"It's Only Fiction" -- on The Da Vinci Code [Archive]

View Full Version : "It's Only Fiction" -- on The Da Vinci Code

jpholding

May 16th 2006, 11:42 AM

Reader forwarded me this link:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-05-16T141126Z_01_L16732669_RTRUKOC_0_US-LEISURE-DAVINCI-RELIGION.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

"The Da Vinci Code" has undermined faith in the Roman Catholic Church and badly damaged its credibility, a survey of British readers of Dan Brown's bestseller showed on Tuesday.

People are now twice as likely to believe Jesus Christ fathered children after reading the Dan Brown blockbuster and four times as likely to think the conservative Catholic group Opus Dei is a murderous sect.

"An alarming number of people take its spurious claims very seriously indeed," said Austin Ivereigh, press secretary to Britain's top Catholic prelate Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor.

"Our poll shows that for many, many people the Da Vinci Code is not just entertainment," Ivereigh added.

He heads a prominent group of English Roman Catholic monks, theologians, nuns and members of Opus Dei, who commissioned the survey from leading pollster Opinion Research Business (ORB) and have sought to promote Catholic beliefs at a time when the film's release has provoked a storm of controversy.

ORB interviewed more than 1,000 adults last weekend, finding that 60 percent believed Jesus had children by Mary Magdalene -- a possibility raised by the book -- compared with just 30 percent of those who had not read the book.

The English group demanded that the "Da Vinci Code" movie, being given its world premiere at the Cannes Film festival on Wednesday, should carry a "health warning".

The group, which stopped short of following the Vatican line of calling on Catholics to boycott the film, accused Brown of dishonest marketing based on peddling fiction as fact.

The novel, which has sold over 40 million copies, also depicts Opus Dei as a ruthless Machiavellian organization whose members resort to murder to keep the Church's secrets.

The survey underlined the astonishing popularity of Brown's novel -- it has been read by more than one in five adults of all ages in Britain.

Ivereigh complained that Brown and film studio Sony Pictures "have encouraged people to take it seriously while hiding behind the claim that it is fiction.

"Our poll shows they should take responsibility for their dishonesty and issue a health warning."

In the survey, readers were asked if Opus Dei had ever carried out a murder. Seventeen percent of readers believe it had, compared with just four percent of non-readers.

Opus Dei spokesman Jack Valero said he was astonished.

"Since we were founded in 1928, Opus Dei has promoted the highest moral standards at work, spreading a message of Christian love and understanding," he said.

"Yet the Da Vinci Code has persuaded hundreds of thousands of people that we have blood on our hands."

One of the elements of my talk on TDC notes a comparison to Uncle Tom's Cabin, a work of fiction that was a rallying call for the American abolitionist movement. Unlike Brown's book, though, it had sound research. And of course, TDC itself claims that the NT was a horrible fiction that made our world a more horrible place. Just fiction....phooey.

re posting of copy righted material may only be posted up to two paragraphs without prior consent of both the source and a forum mod. Please review the campus decorum on this. Thanks.

TheOneAndOnly

May 16th 2006, 11:53 AM

Somehow I think the 1 billion strong Catholic Church will survive.

After centuries of banning books, silencing dissenters and attacking heretics, the DVC pales in comparison. Look on it as a learning experience.

jpholding

May 16th 2006, 12:00 PM

Somehow I think the 1 billion strong Catholic Church will survive.

A very poor excuse for ignoring the beliefs and concerns of individuals. :rasberry:

After centuries of banning books, silencing dissenters and attacking heretics, the DVC pales in comparison. Look on it as a learning experience.

Snore.... (the vague conspiracy theory again....sounds like someone who is a little bit frustrated by the facts not cooperating). :hehe:

In any event, this happens to transcend Catholicism....

dizzle

May 16th 2006, 12:26 PM

Ishmael

May 16th 2006, 12:34 PM

It is a work of fiction; just like many of the stories in the Old Testament.

Soundsurfr

May 16th 2006, 12:41 PM

How dare they corrupt a sacred book by writing a novel.

Perhaps a fatwa is in order.

Or, just more whining.:bawl:

Ishmael

May 16th 2006, 12:42 PM

How dare they corrupt a sacred book by writing a novel.

Perhaps a fatwa is in order.

Or, just more whining.:bawl:
JP wouldn't declare a fatwa, he would declare an inquisition and purify all the heretics by pain, it's the only Christian response to such things.

Jnthn

May 16th 2006, 12:44 PM

JP wouldn't declare a fatwa, he would declare an inquisition and purify all the heretics by pain, it's the only Christian response to such things.
Have you been licking Bibleschism? You're breaking out straw men at an alarming rate...

J

Ishmael

May 16th 2006, 12:51 PM

Have you been licking Bibleschism? You're breaking out straw men at an alarming rate...

J
No, actually I left the straw men in the formal debate class. Why not go be a nit-wit on another thread? We are are full up on faux rhetoricians pretending that they understand logical fallcies here.

Bill the Cat

May 16th 2006, 12:53 PM

Soundsurfr

May 16th 2006, 12:59 PM

JP wouldn't declare a fatwa, he would declare an inquisition and purify all the heretics by pain, it's the only Christian response to such things.

Knowing JP, it would be more of a Monty Python "comfy chair" inquisition. Very little pain involved, but replete with toothless insults.

Jnthn

May 16th 2006, 01:00 PM

No, actually I left the straw men in the formal debate class. Why not go be a nit-wit on another thread? We are are full up on faux rhetoricians pretending that they understand logical fallcies here.
...aaaand there's a raw nerve!

Are you seriously trying to say that painting JPH as some kind of Torquemada analogue is anything other than using straw men?

Puhleeze. It looks like you left the debate class before you opened the textbook.

J

Meh_Gerbil

May 16th 2006, 01:04 PM

It is a work of fiction; just like many of the stories in the Old Testament.

Moby Dick is a work of fiction. (1)

-----------------------------------------
NOTES:
1: Meh Gerbil knows how to hit Ishmael where it hurts.

Tickle Me Mercury

May 16th 2006, 01:12 PM

The problem here has nothing to do with Brown's poorly researched, mediocre fiction. The problem is with a largely ignorant population putting far too much stake in that work of fiction.

I cannot tell you how many times that I have seen people bring up TDC in the course of serious theological debate or discussion, nor can I relate the forehead slapping frustration it causes. When Christians take this book seriously, you're doing the exact same thing; making the exact same mistake.

By the by, The DaVinci Code does not "make claims," as so many have been saying, it makes fictional statements which form the basis of a fictional story, nothing more. Are the "claims" improbable? Absolutely. Are they most likely gross exaggerations with no real factual basis? Absolutely. So why get worked up? Why waste time?

TDC is no more "offensive" to the Christian church that Tom Clancy's novels were to the American government, or John Grisham's novels were to the practice of law.

Also, UTC was a rallying call for social reform, much like The Jungle or even much of Orwell's work. Are you quite certain that Brown actually intended to provide a basis for a large scale movement towards apostasy?

Soundsurfr

May 16th 2006, 01:17 PM

Are you seriously trying to say that painting JPH as some kind of Torquemada analogue is anything other than using straw men?

Nah, I would say that it's more of an ad hominem attack. Like your statement below. It could possibly be considered a straw man argument if there were some kind of actual argument going on. :sigh:

Puhleeze. It looks like you left the debate class before you opened the textbook.

J

:fight:

jpholding

May 16th 2006, 01:34 PM

It is a work of fiction; just like many of the stories in the Old Testament.

Thank you for that thorough and detailed argument. :ahem: One of your best ever. :rasberry:

JP wouldn't declare a fatwa, he would declare an inquisition and purify all the heretics by pain, it's the only Christian response to such things.

Heck no. I have too much fun subjecting Brown to public humiliation to do anything like that.

How dare they corrupt a sacred book by writing a novel.

Absolutely right. Stay tuned for Dan Brown's next novel:

The Soundsurfr Code: The Real Story of Osama bin Laden's Psychotic Lapdog Sycophant

Don't whine about it, now. It's only fiction. :hehe:

The problem here has nothing to do with Brown's poorly researched, mediocre fiction. The problem is with a largely ignorant population putting far too much stake in that work of fiction.

You won't find me disagreeing that the population is part of the problem. Either way isn't education the solution?

When Christians take this book seriously, you're doing the exact same thing; making the exact same mistake.

So what do you recommend? Ignoring the problems documented in the article?

Why waste time?

So, you support the perpetuation of misinformation, or what?

Also, UTC was a rallying call for social reform, much like The Jungle or even much of Orwell's work. Are you quite certain that Brown actually intended to provide a basis for a large scale movement towards apostasy?

Um, yes. He's made statements in interviews to the effect that he wants to change people's minds. :ahem: So do many of his readers, for that matter....

Pilgrim

May 16th 2006, 01:40 PM

Thank you for that thorough and detailed argument. :ahem: One of your best ever. :rasberry:

Heck no. I have too much fun subjecting Brown to public humiliation to do anything like that.

Absolutely right. Stay tuned for Dan Brown's next novel:

The Soundsurfr Code: The Real Story of Osama bin Laden's Psychotic Lapdog Sycophant

Don't whine about it, now. It's only fiction. :hehe:

You won't find me disagreeing that the population is part of the problem. Either way isn't education the solution?

So what do you recommend? Ignoring the problems documented in the article?

So, you support the perpetuation of misinformation, or what?

Um, yes. He's made statements in interviews to the effect that he wants to change people's minds. :ahem: So do many of his readers, for that matter....
Meh, the book is just bad all around. It's not even good simply as a piece of fiction. Without the controversy it would have just sort found it's way to the bargain bin to collect dust.

It is funny though, I don't recall all this outrage by Christians way back when The Satanic Verses were being lambasted by the Islamic world. In fact, IIRC most Christians simply said it was "just a book" and what were the trying to do, censor free speech?

One pastor I know went so far as to compare the DVC to literature coming out of Nazi Germany at the time of the Holocause. PLEASE! Can you not see how wrong that is? How it is totally offensive to the millions who were killed during that time?

The DVC is poor fiction and should be a non-issue to Christians who should be more worried about feeding the orphan and widow.

jpholding

May 16th 2006, 01:46 PM

Meh, the book is just bad all around. It's not even good simply as a piece of fiction.

True, I compare it to Chinese food -- no matter how much you eat, it's not filling.

It is funny though, I don't recall all this outrage by Christians way back when The Satanic Verses were being lambasted by the Islamic world

I was in school at the time and not doing apologetics, but I suspect I would have found it useful as something to make a comparison to.

One pastor I know went so far as to compare the DVC to literature coming out of Nazi Germany at the time of the Holocause.

What's the name of that fallacy about the first person who uses Nazis...?

I think Satanic Verses is a better analogy on the surface.

The DVC is poor fiction and should be a non-issue to Christians who should be more worried about feeding the orphan and widow.

Why not do both?

Soundsurfr

May 16th 2006, 01:46 PM

Absolutely right. Stay tuned for Dan Brown's next novel:

The Soundsurfr Code: The Real Story of Osama bin Laden's Psychotic Lapdog Sycophant

Don't whine about it, now. It's only fiction. :hehe:

Hey, one thing's for sure JP - it'll outsell anything you publish!

:idea:

Say, why don't you do a "The Davinci Code Will Destroy Our Planet" Tektoon volume? I'm sure it'll speak to the hearts and minds of at least five or six arrested development cases down in the bowels of the bible belt.
:tongue:

jpholding

May 16th 2006, 01:50 PM

Hey, one thing's for sure JP - it'll outsell anything you publish!

I suppose so, since what I publish goes over the heads of most people, yourself included. :hehe: The only thing your book won't outsell is Weekly World News. Which is where you get most of your scholarship, eh? Brown too. :hehe:

Thankfully, money isn't that important.

Say, why don't you do a "The Davinci Code Will Destroy Our Planet" Tektoon volume?

I got PowerPoint stuff for that already. Nice pic of Dan Brown with a dunce cap, and of Uncle Fester with a glowing red bulb in his mouth calling the errors down.

But a parody comic might be fun to do sometime.

I'm sure it'll speak to the hearts and minds of at least five or six arrested development cases down in the bowels of the bible belt.

And I'm sure you'll be just as capable of providing an actual answer to the arguments offered as you always have been. :rasberry: :smug:

dizzle

May 16th 2006, 01:53 PM

Hey, one thing's for sure JP - it'll outsell anything you publish!

That is a pretty misplaced comment - usually only effective for someone that in reality has an audience of one. The fact of the matter is that JP has a very wide readership and thus that particular rejoinder is nonsensical. It is kind of like LaHaye insinuating that DeMar's motivation is sheer jealousy over that monstrosity known as Left Behind.

Cyrus Johnson

May 16th 2006, 01:56 PM

This isn't solely a Catholic issue. Shame to see nutty lies being smiled upon simply because one isn't part of the targetted group. I am happy to say that I know several sceptics that totally acknowledge it's high rating on the crap-o-meter.

Sure, TDC poorly written and factually about as solid as a bowl of lime jello. Frankly I'm shocked that some people seem to take it seriously. Then again, people took The Amityville Horror seriously too.

IMO, If you want to read this kind of novel written well, then read The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco.

Pilgrim

May 16th 2006, 01:57 PM

True, I compare it to Chinese food -- no matter how much you eat, it's not filling.

I was in school at the time and not doing apologetics, but I suspect I would have found it useful as something to make a comparison to.

What's the name of that fallacy about the first person who uses Nazis...?

I think Satanic Verses is a better analogy on the surface.

Why not do both?
This is just my opinion now, but because there are so many real issues for real people out there that we shouldn't have time for all this posturing around the DVC.

Darth Executor

May 16th 2006, 01:59 PM

This isn't solely a Catholic issue. Shame to see nutty lies being smiled upon simply because one isn't part of the targetted group. I am happy to say that I know several sceptics that totally acknowledge it's high rating on the crap-o-meter.

I have a Christian friend who loves the Da Vinci Code because he hates the RCC (I had a field day when the pope died because he seriously thought he was the antichrist). Then again, he's sabbatarian heretic scum. :rasberry:

Darth Executor

May 16th 2006, 02:03 PM

This is just my opinion now, but because there are so many real issues for real people out there that we shouldn't have time for all this posturing around the DVC.

Or posting inane comments on a theology web site.

sc_q_jayce

May 16th 2006, 02:05 PM

True, I compare it to Chinese food -- no matter how much you eat, it's not filling.But man is that Chinese food good.

dizzle

May 16th 2006, 02:07 PM

This is just my opinion now, but because there are so many real issues for real people out there that we shouldn't have time for all this posturing around the DVC.

Because issues like this make real people doubt their faith when they are ill-equipped?

Back when I was new to the faith and I had a lot of questions, unfortunately the kind of response like that above was the kind that would have starved me, and very unfortunately is a great deal about what I found. That is when I met JP. I was a baby Christian and struggling mightily with doubts and the Church was ill-equipped to deal with them. I felt like me and my doubts didn't matter..... but make me a alcholic prostitute and boy they had a ministry for that.

dizzle

May 16th 2006, 02:08 PM

But man is that Chinese food good.

Meow.

sc_q_jayce

May 16th 2006, 02:08 PM

Chinese food is more than cat food!

Actually, this thread is useful for other reasons. I think the point of the matter is that the priority of response something gets for apologetics is based on the public reaction. I don't see Christian response to TDC to be anything over-reacting but just a necessity to inform inquisitive minds.

I don't see anyone asking about Redemptive Movement Hermeneutics, so no one cares so much about it yet, yes? But if it gets brought up by many people, then I am sure that people would then start needing to more publically educate people on the issue.

As TDC is a bestseller, and per the survey, and Dan Brown interviews, it's justifiable to spend a decent amount of time to address the issue in full.

Pilgrim

May 16th 2006, 02:08 PM

Or posting inane comments on a theology web site.
Ouch, touche.

Pilgrim

May 16th 2006, 02:10 PM

Because issues like this make real people doubt their faith when they are ill-equipped?

Back when I was new to the faith and I had a lot of questions, unfortunately the kind of response like that above was the kind that would have starved me, and very unfortunately is a great deal about what I found. That is when I met JP. I was a baby Christian and struggling mightily with doubts and the Church was ill-equipped to deal with them. I felt like me and my doubts didn't matter..... but make me a alcholic prostitute and boy they had a ministry for that.
If you want to talk about your doubts, I'm all for that. If you want to talk about how the Davinci Code is the current manefistation of the Anti-Christ, well, that's not something I'm ever likely to buy into.

jpholding

May 16th 2006, 02:11 PM

This is just my opinion now, but because there are so many real issues for real people out there that we shouldn't have time for all this posturing around the DVC.

Number of people doing apologetics = ?

Number of people feeding the hungry = ?

If this is not a real issue, then perhaps Athanasius should have just left Arius alone and gone out and bought some poor beggar a Big Mac, eh? Just my opinion. :wink: There really shouldn't be time for posturing about things like that, Jude 1:3 notwithstanding.

If you want to talk about how the Davinci Code is the current manefistation of the Anti-Christ, well, that's not something I'm ever likely to buy into.

Kind of hard for a preterist to say that. :hrm: It's misinformation on a critical topic and that's bad enough.

But man is that Chinese food good.

You can't stop me on that beef fried rice, boyo. :hehe:

Tickle Me Mercury

May 16th 2006, 02:13 PM

So what do you recommend? Ignoring the problems documented in the article?

Actually, yeah. Let me put it this way, if people's minds are so very easily swayed but such a shoddy work of fiction, did they ever really belong in "the fold" in the first place, or were they just giving lip service? If you really care about the situation, why not focus on speading the faith in the normal way? Or has tearing one's hair out over a work of fiction been an effective evangalism technique in the past? :huh:

So, you support the perpetuation of misinformation, or what?

Well, by a few leaps of logic, perhaps. I support people's right to free speech, and therefore support their right to create bad fiction. And since all fiction is, by definition, misinformation, then yeah, I suppose so.

Um, yes. He's made statements in interviews to the effect that he wants to change people's minds. :ahem: So do many of his readers, for that matter....

Hmm, well then he better start writing some better books. In all honesty, though. Do you really think that the world's prevailing religion is somehow threatened because of this hack?

dizzle

May 16th 2006, 02:15 PM

If you want to talk about your doubts, I'm all for that. If you want to talk about how the Davinci Code is the current manefistation of the Anti-Christ, well, that's not something I'm ever likely to buy into.

While some Christians might be doing that - I am speaking in the context of this thread and JP's (and other like-minded apologists) work. The DC will cause major doubts for people and we are not here to pick up the pieces, there will be casualities. The Church spends an awful lot on evangelism but not nearly as much in postevangelistic apologetics - heck sometimes even such people who need such things are thought of as the seed that sprouted on shallow soil. I speak from personal experience.

Tickle Me Mercury

May 16th 2006, 02:19 PM

I am happy to say that I know several sceptics that totally acknowledge it's high rating on the crap-o-meter.

Count me among them. Crap is crap, and just because it attacks something that I have my own disagreements with, there is no reason for me to support it.

sc_q_jayce

May 16th 2006, 02:23 PM

Actually, yeah. Let me put it this way, if people's minds are so very easily swayed but such a shoddy work of fiction, did they ever really belong in "the fold" in the first place, or were they just giving lip service? If you really care about the situation, why not focus on speading the faith in the normal way? Or has tearing one's hair out over a work of fiction been an effective evangalism technique in the past? :huh:
There is a desire to improve the critical thinking of the general populace of the world through argumentation and debate. Apologetics sites such as Holding's serves to educate people in Christian Critical Thinking.

If you really care about the situation, then you would desire for people to stop regurgitating (whether Tektonics or TDC or HBHG or CACITLOG) words without evaluating them and to putting their feet where their mouth lies. That is, take ownership of what they learn/believe and be responsible with the knowledge they have attained. Be responsible with the things given to them.

Tearing one's hair over a work of fiction is not very accurate over the whole mess. I'm sure while hearing how many people believe it is kind of depressing, the whole act of critiquing it is nothing more than amusing. If you already have your sources catalogued, it wouldn't take much work to refute a work of TDC. It may be an exercise in amusement if nothing else.

By the way, what's "spreading the faith in the normal way" mean to you?

jpholding

May 16th 2006, 02:30 PM

If you really care about the situation, why not focus on speading the faith in the normal way?

What's the "normal way"?

Apostolic preaching appealed to data like the resurrection.

The Apostles and early apologists refuted early dissenters and spreaders of what they regarded as fiction (eg, docestism) with arguments (of whatever quality you may think, but still arguments).

So actually, this IS the normal way. What were you thinking was normal?

And since all fiction is, by definition, misinformation, then yeah, I suppose so.

Great! :thumb: I'll include you in that book I'm writing then. Do you want to be the guy who actually killed Kennedy, or do you want to be Ted Bundy's lover?

Do you really think that the world's prevailing religion is somehow threatened because of this hack?

You refer to a collective. I refer to individuals, who are obviously changing their minds because of it.

Cynic Sage

May 16th 2006, 02:35 PM

:popcorn:

sc_q_jayce

May 16th 2006, 02:43 PM

:popcorn:
Buttered? Caramel? And watch it, you're getting it all over the place.

You can't stop me on that beef fried rice, boyo. Did you make it yourself?

And since all fiction is, by definition, misinformation, then yeah, I suppose so. I would note that misinformation does not necessarily mean misapplication of meaning. I think you're downplaying the effect one has on fiction. It may also be that you need to expound on this further so I can see what you're accurately talking about.

Soundsurfr

May 16th 2006, 02:47 PM

That is a pretty misplaced comment - usually only effective for someone that in reality has an audience of one. The fact of the matter is that JP has a very wide readership and thus that particular rejoinder is nonsensical.

Compared to Brown? I would guess it's about as wide as the edge of a razor blade. :lol:

dizzle

May 16th 2006, 03:02 PM

Compared to Brown? I would guess it's about as wide as the edge of a razor blade. :lol:

It doesn't have to be compared to Brown but I think just compared to the general person assumed in the analogy. If you just wish to get in a largely irrelevant dig that looses its effectiveness when you look at JP's hits on his site, be my guest. I am sure you could find one even more inane if you tried really hard.

Ishmael

May 16th 2006, 03:03 PM

...aaaand there's a raw nerve!

Are you seriously trying to say that painting JPH as some kind of Torquemada analogue is anything other than using straw men?

Puhleeze. It looks like you left the debate class before you opened the textbook.

J
Wrong again. Unlike yourself, JPHolding seems to know the difference between a logical fallacy and a simple hyperbole intended to over-illustrate any percieved similarity between the frantic reaction of American religionists and Middle Eastern Religionists.

Note your hero's response to my one-liner:

Heck no. I have too much fun subjecting Brown to public humiliation to do anything like that.

Now I will be the first to admit that if my statement were intended to be a "straw man," Lord Holding would, no doubt, have pointed it out much better than you. So why not go back to your video games and leave the rhetoric to the adults?

Soundsurfr

May 16th 2006, 03:06 PM

You refer to a collective. I refer to individuals, who are obviously changing their minds because of it.

Oh, those poor misguided souls. They'll be burning in hell (as they deserve to be) while those who read (and heed) Tektoonics languish in heaven. And all because of that DaVinci Code!

:frown:

Ishmael

May 16th 2006, 03:08 PM

Moby Dick is a work of fiction. (1)

-----------------------------------------
NOTES:
1: Meh Gerbil knows how to hit Ishmael where it hurts.
Next you'll be saying there is no White Whales! Sheesh, credulity of rodents.

Pilgrim

May 16th 2006, 03:10 PM

Number of people doing apologetics = ?

Number of people feeding the hungry = ?

If this is not a real issue, then perhaps Athanasius should have just left Arius alone and gone out and bought some poor beggar a Big Mac, eh? Just my opinion. :wink: There really shouldn't be time for posturing about things like that, Jude 1:3 notwithstanding.

Kind of hard for a preterist to say that. :hrm: It's misinformation on a critical topic and that's bad enough.

You can't stop me on that beef fried rice, boyo. :hehe:
Agnus Dei is a critical topic for apologetics?

Sir-Think-A-Lot

May 16th 2006, 03:15 PM

Sir-Think-A-Lot

May 16th 2006, 03:19 PM

Meh, the book is just bad all around. It's not even good simply as a piece of fiction. Without the controversy it would have just sort found it's way to the bargain bin to collect dust.

While I agree it's poor even as a piece of fiction, I think that it still would have sold even without the controversy. Modern readers arent very discerning these days, and badly written conspircy theories with a plot twist towards the end(no matter how unrealistic, predictible or just plain stupid) sell very well these days.

Tickle Me Mercury

May 16th 2006, 03:27 PM

There is a desire to improve the critical thinking of the general populace of the world through argumentation and debate. Apologetics sites such as Holding's serves to educate people in Christian Critical Thinking.

If you really care about the situation, then you would desire for people to stop regurgitating (whether Tektonics or TDC or HBHG or CACITLOG) words without evaluating them and to putting their feet where their mouth lies. That is, take ownership of what they learn/believe and be responsible with the knowledge they have attained. Be responsible with the things given to them.

Tearing one's hair over a work of fiction is not very accurate over the whole mess. I'm sure while hearing how many people believe it is kind of depressing, the whole act of critiquing it is nothing more than amusing. If you already have your sources catalogued, it wouldn't take much work to refute a work of TDC. It may be an exercise in amusement if nothing else.

By the way, what's "spreading the faith in the normal way" mean to you?

I don't have much contention with what you say here. I especially agree with the idea of "ownership" of knowledge as opposed to the regurgitation of talking points.

Also, the I understand the idea of an academic exercise of refuting The DaVinci Code. However, that doesn't seem to be what I am seeing here—you may of course, correct me if I am wrong. Granted, there are a few people who are only interested in inspiring critical thought among those involved in the discussion. But the majority seems to be either all-too-eager atheists who latch on to the novel like it's their version of a holy grail, or Christians who take depply personal offense to the novel. But the fact remains, it is a storybook, and nothing more. It's only more than a storybook if you allow it to be. Brown's claims of "research" and accuracy may or may not be a marketing ploy, but why buy into it?

The fact is, people who wish to spead the ideas of critical thinking and rational discourse will always be in the minority, and will always be at odds with the forces of half-truths, lies, sensationalism, ignorance, and appeals to base emotions, regardless of whether the arena is religion, politics, philosophy, etc. You and I are both rational people, it would seem (i try to be, most of the time), and we are in the minority. This is the path we have chosen, and it will do no good whatsoever to lament over the the newest fad that all the people are latching onto. Nor will getting exceptionally depressed if that sensation happens to be at odds with your beliefs.

The only thing a person can do is try to spead the practice of critical thinking, as you described. If more people thought analytically, then more people wouldn't allow money-making schemes and storybooks to either give them or cause them to abandon their spiritual beliefs.

As for what I mean by the "normal way," and I address this to JP as well, I meant the whole idea of "speading the good news." I don't have a problem being "evangelised," although as you can see by my heading, much of it did not take. What I take issue with is that more often than not, religious discussion that involve a person trying to convince me whether or not I should convert my religious views never focus on the advantages of living a Christian life, but upon a desperate need to convince me that a man lied about peppered moths or, now, of how evil and decietful a work of complete fiction is. In fact, the only work of Christian apologetics I was able to take seriously, and I took it very seriously, was Lewis's Mere Christianity. That seems to be the way to do it: accentuate the positive, because the negative is negative across the board, and a person has to realize that on their own.

Ishmael

May 16th 2006, 03:28 PM

http://www.tfp.org/student_action/activities/On_Campus/psu_9_12_05.htm

SteveF

May 16th 2006, 03:38 PM

Should the bible on its own, being the word of God, not be powerful enough to make the DVC nothing but a minor irritant? In other words, should its the effect of it contents on a reader not be strong enough to preclude any influence from Dan Brown's latest tripefest.

Or for those who are unfamiliar with the Bible and do not read it, should its message be a powerful enough draw for DVC not to matter? The later question being a bit more tenuous than the first.

The above aren't rhetorical questions BTW, I'm interested in people's view.

jpholding

May 16th 2006, 03:38 PM

Did you make it yourself?

I CAN. :hehe:

Oh, those poor misguided souls. They'll be burning in hell (as they deserve to be) while those who read (and heed) Tektoonics languish in heaven. And all because of that DaVinci Code!

:huh:

Well, there's SS's Point Beside the Point for the week.

Agnus Dei is a critical topic for apologetics?

Um... yeah, if you mean that the way I think. :glare: Where've you been?

jpholding

May 16th 2006, 03:43 PM

But the majority seems to be either all-too-eager atheists who latch on to the novel like it's their version of a holy grail, or Christians who take depply personal offense to the novel.

Well, quite honestly, if we could clone you and replace all those atheists you refer to, we would. :hehe:

This is the path we have chosen, and it will do no good whatsoever to lament over the the newest fad that all the people are latching onto. Nor will getting exceptionally depressed if that sensation happens to be at odds with your beliefs.

Shrug. Emotion plays no part in what I do. :teeth: I wish I could make people stop smoking, too (it killed someone I cared about) but that they're irrational about it and I am not doesn't mean I won't try to stop them. Misinformation causes harm, does it not?

As for what I mean by the "normal way," and I address this to JP as well, I meant the whole idea of "speading the good news." I don't have a problem being "evangelised," although as you can see by my heading, much of it did not take. What I take issue with is that more often than not, religious discussion that involve a person trying to convince me whether or not I should convert my religious views never focus on the advantages of living a Christian life, but upon a desperate need to convince me that a man lied about peppered moths or, now, of how evil and decietful a work of complete fiction is. In fact, the only work of Christian apologetics I was able to take seriously, and I took it very seriously, was Lewis's Mere Christianity. That seems to be the way to do it: accentuate the positive, because the negative is negative across the board, and a person has to realize that on their own.

I don't approve of either method, unless someone brings up the issue first and tries to use it as a bludgeon. And that's what's happening.....TDC is not being addressed in a non-confrontational vaccuum, no?

Tickle Me Mercury

May 16th 2006, 03:53 PM

What's the "normal way"?

Apostolic preaching appealed to data like the resurrection.

The Apostles and early apologists refuted early dissenters and spreaders of what they regarded as fiction (eg, docestism) with arguments (of whatever quality you may think, but still arguments).

So actually, this IS the normal way. What were you thinking was normal?

Addressed in my above post.

Great! :thumb: I'll include you in that book I'm writing then. Do you want to be the guy who actually killed Kennedy, or do you want to be Ted Bundy's lover?

Can't I be Kennedy's lover and the guy who helped Bundy kill all those kids? You, of course, have extraordinary evidence to back up these extraordinary claims, much better evidence than Brown does for his fiction? Unless, of course, you are producing a work of fiction, in which case, you can let your imagination run free. The first amendment is terrific, isn't it? Also, you can produce the lines in TDC where Brown personally holds you responsible for several fictional crimes, so that your analogy may hold water?

On second though, don't do this; it's extraordinarily childish. You may think that you can appeal to some sentiment that I have about personal offense in order to garnish empathy, but it won't work, because it's dishonest. The fact is, TDC doesn't insult you personally, it challenges your system of beliefs—although very poorly. My system of beliefs is challenged and insulted every single day, it's one of the main reasons I am a member of TWeb, to be challenged. I'm thankful for it, and I think that every time someone makes me question a belief through honest discourse, I come that much closer to the answers I look for. If you are insulted by TDC, don't take offense to the "challenge" it presents to your beliefs, but by the fact that it is such a poorly thought out challenge that is, as sc_q_jayce pointed out, a little amusment to refute. The world is dangerous to ideas, expect to be challenged.

Also, personal insults and slander are absolutely meaningless to me, and the "what if I slandered you" approach is equally meaningless.

edit: I may have been a bit harsh in this refutation. Apologies. However, my point remains: TDC isn't a personal attack, but an attack on a belief system, they are two different things.

You refer to a collective. I refer to individuals, who are obviously changing their minds because of it.

And again, I ask, how strong was the faith of these individuals in the first place? Did you really ever "have" them in your camp, were they really saved, if their faith was so easily shaken by a storybook? Or were they just going through motions that somewhat resembled Christianity? I would assume that, during the process of evangalism and apologetics, your goal is to actually win the hearts and minds of those you disagree with, instead of superficially getting them to go through the song and dance without ever really believing. My point is this: if they never really believed in the first place, how has your position changed? You still desire to reach people with the Gospel, so do that in whichever way you think is best.

Soundsurfr

May 16th 2006, 04:16 PM

I would assume that, during the process of evangalism and apologetics, your goal is to actually win the hearts and minds of those you disagree with,

:lmbo:You two have just met recently, I see.

Darth Executor

May 16th 2006, 04:41 PM

Should the bible on its own, being the word of God, not be powerful enough to make the DVC nothing but a minor irritant?

How true. I got a free copy of the KJV yesterday and I couldn't wait to get it home and see what superpowers it had. This particular one can shoot sonic rays and crumble half a city block. Them bibles are like Kinder Eggs, except instead of toys they're assembly lines for cool superpowers. You should see the special JW edition: it goes door to door trying to convert people without anybody's help.

SteveF

May 16th 2006, 04:47 PM

How true. I got a free copy of the KJV yesterday and I couldn't wait to get it home and see what superpowers it had. This particular one can shoot sonic rays and crumble half a city block. Them bibles are like Kinder Eggs, except instead of toys they're assembly lines for cool superpowers. You should see the special JW edition: it goes door to door trying to convert people without anybody's help.

Mine only shoots water when I get people up close to look at it, should I ask for a refund?

Soundsurfr

May 16th 2006, 04:59 PM

Mine only shoots water when I get people up close to look at it, should I ask for a refund?

NO! You got one of the GOOD ones!!!

Tickle Me Mercury

May 16th 2006, 05:15 PM

Well, quite honestly, if we could clone you and replace all those atheists you refer to, we would. :hehe:

Ha. Well, some of them might grow up, as I did. I definitely used to be of that mindset when I was younger, and now I'm almost uncomfortable around my friends who have yet to outgrow it. It's like hating police officers or army officers for no reason, that crap is for teenagers.

Shrug. Emotion plays no part in what I do. :teeth: I wish I could make people stop smoking, too (it killed someone I cared about) but that they're irrational about it and I am not doesn't mean I won't try to stop them. Misinformation causes harm, does it not?

No, the irrationality of others shouldn't cause you to give up trying to spread the ideals of critical thinking. However, it shouldn't be cause for people to delve into irrational arguments themselves, which, again, is something that I have been seeing all too often as of late in regards to TDC. I think, and I still do this habitually, I "lose touch" with the Christian perspective on what is or isn't harmful, namely what may or may not harm the soul. Meaning, while I might try to talk someone out of drinking and driving because it risks harm to the body, a Christian might try to steer someone away from believing the sensationalism that surrounds TDC, as it may be harmful to the soul.

However, the point I made in my last post still stands: that in all practicality, the situation really hasn't changed in regards to how one might view their beliefs.

I don't approve of either method, unless someone brings up the issue first and tries to use it as a bludgeon. And that's what's happening.....TDC is not being addressed in a non-confrontational vaccuum, no?I'm a bit confused as to what you mean here. Are you saying that you don't approve of typical evangelical techniques as well as the methods I described?

Also, no, there certainly isn't a non-confrontational vaccuum at all. In the past couple weeks I have seen the anti-TDC arguments repeated ad nauseam, and in reaction I may have lumped you into that crowd in frustration. And here I was claiming to be rational! :duh:

Tickle Me Mercury

May 16th 2006, 05:17 PM

:lmbo:You two have just met recently, I see.

An accurate observation. Should I know something about JP?

Sir-Think-A-Lot

May 16th 2006, 05:19 PM

Dang, all mine did was burst into flames.

Cynic Sage

May 16th 2006, 05:24 PM

An accurate observation. Should I know something about JP?

He eats the flesh of bebbies for lunch and washes it down with a mug of fresh kitten-blood.

Tickle Me Mercury

May 16th 2006, 05:35 PM

He eats the flesh of bebbies for lunch and washes it down with a mug of fresh kitten-blood.

Pffftt. Who doesn't?

Sir-Think-A-Lot

May 16th 2006, 08:31 PM

I usually save the baby meat for supper. For lunch I kill an alagator with my bare hands.

Soundsurfr

May 16th 2006, 09:45 PM

An accurate observation. Should I know something about JP?

With respect to his goals and objectives in his apologetic discourse, stick around. I'm sure there's nothing you need to know that you won't find out on your own in a short time.

Teallaura

May 17th 2006, 09:12 AM

Just as an aside, I remember the controversy over the Satanic Verses. As I recall, the concern wasn't that Muslims were offended - or that they considered it in error - but that they were trying to kill the author over it with hundreds of important persons in the Muslim world calling for his death. I've yet to hear of the Papacy calling on Catholics to assasinate Brown - or pastors preaching said same in their pulpits.

I haven't the expertise to speak to whether or not Satanic Verses had any scholastic merit underlying it or not, but assuming not, the call for assasination based on any work is way out of line - all the more ironic when that work is fiction.

Critique, outrage and book burnings aren't the same things - some are justified, some not. But killing people over a work of fiction or non-fiction is not justified, nor can it be. It is at that juncture that the analogy to The DaVinci Code controversy breaks down.

One other point I find interesting - why is it that those who assert it is a mere work of fiction and that the controversy is overblown take the time and energy to refute the controversy? Think about it - the logic for doing so is going to parallel the logic for refuting The DaVinci Code.

jpholding

May 17th 2006, 09:57 AM

jpholding

May 17th 2006, 10:13 AM

Can't I be Kennedy's lover and the guy who helped Bundy kill all those kids? You, of course, have extraordinary evidence to back up these extraordinary claims, much better evidence than Brown does for his fiction?

Actually, he ignores opponents. He's a spineless coward as far as can be seen.

However, that said, for all the due chrerishing of the 1st A, I don't foresee that you'd say nothing if you started being fired from jobs and couldn't get another, or were put in jail, etc. if people started believing my fictional work was true.

I wouldn't blame you for correcting the misinformation under the guise of fiction. Nor do I think you should hold ought against responders to Brown...if you do.

That said, let's make the analogy closer. Do you have a membership in any organizations you cherish (say, American Humanist Association)? Would you sit idly by if Brown had targeted Opus Dei rather than AHA with the same sort of implications?

I don't take offense to it, no, beyond the offense I always feel (as a research professional) when a clod spreads around misinformation about any topic, especially in order to change minds....think of me after the manner of snopes.com here; mildly amused and not in the least challenged, because I've already done the research before for other purposes.

And again, I ask, how strong was the faith of these individuals in the first place? Did you really ever "have" them in your camp, were they really saved, if their faith was so easily shaken by a storybook?

Loyalty (which is what faith is) that wavers based on misinformation is not weak loyalty. It is, in fact, I submit very often an honest attempt to search for truth. If X thinks TDC is true, and hasn't the resources to say otherwise, are you saying that they should be "strong in faith" to the point that they are dishonest with themselves (as they see the situation)?

I would assume that, during the process of evangalism and apologetics, your goal is to actually win the hearts and minds of those you disagree with, instead of superficially getting them to go through the song and dance without ever really believing.

True. But I do have over 1600 other articles. :teeth: I'm fond of saying that "Blessed are the couch potatoes" was not one of the beatitudes.

However, it shouldn't be cause for people to delve into irrational arguments themselves, which, again, is something that I have been seeing all too often as of late in regards to TDC.

No bones there. There are too many books on it on the market, for example, written by people who had no business writing one on the subject (Irwin Lutzer is my favorite example of that). My article BTW includes brief reviews of all the books out there on it that I can get hold of. The one by the Catholic apologists Olsen and Miesel is the best and most comprehensive IMO.

a Christian might try to steer someone away from believing the sensationalism that surrounds TDC, as it may be harmful to the soul.

Yes.

I'm a bit confused as to what you mean here. Are you saying that you don't approve of typical evangelical techniques as well as the methods I described?

I don't approve of most of today's techniques, no. Example: I think the use of personal testimonies is an anachronistic farce. And much more.

Also, no, there certainly isn't a non-confrontational vaccuum at all. In the past couple weeks I have seen the anti-TDC arguments repeated ad nauseam, and in reaction I may have lumped you into that crowd in frustration. And here I was claiming to be rational!

I promise not to be offended if you did. :teeth:

As an aside, if it had not been for another apologist named Bob Passantino I probably would never have touched the issue. He asked me to write an article for him and for a magazine, so off I went to buy the book. Now here I am, one of the leading second-tier voices on the subject. Very strange, eh?

Teallaura

May 17th 2006, 12:29 PM

:blush:

DesertBerean

May 17th 2006, 08:51 PM

Actually, he ignores opponents. He's a spineless coward as far as can be seen. Not how I would have put it, but it is painfully obvious he just isn't interested as long as he's getting money. I've been surfing for any sign that he's mounted any kind of response to the criticisms of his accuracy....nada. :no: And no, I don't count his comments on his website as a response. He's only changed his claim of facts from "accurate" to "they all exist" which IMHO is dishonest.

Tickle Me Mercury

May 18th 2006, 01:44 AM

One other point I find interesting - why is it that those who assert it is a mere work of fiction and that the controversy is overblown take the time and energy to refute the controversy? Think about it - the logic for doing so is going to parallel the logic for refuting The DaVinci Code.

Touché. :fight:

However, in my defense, the only place I tend to make any kind of deal over the situation is on discussion boards like TWeb, where people go to discuss these matters. In real life, I don't make a huff. But you're right, making a huff in resonse to others making a huff is somewhat contradictory and hypocritical. Oh well.

Allow me to engage in a bit of sophistry if you would: Let's say that I'm not saying that people shouldn't get offended by The DaVinci Code, I'm disagreeing for their reasons for doing so and coming to a debate sight to have it out.

Tickle Me Mercury

May 18th 2006, 04:29 AM

Actually, he ignores opponents. He's a spineless coward as far as can be seen.

Well, I haven't been following his exact responses, but if he has been, in fact, claiming that his book is intended to spead true information by means of fiction—in the way Upton Sinclaire did—then to not respond to criticism is cowardice. If he only wove a story around some loose research, whisperings of well known conspiracy theories, and some alternative interpretations of apocryphal writings, then I would say that he doesn't have to respond to critics and more than J.K. Rowling has to respond to critics to "prove" that wizards exists.

It almost entirely depends on his stated goals for the book.

However, that said, for all the due chrerishing of the 1st A, I don't foresee that you'd say nothing if you started being fired from jobs and couldn't get another, or were put in jail, etc. if people started believing my fictional work was true.

I've dealt with worse rumors, on a personal level. But this goes back to the separation between an attack on individuals, and an attack on a philosophy that many individuals share. I still question the accuracy of this portion of the analogy. Are Christians, as individuals or as a group, losing jobs, being blacklisted, or being sent to jail as the result of their bosses or police officers reading TDC? Or is TDC just fueling a public sentiment that, for many, was already leaning towards apostasy? Obviously, you have the right to object to the latter, but my point is that we aren't talking about a roundup of Christians or the start of some new persecution, but at worst, a poorly researched "attack" on a common system of beliefs.

Someone making personal slander, or spreading lies about me personally, would have to produce some extraordinary evidence to back it up. Otherwise, I'm pretty certain that they would be breaking the law. Now, if someone attacked, even viciously, my religion or personal beliefs, then I would probably just ignore them.

We aren't talking about people being jailed because the jailer read a certain book, we are talking about a clash of ideologies. Them's the breaks in an open society such as ours.

I wouldn't blame you for correcting the misinformation under the guise of fiction. Nor do I think you should hold ought against responders to Brown...if you do.

Misinformation should always try to be corrected if there is ever going to be any real progress of thought. I think we both agree on at least that. I don't hold it against anyone who desires to correct things in the book. People have the right to profess ideas of any sort in this country, which is why I like it here so much.

My issue was more with the constant offense, the outright, foam-at-the-mouth indignation that as been saturating the media as of late. I just think that it's silly, unnecessary, and that, quite frankly, the book doesn't even deserve this much attention.

That said, let's make the analogy closer. Do you have a membership in any organizations you cherish (say, American Humanist Association)? Would you sit idly by if Brown had targeted Opus Dei rather than AHA with the same sort of implications?

Never heard of the AHA, but one visit to their websight was more than enough. I had my fill of blind, überliberalism in high school. However, I think I get what you are saying, and this analogy is much more accurate for the situation.

Forgive me ahead of time for being wordy, but I am having a difficult time getting my head around this particular hypothetical for a few reasons. Generally, I don't involve myself in groups like that, of any sort. Loyalty to a particular label or group is detrimental to free thought. I can only study philosophy, theology, politics, etc., and attempt to form a worldview about what is sensible. These days, "Libertarianism" seems to sum up both my social and political worldviews quite succinctly. If a group, religion, or formal school of philosophy happens to parallel my personal philosophy, then I associate with them and count myself among them. If I see fit to reshape my beliefs to deal with new information, and the group no longer represents me, I do so. If the group "betrays" the ideals I hold, I leave it without a second thought.

The point of this little section of my life story is this: Loyalty to a group like Opus Dei or even AHA is utterly meaningless to me. And because of that, I find it very difficult to take offense at someone insulting a group in that sense.

So, keeping that in mind, to address your question: my reaction would depend entirely on the context of the allegations. If I was a staunch Republican, let's say, and an author wrote an "expose" of the party that revealed its secret plotting to subvert the democratic process in this country among other crimes, then I would first check the facts. If they were at all true, then I would likely leave the party. If they were baseless, I would shrug them off as laughable and be on my way. If many people thought they were true regardless of their falsehood, I suppose that would only confirm what my cynicism has been telling me for years: that in general, people are fools who will always prefer warm, gooey sensationalism over cold, stale facts. People like that aren't a threat to me or my beliefs, and while I can offer them information to counter the misinformation, I cannot control their innate propensity towards idiocy.

To put it clearly, it's generally foolish to "cherish" any sort of organization. I cherish only truth, and my absolute freedom of mind to pursue that truth.

I don't take offense to it, no, beyond the offense I always feel (as a research professional) when a clod spreads around misinformation about any topic, especially in order to change minds....think of me after the manner of snopes.com here; mildly amused and not in the least challenged, because I've already done the research before for other purposes.

Well, the desire to replace misconceptions with genuine information is always commendable. You, however, either represent the silent and ignored majority, or the quite minority. Regardless of which it is, all I have seen and heard on the topic so far is the endless screeching on the topic. Someone who is only trying to counter misinformation and common misconception is refreshing, if anything.

Loyalty (which is what faith is) that wavers based on misinformation is not weak loyalty. It is, in fact, I submit very often an honest attempt to search for truth. If X thinks TDC is true, and hasn't the resources to say otherwise, are you saying that they should be "strong in faith" to the point that they are dishonest with themselves (as they see the situation)?

No. That wouldn't be faith, that would be self-deception. I cannot say how often or rare it is that waverings of that sort are an honest search for truth, I'm sure there are at least a few.

But I'm really not talking about group loyalty here, more about personal faith in the major tenats of Christianity. The belief in a single, all powerful God/creator, that Jesus was His begotten son, and that the death of Christ released man from the binds of sin. These basic core beliefs are, in fact, very personal leaps that transcend typical empiricism, especially considering that, contrary to a now popular DVD, they are not historically unsound. It is by no means irrational or stupid to have such beliefs.

My point is that most people are what I call "practicing apostates." People who go through the motions, who go to church on Christmas, etc., because their parents made them do it. And you know, as well as I, that a lot of people fit this bill. A child's belief in Santa Claus is stronger than this sort of faith. My point being, if X believes that TDC is true, than there are two strong possibilities: either X is very dumb, in which case X will believe anything, and he never really had a strong Christian faith to begin with, or X has no frame of reference or previous knowledge base to contrast. Either way, your respective positions remain the same. You try to educate those who are both ignorant and unintelligent, and provide accurate information to those on an honest quest for truth. For the "easy believer" described above, I still contend that his "spiritual position" remained the same. And for the man on a quest, you would have been providing him and others with info anyway, correct?

Basically, no, a person should not be "faithful" to the point of shutting out information they simply dislike or cannot comprehend. However, I would submit that much of the lashing out and offense I see is a result of that very attitude. Informed people rarely get this worked up over simple nonsense. For the purposes of this thread, however, we are obviously no longer talking about your offense to the topic.

True. But I do have over 1600 other articles. :teeth: I'm fond of saying that "Blessed are the couch potatoes" was not one of the beatitudes.

A fact that I am just now discovering. Apparently, I am the last member here to find out that you are a well known Christian apologist with an extensive websight and body of work. What's next, no Easter Bunny? :clueless:

I found your sight refreshing, especially in contrast with some of the other sights linked to from TWeb.

No bones there. There are too many books on it on the market, for example, written by people who had no business writing one on the subject (Irwin Lutzer is my favorite example of that). My article BTW includes brief reviews of all the books out there on it that I can get hold of. The one by the Catholic apologists Olsen and Miesel is the best and most comprehensive IMO.

I haven't read any of those authors, Maybe I will check some of them out when/if I get the chance. I think, however, that we are in agreement that acting stupidly is not an effective response to stupidity?

I don't approve of most of today's techniques, no. Example: I think the use of personal testimonies is an anachronistic farce. And much more.

Ha. Those can be "fun" I guess, but they fall painfully short of anything resembling a proper epistemology. You think apologetics are the best approach? What about good works and living an example? Just curious. It almost seems to me, from what I see in those I observe, that the best "evangelistic" approach is not anything a person can do, but for the "target" to have reached rock bottom.

I promise not to be offended if you did. :teeth:

As an aside, if it had not been for another apologist named Bob Passantino I probably would never have touched the issue. He asked me to write an article for him and for a magazine, so off I went to buy the book. Now here I am, one of the leading second-tier voices on the subject. Very strange, eh?

Ah, the tapestry of causality. Strange indeed :teeth: If you want strange, however, I could relate to you the string of instances that led me from my favorite pizza shop to TWeb, and ultimately to this discussion. Funny how (fate/God/the gods/chance) works huh?

(Sorry if I have babbled, by the way. You can tell by the time stamp how late it is, so my proofreading, editing skills are on hold.)

SteveF

May 18th 2006, 07:14 AM

Well, just in case anyone cares, the movie is supposed to be bad. Really bad.

The kinder critical assessments of The Da Vinci Code describe it as "a stodgy, grim thing"; "ponderous and full of mumbo-jumbo"; and "tripe of the highest possible order".

http://film.guardian.co.uk/cannes2006/story/0,,1777404,00.html

From The Guardian's actual review:

It was like Spamalot without the jokes, though the revelation at the end got a storm of incredulous laughter and the owl-like hooting that French audiences use to express derision. It was a very bizarre, very silly beginning to the festival.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/cannes2006/story/0,,1777462,00.html

{Tim}

May 18th 2006, 07:42 AM

Teallaura

May 18th 2006, 08:01 AM

Touché. :fight:

However, in my defense, the only place I tend to make any kind of deal over the situation is on discussion boards like TWeb, where people go to discuss these matters. In real life, I don't make a huff. But you're right, making a huff in resonse to others making a huff is somewhat contradictory and hypocritical. Oh well.

Allow me to engage in a bit of sophistry if you would: Let's say that I'm not saying that people shouldn't get offended by The DaVinci Code, I'm disagreeing for their reasons for doing so and coming to a debate sight to have it out.

I don't see a problem with debating it per se (obviously, since I support debunking the 'facts' claimed in The DaVinci Code) and your refined rationale seems reasonable enough to me. It was the comments that people couldn't understand why when they were doing the same thing that I found incredulous.

Sir-Think-A-Lot

May 18th 2006, 09:05 AM

jpholding

May 18th 2006, 09:11 AM

Howdy,

Our conversation, Mercury, had some interesting parallels to a talk I gave on this subject last night. That will come in another message.

I've dealt with worse rumors, on a personal level. But this goes back to the separation between an attack on individuals, and an attack on a philosophy that many individuals share. I still question the accuracy of this portion of the analogy

I grant that; I didn't mean it to go further than to say that when there are deletrious effects of some sort, it is natural to respond to whatever level is required. I can see that you come by your views here honestly as an outsider too informed and intelligent to be gulled into taking Brown's work as fact, but also without any interest in the defense of the Christian viewpoint. Yet even now two Skeptical persons (Robert Price, Bart Ehrman) have produced anti-TDC books. For money? Maybe. Out of a sense of offense at the wrenching of facts? Maybe. Because they are afraid that TDC will affect the credibility of non-Christian views as a whole? Possibly (especially where Price is concerned, as that is why he also attacked Acharya S!).

Or is TDC just fueling a public sentiment that, for many, was already leaning towards apostasy?

Maybe. I can sense as much from eg, reviews of the book on Amazon.

My issue was more with the constant offense, the outright, foam-at-the-mouth indignation that as been saturating the media as of late. I just think that it's silly, unnecessary, and that, quite frankly, the book doesn't even deserve this much attention.

Neither did I, which is why I didn't get onto it until I was given that assignment. :hehe: Now my motive is more the joy of the hunt, so to speak. I got to do some truly original research (for me) for an article for Hank Hanegraaff's org when I considered Brown's points on LDV and his art. It was very enjoyable to scour books by experts on LDV and Reniassance art and match up what they said to what Brown offered. I would have enjoyed that no matter what my religious tendencies were.

Generally, I don't involve myself in groups like that, of any sort.

Hmm, I'm getting a sense here...are you an INTJ, like me? :lol:

I scored right on the line between conservative and libertarian in a political test, and also tend to shun group membership or count it of far less importance than my own ideals. You sound an awful like "one of us" there.
:hehe: In fact the more I read of your reactions the more I see myself in them!

And your reaction sounds like mine would be too. If Brown's claims had the least credibility I'd be a deist right now.

These basic core beliefs are, in fact, very personal leaps that transcend typical empiricism, especially considering that, contrary to a now popular DVD, they are not historically unsound

Gee, I wonder what DVD that could be.... :hehe:

And you know, as well as I, that a lot of people fit this bill.

Yes, I do. And appropriately, I was NOT one of them!

And for the man on a quest, you would have been providing him and others with info anyway, correct?

Sure. It does also take time to find the difference between the two, though years of experience do help make a discernment quicker by now.

Apparently, I am the last member here to find out that you are a well known Christian apologist with an extensive websight and body of work. What's next, no Easter Bunny?

Of course there's an Easter Bunny. :wink: Her name is Sheila and she's my favorite creation right now. And you should see her doing her bit on the War on Easter somewhere where that (ahem) DVD is very popular right now.

[attachment=1]

I haven't read any of those authors, Maybe I will check some of them out when/if I get the chance. I think, however, that we are in agreement that acting stupidly is not an effective response to stupidity?

Yes. And by the by, for all here too: When I gave my list of recommended reads at the end of my talk last night, my pastor specifically asked me about Lutzer! And as here, I said that with due respect to the man for his other efforts, he had no business writing a book about TDC. I said the same for Josh McDowell. Though when his name was mentioned, all I did was roll my eyes.

You think apologetics are the best approach?

Yes, I even wrote an article for Hanegraaff's magazine to that effect, arguing that the apostolic preaching in Acts most closely resembled what we now call apologetics. Whereas, what we call personal testimony was non-existent. Nothing of Peter saying how he gave up smoking mustard leaves and started bathing after he met Jesus. A couple of passages of Paul in Acts and Phil. mistaken for personal testimony are actual judicial or rhetorical defense speeches, not PT as we know it.

What about good works and living an example?

Useful for relational purposes, perhaps, but not as the basis for an argument for the epistemic truth of Christianity. It was certainly never used as such to non-believers in the apostolic period.

Ah, the tapestry of causality. Strange indeed If you want strange, however, I could relate to you the string of instances that led me from my favorite pizza shop to TWeb, and ultimately to this discussion. Funny how (fate/God/the gods/chance) works huh?

An added sad irony is that Mr Passantino died two weeks after giving me the assignment.

********

I'll be back after my breakfast with my account of the talk.

Jeannot

May 18th 2006, 09:15 AM

Steve: "Well, just in case anyone cares, the movie is supposed to be bad. Really bad."
____________--

As bad as the book? DVC is a poorly written, poorly researched novel. Brown said it was meticulously researched. His idea of research must be that of the average junior-high student.

jpholding

May 18th 2006, 09:28 AM

I did one of my talks on TDC last night at church (with no hitches, despite what some may wish, other than that they didn’t have PowerPoint fully set up when I arrived :teeth: ). Nothing unusual there but the Q and A afterwards was interesting and reflective of what has been discussed here, especially between Mercury and I.

There were some of the usual good questions about facts in the book, and then an older woman raised her hand and said she had a “few questions.”

First she said she wanted to thank me for presenting all that I did. (In retrospect, this was possibly her way to set me up for what she thought would be a sucker punch. :hehe: )

She then asked me where TDC was found in the library. I said, in the fiction section.

You can see what’s coming already. :lol:

Then she went on a rant about how we had no proof Brown intended people to take the book as reflecting any truth (despite the preface and the interview remarks, the former of which she denied the existence of, and demanded that we produce a copy of right there and then), made a snide remark about “would you also attack Hansel and Gretel the same way” (um, sure….if someone claimed it wasn’t fiction but truth, and/or people started believing it was, and it was causing problems, and people asked me to look into it, etc.); noted that the word “fiction” was on the cover as a category (the same thing could be said of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the analogy to which I did present, but she said nothing about). The pastor and I both noted that people took the book as truth, and her response was, “That’s their problem.” (!)

The reason for the rant was revealed in time. She said she was writing a book about Jesus portraying him as a homosexual. She was convinced that he was one because he “had a close attachment to his mother” and “hung around with twelve men.” :lol: I threw back my raft of counters (she was probably anachronizing normal ANE behavior; George Bush and King Fahd holding hands and kissing; etc.) which she did not answer. She asked if I would want to tear apart her book in such a “condescending” way and I said, “Be glad to, especially if you try to push it off as fact.” I get the idea (maybe wrong, but I doubt it) that she wanted to set up a hedge around “fiction” to prevent her book being torn up critically. The defense of Brown seems to have no other explanation since her book would obviously not be very compatible with one in which Jesus is married to and having babies with Mary Magdalene. (Or maybe Jesus was bisexual? Or Libertarian?)

I asked if I could write a book about her portraying her as Ted Bundy’s partner in crime. She claimed to have no objections. I said, “What if it keeps you from getting a job?” “I don’t need a job,” was her reply. Not really an answer to the point, it seemed, but more an effort to get in the last word.

She did add one factually valid note; I had noted the lawsuit against Brown by Baigent and Leigh for plagiarism; she noted that it had been won in Brown’s favor. I hadn’t known that, but that wasn’t really the point; no one denies Brown’s reliance on HBHG (which is why I brought up the suit, not to accuse Brown of plagiarism – which I think was a stupid charge anyway).

I suspect this person came after seeing the sign for the talk outside, thinking she could have some fun baiting someone. She picked the wrong person for that. :teeth:

Needless to say, she did not dispute any of my corrections to Brown’s book.

There were plenty more positive responses, especially from the pastor’s son who is a history major.

SteveF

May 18th 2006, 09:42 AM

She did add one factually valid note; I had noted the lawsuit against Brown by Baigent and Leigh for plagiarism; she noted that it had been won in Brown’s favor. I hadn’t known that, but that wasn’t really the point; no one denies Brown’s reliance on HBHG (which is why I brought up the suit, not to accuse Brown of plagiarism – which I think was a stupid charge anyway).

DVC and HBHG were both published by Random House. HBHG has recieved large amounts of publicity, been reissued and is selling very well.

Now, thats a real conspiracy theory.

Tickle Me Mercury

May 18th 2006, 06:33 PM

I grant that; I didn't mean it to go further than to say that when there are deletrious effects of some sort, it is natural to respond to whatever level is required. I can see that you come by your views here honestly as an outsider too informed and intelligent to be gulled into taking Brown's work as fact, but also without any interest in the defense of the Christian viewpoint. Yet even now two Skeptical persons (Robert Price, Bart Ehrman) have produced anti-TDC books. For money? Maybe. Out of a sense of offense at the wrenching of facts? Maybe. Because they are afraid that TDC will affect the credibility of non-Christian views as a whole? Possibly (especially where Price is concerned, as that is why he also attacked Acharya S!).

Well that does make sense. As I said before, the desire to correct misinformation that is being spread, whether or not it is under the guise of fiction or actual truth, is a noble pursuit. I can't and won't fault anyone for that, even if it was the case that I didn't necessarily agree with them. (In this case, my views are neutral.)

As far as the motivation for other skeptics, I cannot say. (There is more than just a little bit of truth in the notion that only God can see into the hearts of men.) I can say that, in other debates on other forums regarding religion, I have chided people more than once over the past few years for chiming in with "doood, the dav inchi code sed that jesus had liek, a ababy an junk so liek riligun is totally wrong!" as well as people with much less garbled presentations using TDC as their source, simply because they are detrimental to my position. Not to mention that it's just really annoying.

Neither did I, which is why I didn't get onto it until I was given that assignment. :hehe: Now my motive is more the joy of the hunt, so to speak. I got to do some truly original research (for me) for an article for Hank Hanegraaff's org when I considered Brown's points on LDV and his art. It was very enjoyable to scour books by experts on LDV and Reniassance art and match up what they said to what Brown offered. I would have enjoyed that no matter what my religious tendencies were.

Which might parallel my enjoyment of reading religious texts like the Bible? Academic, philosophical, and social insight at least.

Hmm, I'm getting a sense here...are you an INTJ, like me? :lol:

I had never heard of that before, but with the help of google I took a Jung Typology Test (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes3.asp). Lo and behold, I am, in fact, a INTJ—I scored lowest on the Judging category, as I tend to refrain from making judgments if possible. That said, you know where I'm coming from on the issue: ideologies should stand independent of "groups." And truth transcends group loyalty.

I scored right on the line between conservative and libertarian in a political test, and also tend to shun group membership or count it of far less importance than my own ideals. You sound an awful like "one of us" there.
:hehe: In fact the more I read of your reactions the more I see myself in them!

I recently retook the Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) test, and received what are the typical results for me. On the horizontal scale, economics, I am virtually dead center with a 0.13 conservative leaning. On the vertical scale, social, I am strongly libertarian, pushing towards anarchist.

That's a great quiz, it's much clearer than what typifies our current, left-or-right political climate.

And your reaction sounds like mine would be too. If Brown's claims had the least credibility I'd be a deist right now.

That's interesting. I am in corrispondance with another Christian on the CAA who said that if he weren't a Christian, he would be a nihilist. Strange how we look at the world if the foundations of our worldview were to be stolen out from under us. Even people of similar persuasions scatter like leaves in the breeze.

Gee, I wonder what DVD that could be.... :hehe:

Indeed. That's another load of improvable conjecture that people wear like a badge on their chest...

Yes, I do. And appropriately, I was NOT one of them!

You don't seem it. It's rare, except on places like TWeb, that I encounter people who are doing anything but going through the song and dance. It's that fact alone that makes skeptics, be they hard-line atheists or moderate agnostics like myself, often so smug about the whole endeavor.

Sure. It does also take time to find the difference between the two, though years of experience do help make a discernment quicker by now.

I would assume, of course, that such discernment helps you decide which approach to take to the situation.

Of course there's an Easter Bunny. :wink: Her name is Sheila and she's my favorite creation right now. And you should see her doing her bit on the War on Easter somewhere where that (ahem) DVD is very popular right now.

Ha. Well, she won't have to do much. I find that people who take such tripe "seriously," were already looking for something like that anyway to confirm their unbased skepticism.

Yes, I even wrote an article for Hanegraaff's magazine to that effect, arguing that the apostolic preaching in Acts most closely resembled what we now call apologetics. Whereas, what we call personal testimony was non-existent. Nothing of Peter saying how he gave up smoking mustard leaves and started bathing after he met Jesus. A couple of passages of Paul in Acts and Phil. mistaken for personal testimony are actual judicial or rhetorical defense speeches, not PT as we know it.

Well, apologetics, in whatever form, has changed focus from then until now, correct? It seems that a lot of modern apologetics involves defending against detractors who take for themselves a position of either scientific or historical superiority, whereas in the ANE the history wasn't so much an issue, and the scientific method as we know it wasn't implemented.

Useful for relational purposes, perhaps, but not as the basis for an argument for the epistemic truth of Christianity. It was certainly never used as such to non-believers in the apostolic period.

Exactly. Without going off on too much of a tangent, I've recently been in a few discussions involving proper epistemology in regards to religion and preaching, and we came to that conclusion. I've also begun to realize when the proper time was to "demand" someone prove the epistemic truth of a religion.

An added sad irony is that Mr Passantino died two weeks after giving me the assignment.

I'm sorry to hear that.

sc_q_jayce

May 18th 2006, 07:20 PM

:) I see we're all INTJ's. Very interesting. I'm also almost dead center on the political scale.

I just have one comment to make that I hope you can comment on, Hg (for clarity's sake).

either X is very dumb, in which case X will believe anything

Do you think there is something worthy in helping this "dumb person" learn to think critically so they wouldn't be dumb anymore? Or do you feel this is a lost cause?

Darth Executor

May 18th 2006, 09:12 PM

:) I see we're all INTJ's. Very interesting.

I'm INTP. :tongue:

sc_q_jayce

May 18th 2006, 09:17 PM

I'm INTP. :tongue:
Heretic! Burn him! :mossrose::flaming:

{Tim}

May 19th 2006, 02:17 AM

I'm INTP. :tongue:Heretic! Burn him! :mossrose::flaming:
:uhoh:

I better not admit that I lean that way, too... oops! :nc:

jpholding

May 19th 2006, 06:09 AM

I'll be at the movie in 6 1/2 hours now. I think I'll soften the blow with lunch at the food court's gyro place. :hehe:

I can say that, in other debates on other forums regarding religion, I have chided people more than once over the past few years for chiming in with "doood, the dav inchi code sed that jesus had liek, a ababy an junk so liek riligun is totally wrong!" as well as people with much less garbled presentations using TDC as their source, simply because they are detrimental to my position. Not to mention that it's just really annoying.

Then I suspect you look at my story about the woman at my talk with some understanding! :teeth: People who either won't back up their arguments or think that "sound bites" like that are an argument are a bane to existence.

Which might parallel my enjoyment of reading religious texts like the Bible? Academic, philosophical, and social insight at least.

Yes. As far as social insight, have you heard of the Context Group?

Strange how we look at the world if the foundations of our worldview were to be stolen out from under us. Even people of similar persuasions scatter like leaves in the breeze.

I wonder if that doesn't have something to do with our store of information. CS Lewis was an INTJ as well, and I read of his experience and wonder, if he had had the store of research on Biblical topics that I have, would he have had fewer reservations about his role as an apologist (I'm thinking specifically of his profession to "take his life into his own hands" when he debated, something I do NOT feel of myself, but that I can see I would, without the library experience behind me)?

By the way, being INTJ means you have a creative side -- what do you have? Music, art? I've yet to meet another that took cartooning as their creative edge.

often so smug about the whole endeavor.

I'll bet you'd enjoy this:

http://www.geocities.com/sgraessle/folder1/incomp.htm

I would assume, of course, that such discernment helps you decide which approach to take to the situation.

Yes, absolutely. I tie it in often with the sort of sources they use for their arguments; my background in research tells me what sort of sources a person will use if they're serious, and what sort they will use if they're not really knowing their business.

Ha. Well, she won't have to do much. I find that people who take such tripe "seriously," were already looking for something like that anyway to confirm their unbased skepticism.

Well, she was banned from the forum in question in the last 12 hours, with a pretense of democratic vote, so there you go winning the Irony Award this morning. :hehe:

Well, apologetics, in whatever form, has changed focus from then until now, correct?

HAS IT! It's treated as a distraction from personal testimony. I have a talk I give introducing apologetics and the title is, "Apologetics: Cod Liver Oil for the Christian Soul". I'm sure you see what I'm driving at there. :lol:

It seems that a lot of modern apologetics involves defending against detractors who take for themselves a position of either scientific or historical superiority, whereas in the ANE the history wasn't so much an issue, and the scientific method as we know it wasn't implemented.

I do think the ancients had a sense of history more than is sometimes claimed, despite the lack of presence of the scientific method; but as for the former, I'm not sure what you mean, other than that I can see a certain application to creation-evolution debates. Do you mean, by detractors, like the Jesus Seminar? If you mean apologetics is mostly reactive, that does tend to be true. I try to be proactive as well, though.

Cynic Sage

May 19th 2006, 01:21 PM

Hey JP. I thought you might be interested in this:

http://www.thedavincidialogue.com/

Sony put up this site and has invited xtians to post critical DVC essays on it. Lee Strobel and Ben Witherington III have stuff on it. Why don't you see if you can get your essay posted on there?

jpholding

May 19th 2006, 03:59 PM

I may do that.

I'm back from the movie. Some very interesting changes indeed.

http://www.tektonics.org/dcmovie.html is up. But it's short so I'll put it here.

I had a ticket to the very first showing of the movie, but darn it all...they added an earlier showing after I bought my ticket. But it doesn't matter. Here's a report on what I saw.

The main issue I wanted to look at was, "Is there anything new in the movie that is not in the book?" My suspicion was that most of the "fact" claims (as found in Ch. 55 of the book) would be left out, narrowed down to just what was absolutely essential to the plot, because Teabing's long speech just wasn't the stuff of an action thriller. That turned out to be right; the lecture was still there, much shorter (I didn't hear my favorite factoids about Mithra, for example!), and spiced with tech wizardry and historical flashbacks. And there's an even bigger surprise...

Tom Hanks (Langdon) actually comes out arguing the other side now and then!

It's most apparent during the lecture. Teabing says that the Council of Nicea decided on Jesus' "immortality" (not "divinity," oddly, but it's still wrong!); but then Langdon shoots back that it wasn't that way at all (and Teabing dismisses his reply as "semantics" in action). Later it's Langdon who says a truer version first, stating that 50,000 women were killed by the church in witch hunts; Teabing shoots back, "some say millions" (true, but "some" are not professional historians). Langdon expresses doubts about who the real instigators were in Constantine's time: pagans or Christians. He rolls his eyes and has an "aw, come on" look while Teabing waxes eloquent about hidden meanings in The Last Supper

What's going on here?

I can only guess, but I have the idea that one of two things happened. Either the movie's producers decided they could try and avoid controversy by giving both sides "equal time" now and then, or....

....more likely, given what else we see, it's a case of Ron Howard flashbacking to the days of Willow. When Teabing and Langdon start shouting, Sophie dons referee stripes and puts a stop to it with a mini-sermonette about how people have so often killed each other over these things, so "let's not argue." And nowhere is this peacemaker posture made more clear than the final discussion between Sophie and Langdon, in which Langdon throws the final rubber bone by suggesting that "maybe human is divine" and who knows...Sophie could have healed him of his claustrophobia, and maybe she could also turn water into wine if she tried. (She dips her foot in some after that, and of course, does not.)

Perhaps Ron Howard figured he'd throw us some bones, then. Or perhaps they tried to correct some of the errors to avoid more controversy. It's not just the lecture scene, either; at the beginning, there is what I may be imagining as a subtle "retort" to Brown's use of the Mona Lisa: Those factoids from Brown about the painting are never used, other than a brief hint about the left side of the woman being larger as a sign of the feminine, but tight focus is put on a little sign that gives the Mona Lisa's original French name, and spells the later name properly, Monna Lisa -- am I imagining it, or could this be their way of saying, "Nah, we'll skip all that stuff about it being Leonardo in drag and about it being an anagram of Egyptian gods"?

And some of the minor errors are preserved untouched. Paris is still wrongly the site of the first Prime Meridian. Pope still erroneously presided at Newton's funeral (though that is essential to the plot, after all). At the end, we get to see a library of documents hidden under Roslyn chapel, with dates to the first century, preserved by the Priory of Sion (which is said to be real), but nothing is said of what is in them. Opus Dei isn't seen in quite so bad a light; Silas and his friends are part of a smaller rebel core than the Vatican would excommunicate if it got wind of them. (There is a rather excessive focus on Silas' self-flagellation at the beginning; perhaps they figured some buttocks would ensure a more tantalizing rating.)

But the core message, and what it seems Howard thought was a bone to throw us (if it was that intention) was, "let's not fight, huh, because it doesn't really matter, does it?" Mmm, well, yes, Opie, it does. If this WAS a bone thrown our way, we're not touching it.

Given his Willow phase, if I am right here Howard and the crew behind this may think they were offering us a compromise. But I'm sorry -- there is no compromise with truth. At the very beginning there are shades of the "blind man and the elephant" routine as Langdon fools students into misidentifying symbols by only tightly focussing on small parts of pictures they are in. But the message refutes itself. Langdon corrects the errors by pulling back on the perspective so it is clear what the symbol really means. And so it has been done with history, and no number of rubber bones will change that.

But what else? Teabing reads from the Gospel of Philip and The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and even there some rubber bones bounce out, if subtly. Teabing reads from Philip the passage about Jesus kissing Mary, but is interrupted by Sophie before he can say the word "mouth" for the spot where the smoocheroo is given. (That word isn't in the fragmentary text.) Teabing says Mary wrote her gospel; Langdon says, "maybe" she did, with a tone of serious doubt. (In reality, there is no doubt at all; and of course they still don't seem to know that the Gnostic authors would have not been on their side.) Teabing remains uncorrected, though, when he makes the absurd statement that Philip was rejected at Nicea. (It wasn't even discussed; Nicea was not about the canon.)

Technical notes....the film was very dark, and the word "corny" kept popping into my head. This may be because cryptography just doesn't make for good cinema. There is a valiant and sometimes successful attempt to spice things up with historical flashbacks (eg, into the Crusader era), and rather amusingly, Teabing's lecture now features PowerPoint. I also think people who did not read the book will find it hard to follow. There are other plot changes as well, but I will stick to issues apologists care about where that is concerned.

In sum....it can be said that some effort was made to make things more palatble to those who pointed out the book's errors. I can't be sure of the reason, but I can be sure that it was an effort in vain. Errors remains errors. On the other hand, perhaps we can suppose that the apologetic effort to correct these errors in the book had some effect on the decisions made about the movie.

Minnesota

May 19th 2006, 05:27 PM

A Beautiful Truth

May 19th 2006, 06:18 PM

One would think that after hearing such a "mistake" having been committed twice, the bells might start ringing and it might occur there could be some truth to the assertion.

The Prime meridian was first established in Paris in 1667, but then reestablished in Greenwich England in 1884 after it was stated that the "tremors of the earth and emanations in the air . . . prevented it from fulfilling its usefulness." [ 1884 International Meridian Conference]

I am very interested, Minn, how you take Brown's statements about facts presented in his novel. I know you like to have sources identified for verification and what not, so what do you think of Brown's "facts"?

Instead of something vague, how about the suposed 80 gospels, the Priory of Sion, and all that about Constantine? Keeping in mind, of course, his comment about "all descriptions of ...documents...are accurate". Where does he get these descriptions to back up his "fact" claims? Where does he get his information about Constantine and the council of Nicea? Can these claims be checked out in credible sources? Is it common in historical fiction to fictionalize the history? You never struck me as a conspiracy theorist type, you always seemed to want credibility in claims that you or others use, so what is your facination with DVC? Is it just because it gets a rise out of Christians or do you somehow believe Brown's "facts"? If so, why?

~Charleen

Cynic Sage

May 19th 2006, 06:50 PM

.
Whyja change your post, Minn?

Minnesota

May 19th 2006, 06:58 PM

Charleen,

First of all, I deleted my post from which you got my quote because there was an error in quoting from the 1884 International Meridian Conference.

I am very interested, Minn, how you take Brown's statements about facts presented in his novel. I know you like to have sources identified for verification and what not, so what do you think of Brown's "facts"?
I have since lent out my copy, so I don't have it to refer to, but as has been pointed out elsewhere, some of his facts, are not. The Priory of Sion appears to be fictitious. As for his comment about "all descriptions of ...documents...are accurate". Again, I would have to see which ones he is talking about. I do know that the Priory of Sion list he saw in the Paris Library does exist. They showed it on a couple of TV programs. What other documents do you have in mind?

Where does he get these descriptions to back up his "fact" claims? Where does he get his information about Constantine and the council of Nicea? Can these claims be checked out in credible sources? Is it common in historical fiction to fictionalize the history?
Some of it is said to have been taken from the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail. As for your other questions, :shrug:

You never struck me as a conspiracy theorist type, you always seemed to want credibility in claims that you or others use, so what is your facination with DVC?
As an agnostic who believes much of the Christian literature is fraudulent in several aspects (don't care to get into it) and that the Catholic church has manipulated facts, events, and its congregants, (don't care to get into it) there is a lot of misinformation that is now taken as truth, and a lot of truth that evidently remains hidden. So with this mindset in gear, a work of fiction that uses these issues to weave a good tail is a delight to go along with. Was Jesus married? probably. Did he have any children? I have no clue. Was da Vinci involved in on any cover up? Highly unlikely. So, while one does have to suspend belief a bit as to the "facts" that bind the story together, as a work of fiction it does hold together, and does have enough plausibility to make it exciting.

what is your facination with DVC? Is it just because it gets a rise out of Christians
If you're referring to my signature, You just hit the button. :thumb: Christians get a rise out of me almost every time one of their televangelists makes print, so I'm just returning the favor. :teeth:

sc_q_jayce

May 19th 2006, 07:03 PM

I deleted my post from which you got my quote because there was an error in quoting from the 1884 International Meridian Conference.Without desire to discuss anything else said, could I ask what the error was? My question is honest curiosity, if not apparent on TWeb. :smile:

Darth Executor

May 19th 2006, 07:06 PM

Without desire to discuss anything else said, could I ask what the error was? My question is honest curiosity, if not apparent on TWeb. :smile:

His post is quoted in charlene's post.

jpholding

May 19th 2006, 08:30 PM

Whyja change your post, Minn?

Because he knew if I saw it, I'd kick him to the atmosphere on it. :hehe:

Too bad for him someone quoted it first.

The first prime meridian was done by Hipparchus of Rhodes in the second century BC.

The bell you hear going off is a TKO on little Minn after he knocked himself out trying to dodge his foot sailing into his cavernous mouth. :thumb:

sc_q_jayce

May 19th 2006, 08:33 PM

His post is quoted in charlene's post.
I know. I read the post before he retracted it. But he retracted the comment due to an error. JPH gave the answer as to what the error was, so I'm fine now.

A Beautiful Truth

May 19th 2006, 09:17 PM

What other documents do you have in mind?

How about Brown's supposed 80 gospels.

As an agnostic who believes much of the Christian literature is fraudulent in several aspects (don't care to get into it) and that the Catholic church has manipulated facts, events, and its congregants, (don't care to get into it) there is a lot of misinformation that is now taken as truth, and a lot of truth that evidently remains hidden. So with this mindset in gear...

Honestly, sounds like an AIG type argument but for agnostics who have a beef with Christianity.

Double Standard.

Sheepdog

May 19th 2006, 09:54 PM

who's all INTJ here? last i did that test, i think it placed me as INTJ.

Darth Executor

May 19th 2006, 09:55 PM

Everybody except me. :smug:

Sheepdog

May 19th 2006, 10:47 PM

you're probably a ENFJ :tongue:

Cynic Sage

May 19th 2006, 10:54 PM

[attachment]

click thumbnail

:ahem:

Sheepdog

May 20th 2006, 12:27 AM

:lol: i didn't know Captain America posts to TWeb

{Tim}

May 20th 2006, 02:55 AM

Everybody except me. :smug:
and me

Darth Executor

May 20th 2006, 07:38 AM

you're probably a ENFJ :tongue:

No, I'm INTP. :rasberry:

I don't think I've ever been called extroverted before...

A Beautiful Truth

May 20th 2006, 09:11 AM

who's all INTJ here? last i did that test, i think it placed me as INTJ.

I am INTP but my "P" and my "J" numbers are pretty close....

jpholding

May 20th 2006, 10:58 AM

:ahem:

ROFL -- so that's what Goofus and Gallant got to be when they grew up! :hehe:

I added a few more thoughts to the review. Nothing earth shaking, though my pastor confirmed my thought that people who did not read the book (as he did not) may find the movie hard to follow (as he did).

Sheepdog

May 20th 2006, 02:54 PM

i did have a serious comment, that i'm suprized people make the "it's just fiction" argument, given that we see stories all the time that are fictional, plotwise, but grounded in real history. (anyone see United 93 yet? i want to catch it.) it really wouldn't be that hard for an average Joe to be duped by the false facts of TDC.

heck, the movie Stigmata had me convinced that the Gospel of Thomas was just another nice book, until i did some research and found it to be gnostic goofiness.

then again, someone else noted that TDC shouldn't be believable simply on the basis that if Jesus and MM had kids, they wouldn't go to France to settle down :rasberry:

jpholding

May 20th 2006, 06:31 PM

Did a 10 minute recorded radio interview on TDC with these folks today:

http://www.spin1038.com/content.asp?CatId=307&ContentType=OnAir

They're on a youth radio station in Dublin. It's supposed to air tomorrow (Sunday). Anyone out there in listening distance, maybe in the UK? It was quite interesting.

Jnthn

May 20th 2006, 07:50 PM

jpholding

May 21st 2006, 07:04 AM

Do you know when it's airing? I might be able to catch it if it's on outside of church service hours

J

I think 845 AM there. Too late now I expect. :sad:

Da Lone-Warrior

May 22nd 2006, 08:37 PM

I may do that.

But I'm sorry -- there is no compromise with truth. At the very beginning there are shades of the "blind man and the elephant" routine as Langdon fools students into misidentifying symbols by only tightly focussing on small parts of pictures they are in. But the message refutes itself. Langdon corrects the errors by pulling back on the perspective so it is clear what the symbol really means. And so it has been done with history, and no number of rubber bones will change that.

But what else? Teabing reads from the Gospel of Philip and The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and even there some rubber bones bounce out, if subtly. Teabing reads from Philip the passage about Jesus kissing Mary, but is interrupted by Sophie before he can say the word "mouth" for the spot where the smoocheroo is given. (That word isn't in the fragmentary text.) Teabing says Mary wrote her gospel; Langdon says, "maybe" she did, with a tone of serious doubt. (In reality, there is no doubt at all; and of course they still don't seem to know that the Gnostic authors would have not been on their side.) Teabing remains uncorrected, though, when he makes the absurd statement that Philip was rejected at Nicea. (It wasn't even discussed; Nicea was not about the canon.)

In sum....it can be said that some effort was made to make things more palatble to those who pointed out the book's errors. I can't be sure of the reason, but I can be sure that it was an effort in vain. Errors remains errors. On the other hand, perhaps we can suppose that the apologetic effort to correct these errors in the book had some effect on the decisions made about the movie.

It sounds like you care more about Truth than you do about getting people interested in dialoguing about the Truth about Christianity.

I can't say I agree.

dlw

A Beautiful Truth

May 22nd 2006, 09:08 PM

It sounds like you care more about Truth than you do about getting people interested in dialoguing about the Truth about Christianity.

I can't say I agree.

dlw

Forgive me, I know you were not addressing me, but I don't understand what you mean here. Please explain so I know if I agree/disagree with you.

~Charleen

Sir-Think-A-Lot

May 23rd 2006, 12:16 AM

I got INTJ too. They seem to be quite common here on tweb.

By the way, being INTJ means you have a creative side -- what do you have? Music, art? I've yet to meet another that took cartooning as their creative edge.

Writing. I can barely draw stick figures, but I can sure describe what those stick figures are going.

Da Lone-Warrior

May 23rd 2006, 01:01 AM

Forgive me, I know you were not addressing me, but I don't understand what you mean here. Please explain so I know if I agree/disagree with you.

~Charleen

JPH is down on DVC 'cuz of his commitment to Truth.

But what he is missing is that what some intend for evil, God can use for good and what some intend for good may end up causing more evil.

Is the movie making more Christians and NonChristians look into the history of Xty?

Yes and that far outweighs the misinformation and paganism that Brown intended to propagate. It actually gives Xty a huge compliment. Brown is propagating a neo-Paganism by claiming that what went wrong with Xty is that it suppressed its true Pagan roots. This implicitly frames Paganism in the shadow of the Protestant Reformation in that they are fundamentally calling for a recovery of true Xty or the proper veneration of Jesus(and his soul-mate...).

dlw

Da Lone-Warrior

May 23rd 2006, 01:02 AM

who's all INTJ here? last i did that test, i think it placed me as INTJ.

I'm INTJ.
though, I'm strong on the NT and weaker on the I and J.
dlw

jpholding

May 23rd 2006, 08:19 AM

But what he is missing is that what some intend for evil, God can use for good and what some intend for good may end up causing more evil.

EXCUSE ME? Who let you in to one of my talks?

I don't miss that at all. I make it clear in my talks that it's a good chance to start a conversation, every bit as much as The Passion was.

It sounds like you care more about Truth than you do about getting people interested in dialoguing about the Truth about Christianity.

It sounds like all you know how to do well is take isolated statements and blow them out of proportion.

If I were in a bad mood I'd demand an apology from you, Dan Brown. :rasberry:

Da Lone-Warrior

May 27th 2006, 03:33 PM

EXCUSE ME? Who let you in to one of my talks?

I don't miss that at all. I make it clear in my talks that it's a good chance to start a conversation, every bit as much as The Passion was.

ugabooga.

It goes well beyond that.

It sounds like all you know how to do well is take isolated statements and blow them out of proportion.

If I were in a bad mood I'd demand an apology from you, Dan Brown. :rasberry:

It sounds like you are much better at cutting people down verbally than dialoguing with them.

dlw

jpholding

May 28th 2006, 12:18 PM

ugabooga.

That's the kind of scholarship we need -- a quote from Crash Bandicoot's little voodoo mask guy.

It goes well beyond that.

Oops. Liberal catchphrase when your argument has been defeated and you have no more to say. :hehe:

It sounds like you are much better at cutting people down verbally than dialoguing with them.

It sounds like you're having problems with self-esteem. I do both well -- check http://www.tektonics.org/sdseries.html and I do it with appropriate parties.

betzerg

May 28th 2006, 11:53 PM

It is a work of fiction; just like many of the stories in the Old Testament.

what do you mean "JUST LIKE".....none of the mythos of the hebrew scriptures negate and challange the attributes of G-d or suggest a paganistic approach to life.

certain works of fiction (ie Koran, nt, etc.) actually promote monthothesm...

This is nothing like the DaVinci Code.

shalom,

BETZer

{Tim}

June 11th 2006, 02:37 PM

This is rather belated, but in regards to the "it's only fiction" argument...

I was chatting with my Mum a few weeks ago, she teaches Religious Education at a state school near us, and she related to me how one of the children had told her how he had "learned that jesus and mary magdalene were married". Mum said, "oh, you mean 'Da Vinci Code'? You know that that's just a made up story, don't you?". The boy was like, "Oh really? I didn't know that."

So much for "only fiction"... :ahem:

Sheepdog

June 11th 2006, 03:24 PM

our pastor actually did the service today on tDC. it was interesting because while he covered the key issues (key, IMO at least), the main jist was "it's ridiculous and a bunch of garbage." that's something that the Christian response could emphasize more. (as Holding has also done)

heck, i believe Tom Hank's own words for it were "fun" but "hogwash."

Leonhard

June 11th 2006, 05:35 PM

I was actually surprised at, how many times I had to explain, to people the numerous errors in the book.

At the national high school (our equivalent) math competion in Denmark, I meet a couple of fans of the books, who had quite innocently mistaken its "facts" with qenuine facts. However after some discussion they agreed that Dan Brown was a goofball, that if one claims something as fact, it should be backed up, and the too many people are swallowing the Da Vince Code as true history.

However most people are quick to see the light.