The Da Vinci Delusion

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
The Da Vinci Code is not the only popular modern day novel that is historical fiction. The Left Behind novel and sequels are historical fiction as well. Yet, many fundie Christians realy believe the novels to be 100 percent accurate. And I am sure some people have been confused by those novels as well.

People becoming confused is not new to this planet in 2006. It has been happening in religoius as well as political life as long as there have been people.
 

solong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Posts
180
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Gender
Male
The Da Vinci Code Bibliography. Notice that 2/3rds of the references are Occultist.

The History of the Knights Templars
--Charles G. Addison


Rosslyn: Guardians of the Secret of the Holy Grail
--Tim Wallace-Murphy & Marilyn Hopkins


The Woman With The Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail
--Margaret Starbird


The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ
--Lynn Picknett & Clive Prince


The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine
--Margaret Starbird


Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
--Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln


The Search for the Holy Grail and the Precious Blood
--Deike Begg


The Messianic Legacy
--Michael Baigent


The Knights Templar and their Myth
--Peter Partner


The Dead Sea Bible. The Oldest Known Bible
--Martin G. Abegg


The Dead Sea Deception
--Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh


The Nag Hammadi Library in English
--James M. Robinson


Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians
--Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy


When God was a Woman
--Merlin Stone


The Chalice and the Blade. Our History, our Future
--Riane Eisler


Born in Blood
--John J. Robinson


The Malleus Maleficarum
--Heinrich Kramer & James Sprenger


The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci
--Leonardo da Vinci


Prophecies
--Leonardo da Vinci


Leonardo da Vinci: Scientist, Inventor, Artist
--Otto Letze


Leonardo: The Artist and the Man
--Serge Bramly, Sian Reynolds


Their Kingdom Come: Inside the secret world of Opus Dei
--Robert A. Hutchison


Beyond the Threshold: A Life in Opus Dei
--Maria Del Carmen Tapia


The Pope's Armada: Unlocking the Secrets of Mysterious and Powerful New Sects in the Church
--Gordon Urguhart


Opus Dei: An Investigation into the Secret Society Struggling for Power Within the Roman Catholic Church
--Michael Walsh


I. M. Pei: A Profile in American Architecture
--Carter Wiseman


Conversations With I. M. Pei: Light Is the Key
--Gero Von Boehm
 

eddyabs

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Posts
1,294
Media
21
Likes
136
Points
193
Location
Little cottage in the stix
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I read the book, purely on the fact that I had read 'Angels and Demons' and thought of it as a good 'no-brainer'....well, actually, it was a pile of 'merde' when you compare it to other great reads of the same genre....

If you want a great read, about adventure, that grips you from page to page, then read (those of you who haven't) 'Endurance' by Alfred Lansing...a real boys book, a true story about the Edwardian adventurer Ernest Shackleton and his voyage to the Antartic aboard the 'Endurance'. It's a bloody thrilling read and is stacked full of photos taken by the ships photographer. Trust me, it's an amazing story of Man's stoicness, and strength through true harsh adversity.

This advertisement will self destruct in 60 threads.
 

Athena

Just Browsing
Joined
May 19, 2006
Posts
32
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
London
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Female
Check this book out: Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: The Catholic Church and Sexuality by Uta Ranke-Heinemann. So far I get that celibacy is great so long as you don't have "impure" thoughts and feelings. Marriage is acceptable as long as the sex is just for procreation and you mustn't enjoy it. Homosexuality is bad because it doesn't allow for procreation. Here is a quote from the back - "as late as 1916, for instance, Rome decreed that a wife faced by a husband wearing a condom must resist him 'as she would a rapist'".

St Peter, one of Jesus' disciples, was married (according to the bible (Matthew 8:14-17; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38). So, what foundation was the church built on again?

Jesus was Jewish. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about Judaism and marriage can comment about the possibility that Jesus was married and had children.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Athena said:
Check this book out: Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: The Catholic Church and Sexuality by Uta Ranke-Heinemann. So far I get that celibacy is great so long as you don't have "impure" thoughts and feelings. Marriage is acceptable as long as the sex is just for procreation and you mustn't enjoy it. Homosexuality is bad because it doesn't allow for procreation. Here is a quote from the back - "as late as 1916, for instance, Rome decreed that a wife faced by a husband wearing a condom must resist him 'as she would a rapist'".

St Peter, one of Jesus' disciples, was married (according to the bible (Matthew 8:14-17; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38). So, what foundation was the church built on again?

Jesus was Jewish. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about Judaism and marriage can comment about the possibility that Jesus was married and had children.

Celibacy for Catholic Priests became a church regulation in AD 800s. It is not a founding principle of Christianity. And its only a regulation for the Roman Catholic branch. The Bible is in favor of marriage. St. Paul felt it was not necessary since the Kingdom of God was going to happen any day. He advised people to get married if they really had to (nudge nudge, wink wink).

I think the proscription against birth control is barbaric.
 

solong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Posts
180
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Gender
Male
JustAsking said:
Celibacy for Catholic Priests became a church regulation in AD 800s. It is not a founding principle of Christianity. And its only a regulation for the Roman Catholic branch. The Bible is in favor of marriage. St. Paul felt it was not necessary since the Kingdom of God was going to happen any day. He advised people to get married if they really had to (nudge nudge, wink wink).

I think the proscription against birth control is barbaric.

Just a matter of detail: Paul said, in 1 CO 7 (which is to what you refer) "For the present distress," he recommended not to marry. That was a hard time, because they were torturing and killing not only the person advocating Christ, but his entire family. They took all their belongings, murdered the kids too, and turned their homes into trash as an example to all who would challenge their authority with Christianity. As a matter of fact, it was common throughout Asia Minor to do just that. And people were willing to risk everything, for Christ. It is why, later on, that the church got in bed with government so they could be a little safer. Finally, those churches had so watered down the truth they had, that they were kicking out the only real Christians they had left. What was left, 300 years later, were those empty shells, but they were rich and powerful.
By the way, Paul actually had been married. He became single some time after his conversion.
 

almostr8

Just Browsing
Joined
May 22, 2006
Posts
3
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Gender
Male
I haven't read the book but saw the movie on Monday, thought it was great .."don't believe the critics".. its an interesting story and well filmed... I'm sure there is alot of truth in what is being told.. I wonder if that is what the church is scared of..
 

solong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Posts
180
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Gender
Male
playainda336 said:
LoL...the D Vinci Code.

"OMG it is s00 bad f3r Jebus to hav kidz!"

LMAO. What crock.

To anybody who doesn't worship Christ, it's a crock! But to anybbody whose only hope is Christ, then His promise of salvation hinges on the fact the He intends to return to earth, and His church will be waiting as His bride, to be married.

Everything Christ did, He did for a reason, not just to pleasure himself, but to set an example and to fulfill prophecy. Had he married a wealthy ex-prostitute and had a daughter by her, He would have nullified every prophecy about His return, and you would instead be saying, "Hey, he let his own glands get in the way of everything that was important to you Christians. Humpf, some 'savior.'"

So that's why Dan brown actually wrote his book, to begin with. He was packaging the occult philosophy in a fictional way so that the weak-kneed, who don't have the stones to object can say, "What's the big deal, dude? It's just a fiction story, after all."

The reason there is so much outrage from the Catholic Church is frankly because it has so much to hide, itself. While almost nothing in the "Code" is true, and even the details are screwed up, the church is afraid that somebody, sometime, is actually going to get it right, and if they don't set a precedent now, to scare off anybody else who'd try it, they are, sooner or later going to get caught.

Jesus Christ Superstar wasn't to blaspheme Christ, although it did. The Last Temptation was serious, not a musical, and also blasphemy. Neither were biblical, nor did they try to be. But we ought to ask ourselves, if Holly wood undertook the same dirt with, say, Mohammed, or Buddha, or Sikkah, or any of the other pagan gods that millions or billions of people the world over worship, you would expect terrorist acts on a scale that we have never seen in the history of the world to this time. And 99% of people would be saying we deserved it!

But...they would say... what's the big deal? It was just fiction! And the Muslims would say, it was Blasphemy, and we don't care how you package it! And all the people would rise up and say, Amen.

Interesting, isn't it, just how clear and plain the defamation becomes when the object of hate is a pagan god? And yet, when it is really the very Son of God Himself, we can justify it by saying, well, after all, it IS still just fiction.

 

jeremyA

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Posts
97
Media
6
Likes
11
Points
153
Location
England
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
In my opinion Dan Brown is a terrible writer with a horrible prose style who is sexist and bases his book on badly researched material, however he does raise some good points which are not exactly new but he has bought them to the attention of the Jakie Collins reader, which cannot be a bad thing.
Obviously you are always going to get fundamentalist nutters who want to burn the book because it brings their views into doubt.
I was reading a much more interesting account of the discovery of the gospel according to Judas which is one of the books of the bible which for obvious reasons been suppressed since the third century.I recommend that you read it because the story it tells is one of Judas being the one disiple who understood who Jesus was and what he represented and why he had to be 'betrayed' in order to forfil his very reason for being.Like many of the supressed books it tells of a church which basically says you dont need to go to an organised religion because the church is you, this was not a popular message to be giving to the great unwashed so it was quietly suppressed like so many other things.
 

jeremyA

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Posts
97
Media
6
Likes
11
Points
153
Location
England
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
As for Jesus marrying mary magdelene it appears that the idea that she was a prostitute is more propaganda from the early church with no supporting evidence.So if jesus was an ordinary guy I dont think there would have been much stopping him marrying her if he wanted.The fact that 'Jesus' is probably an amalgum of the hundreds of self proclaimed 'sons of God' and rebel leaders who were knocking about at the time is neither here nor there.People need to realise that the bible isnt a literaly true story its a morality tale which has been hijacked.
 

solong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Posts
180
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Gender
Male
jeremyA said:
In my opinion Dan Brown is a terrible writer with a horrible prose style who is sexist and bases his book on badly researched material, however he does raise some good points which are not exactly new but he has bought them to the attention of the Jakie Collins reader, which cannot be a bad thing.
Obviously you are always going to get fundamentalist nutters who want to burn the book because it brings their views into doubt.
I was reading a much more interesting account of the discovery of the gospel according to Judas which is one of the books of the bible which for obvious reasons been suppressed since the third century.I recommend that you read it because the story it tells is one of Judas being the one disiple who understood who Jesus was and what he represented and why he had to be 'betrayed' in order to forfil his very reason for being.Like many of the supressed books it tells of a church which basically says you dont need to go to an organised religion because the church is you, this was not a popular message to be giving to the great unwashed so it was quietly suppressed like so many other things.

If you want to assume things, then why not first read whatever literature is first available? There are only 11 scriptures available which mention Mary Magdalene and you haven't read even the first one-- obviously. So why are you telling us what you think? And, why would we care what you think when your thoughts are just uninformed opinions?

There is lots more information, but if you cannot back your opinions up with any more horsepower than, "Here's what I think," then don't think we have not taken note of your work and study on the subject.
 

jeremyA

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Posts
97
Media
6
Likes
11
Points
153
Location
England
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
erm..i cannot back my ideas up?
well there are a great many historians who would say pretty much the same thing.I see from your signature that you are a christain and so cannot stand anyone taking issue which the orthodox view.
 

CUBE

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 28, 2005
Posts
8,548
Media
13
Likes
7,705
Points
433
Location
The OC
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I enjoy Dan Brown's books. Most of the art mentioned and it's history has been well known in art classes since day one...the general public just didn't know. I feel it really brings to light some of the twists and turns made by the church for their own gain. Given a story, I think on some level, it is a more comfortable then the story the church has invented and manipulated over the years.

I still think Tom Hanks was wrong for the role and after seeing the movie that confirmed it for me...he looked tired and 10 years too old for the part.

I think many people in society just don't agree with the distorted ignorant views of many (not all) christians...they wouldn't like Jesus if they met him. The man's work has been distorted by religous leaders and it is the greatest sin against him.

Anyway, still enjoyed the film.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
solong said:
If you want to assume things, then why not first read whatever literature is first available? There are only 11 scriptures available which mention Mary Magdalene and you haven't read even the first one-- obviously. So why are you telling us what you think? And, why would we care what you think when your thoughts are just uninformed opinions?

There is lots more information, but if you cannot back your opinions up with any more horsepower than, "Here's what I think," then don't think we have not taken note of your work and study on the subject.

It turns out he is right. He just forgot to post his reference.