was true, then there is another part of the Godhead, another entity of the trinity that would have the same likeness of God, but i've never seen it. How can this be proven? I know jesus was single his whole life. What sources can this be proven of?
|
|
dxlightning
Platinum Membership
[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 1,246
|
Post by dxlightning on Dec 8, 2006 11:28:47 GMT -8
Haha, I think the problem with this debate is no one really feels strongly that the Da Vinci Code is undermining religion...therefore I've switched sides and I'll argue that it is, but I need a few hours to prepare.
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Dec 8, 2006 12:11:01 GMT -8
Haha, I think the problem with this debate is no one really feels strongly that the Da Vinci Code is undermining religion...therefore I've switched sides and I'll argue that it is, but I need a few hours to prepare. Well maybe Prone thinks that way. I assume someone like mortalcry does, but he's gone. Prone quote Well theories of Jesus being marriend and having children can be proven just as much as the "traditional" bible can be proven. It's faith based with a smidgen of historical documents. There are numerous gospels, epistles, teachings etc... that were written alongside and before and after the writings that made it into the bible. The other writings could have made it into the bible but were not selected, for a variety of reasons. It is alleged that some of those non-biblical writings are said to have come from the apostles themselves and offer a different view of Jesus. One of the things I do know about is that some of these writings describe Jesus as more of a human man who is spiritually enlightened to the point of being totally in line with God, but still human. The writings were discounted due to being either Inacurate and/or Herectical or for other reasons. Whether they were truly inacurate/heretical is constantly debated by bible scholars. So there are sources outside the bible that say that Jesus wasn't single and was human. And I will make a point of saying that while you say you "know" Jesus was single, you can't prove that he was. You are taking the bible's assertion of truth on faith. Just as anyone who says Jesus was married is doing the same thing, taking that assertion based on faith in non-biblical works. Anyways, that should stir things up a bit. As to avoid confusion about my beliefs(which seems to happen SOOOOOOOOOOOOO much) I believe that Jesus is the first and likely best teacher on being close to God(enlightenment for the new-age people and going to heaven for the monotheists) Whether he was married or single does not change that opinion of Jesus.
|
|
PhoenixFlare500
Diamond Membership
I like chocolate[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 896
|
Post by PhoenixFlare500 on Dec 8, 2006 12:13:28 GMT -8
I just don't think Jesus had time to be married. He was always traveling and spreading the faith, thus he would not be able to focus on his marriage, and his wife would have been neglected.
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Dec 8, 2006 12:27:46 GMT -8
Well even in the bible Mary Magdalene was always traveling with Jesus and his apostles. So if she were his wife she wouldn't be neglected, she'd be active in his ministry. The DVC has one of the characters(Teabing i believe) quote a non-biblical book about Jesus and Mary Magdelene as showing that Peter was jealous that she got more affection than any of the apostles and that Jesus kissed Mary on the lips all the time. I don't know which book they were refering to.
|
|
|
Post by greeny on Dec 10, 2006 13:11:29 GMT -8
I remember researching the Da Vinci Code website upon reading it at first, and yes, they presented many of the facts produced in the book as pure fact. They've changed the site and don't ave that anymore, however they have something of the same on the Angels and Demons website. www.danbrown.com/novels/angels_demons/interview.htmlJust read the interviews... he thinks everything in Angels and Demons is true/he's experienced almost all of it. Anyway... not sure, but yeah. I agree with the Ian McKellan quote; I believed it as I was reading then I thought "what the hell..." afterward. That's what a book does though... it introduced you into its universe and makes you believe it. Just because this book uses a real-life setting doesn't mean that it's all true.
|
|