Andrew Dalby Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 ... at least Brown clearly labels his book FICTION. He's not so clear about it as all that. The publisher's binding may say fiction, but Dan Brown's bit inside starts with a page labelled 'fact' (and I have checked some of the items and found them to be something quite different from fact). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 I only like Dan Brown more than the Gospel-writers because at least Brown clearly labels his book FICTION If Dan Brown clearly labeled his book fiction, I wouldn't be arguing against the book, I would simply think it's a book written in bad taste, but Brown claims there are a lot of facts in his book which are completely false. I guess his agenda is simply to mislead the audience. And BTW it's no one's job to disprove the Gospels or any other fabulae--it's up to the Gospel-writers to convince their audience, not their audience to disprove the Gospel-writers. If any random assertion is to be held true until proven false, then we might as well forget about critical-thinking altogether. There is only about a Billion people that are convinced, but according to you all those people don't use critical thinking. The Bible is filled with provable material, so it's up to the nonbelievers to disprove it and Dan Brown did a lousy job of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 There is only about a Billion people that are convinced, but according to you all those people don't use critical thinking. The Bible is filled with provable material, so it's up to the nonbelievers to disprove it and Dan Brown did a lousy job of that. The militant atheism of some of the people around here is probably rubbing you the wrong way. I find it a bit over the top, myself. (Maybe they were abused by priests. Or maybe they just need an axe to grind). Nonetheless they are right in one thing: you can't prove a negative. The burden of proof rests on those who make the assertions. No one has to disprove the Bible - those who demand others believe in it have the burden to prove that is it correct. As far as the Bible being historically accurate, I believe the results are mixed at best. For one thing, there is little evidence that large numbers of Hebrews were ever held captive in Egypt. And in any event the Egyptians did not use foreign slaves to build pyramids - they conscripted their own native population during the non-farming months. That puts the whole story of Exodus in doubt. That 's not to say the rest of the Bible doesn't hold a powerful spiritual reality for those so inclined, merely that mythology is best read allegorically, not literally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 (edited) The militant atheism of some of the people around here is probably rubbing you the wrong way. I find it a bit over the top, myself. (Maybe they were abused by priests. Or maybe they just need an axe to grind). Nonetheless they are right in one thing: you can't prove a negative. The burden of proof rests on those who make the assertions. No one has to disprove the Bible - those who demand others believe in it have the burden to prove that is it correct. As far as the Bible being historically accurate, I believe the results are mixed at best. For one thing, there is little evidence that large numbers of Hebrews were ever held captive in Egypt. And in any event the Egyptians did not use foreign slaves to build pyramids - they conscripted their own native population during the non-farming months. That puts the whole story of Exodus in doubt. That 's not to say the rest of the Bible doesn't hold a powerful spiritual reality for those so inclined, merely that mythology is best read allegorically, not literally. I have no problem with someone telling me the Bible is full of fiction or the exodus might not have occured etc. I personally believe that it did occur but the other person might not believe it, which is perfectly fine. What I have a problem with is an author inventing false stories and trying to add his own version to the Bible which he can't prove. If you are going to say the Bible and the church were hiding that Jesus had a lover then you better be able to prove it with facts. I also have a problem with people applying a different standard to interpreting the Bible and another standard to interpreting a book weak on facts. For some reason these people are willing to give Dan Brown the benefit of the doubt but not the authors of the Bible. Edited February 13, 2006 by tflex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted April 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 I haven't read The DaVinci Code yet because I haven't seen it in paperback LOL! Well Moon, there you go... The Da Vinci Code Paperback Edition... cheers viggen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 (edited) I haven't read The DaVinci Code yet because I haven't seen it in paperback LOL! Well Moon, there you go... The Da Vinci Code Paperback Edition... cheers viggen It's about time, they milked the hardback sales for as long as they could, it must've set some sort of record. Edited April 9, 2006 by Virgil61 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 Stigmata. The Da Vinci code. The Gospel of Thomas. It seems like an interest in Gnostic Christianity is resurging. I wonder, as mainstream Protestantism continues to whither and die, will Gnosticism take up some of the slack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 I find it remarkable that there are people who believe a man could rise from the dead, yet who are unwilling to believe that the same man could have sex with a woman. I guess they follow Tertullian--credo quia absurdum. That is the nature of FAITH and MIRACLES. Either one believes or doesn't. Like the words manners, taste and unique, which do not take adjectives, faith and miracle stand alone. Jesus has two natures; True Man and True God. God is sexless and colorless (amongst other attributes). God may do as He chooses. I haven't read the book and won't; saw the boring documentaries; will have to see the flic by edict of my Bride. Brown won the case against him in the British assizes. The book is a story, just like Jack and the Bean Stalk. It wouldn't be politic to tell a Moslem that Mohammed didn't ride into heaven on his white horse. Now, we have this Judas Gospel. Then there are the Gospels of Mary Magdelan and St. Thomas. Obviously, the Council had no idea as to what it was doing when choosing the books of the Bible. It seems that those, who lack faith, so easily have faith in the likes of the DaVinci Code. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 Also in the book it said that Jesus made Mary pregnant which if you followed would mean that Jesus loved Mary as much as Joseph did (get my drift?) The Church also looks greedy and wants to destroy all things related to Mary's pregnancy. Methinks that you have the wrong Mary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 Bahhh... Then why bother argue because Catholics are Catholics with fundamental beliefs and non-believers are nonbelievers... it really isn't gonna change! Catholics? Only Catholics? Therefore, The Orthodox, Protestants and Moslems accept the book's fairy tale? This comment applies whether one accepts the Bible (or Koran) as Gospel or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 (edited) Stigmata. The Da Vinci code. The Gospel of Thomas. It seems like an interest in Gnostic Christianity is resurging. I wonder, as mainstream Protestantism continues to whither and die, will Gnosticism take up some of the slack? Its certainly been the "thinking man's " route in psychological/religious enquiry for some time - Jung , went off on all sorts of tangents I know, but he landed heavily on Gnostic philosophy and a lot of Jungians or post-Jungians are bumping around the territory. I see the "two Mary's" could have sparked a bitter interprative schism Edited April 9, 2006 by Pertinax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted April 9, 2006 Report Share Posted April 9, 2006 I will grant that it is up for grabs whether the authors in the Bible were out to make a sheckel or not. But, it is not up for grabs, in re Brown. He was out to make a pound or two. The Bible was written in different times for diffferent generations. The words and idiom used were for the people of that time - as they understood them. These same often change in meaning and nuance, if not meaning the opposite, as the generations pass. (English being a prime example) One must know what the words meant at the time they were written. In addition to time, there is the problem of the translation into different languages (and their times). Words and idiom are difficult to translate. How does one understand the word 'sanguine'? Warm or bloody? How about 'moot'? If 'contradiction' seemingly (rather than 'apparently') exists in the Bible, it is the function of churches, rabbis and pastors to clear the matter up with due regard to the afore mentioned. Perhaps the Jews were not used to physically build the pyramids, but does that mean that they were not slaves or were not slaves used in some ancillary fashion in their building? It is held by believers that the Bible was written by a human hand guided by God. Believe It or not. Apparently, God gives one that choice. Just to anticipate someone holding that I have 'contradicted' myself in regard to translations, I don't know if the hand of God guided the translators. I'll take the matter up with St's Augustan and Thomas tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentium Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 I haven't read the book but I already know what the film is all about because of the whole (Opus Dei) diatribe here..and I'm not sure I'm interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 Just think about it if you don't believe Jesus was real or not. If he was noted to be a good man why would he marry Mary Magdeline if he was to be crucified short after? Da Vinci made most of those pictures and depicted women as men, pending back then men would have long hair and no facial hairs. Some of the stuff can possibly be true, but he was probably jealous of Michaelangelo so he made things up. P.S. This is just an opinion and do not chastise me for this, so I better say this quickly: DA VINCI WAS A CON ARTIST AND A HACK! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 DA VINCI WAS A CON ARTIST AND A HACK! This kind of thing is fine comming from you Rameses...in fact it's expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.