What's the big deal about the DaVinci Code??

I fail to see the threats to Christianity that many seem too..

from JoeUser Forums
OK, I have seen the news, heard the talk shows, listen to the priest, preachers and others and all of them seem to have a problem with the book and the movie. Let me state ahead of tme I consider myself a Christian. Whats the deal about? Am I that stupid or just that secure in my faith and intelect to be able to realize that a fictional work by an author who even goes so far as to state himself its fictional, is no threat to Christianity or for that matter, God.

I listened to a Dr. who is also a paster at a local church in Ocala Fl talk on a talk radio station today and it seemed he just talked about how poorly written the book was and that the "fact" page claimed to be just that fact. He evedently did not read the authors notes ont eh subject. Last time I checked the book was still sold as fiction.

Here is a excerpt from Dan Brown's web page.
"My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history"

Doesn't sound threatening to me. How about this one:

"BUT DOESN'T THE NOVEL'S "FACT" PAGE CLAIM THAT EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THIS NOVEL IS HISTORICAL FACT?
If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader."

Also this one I like the most:
"IS THIS BOOK ANTI-CHRISTIAN?
No. This book is not anti-anything. It's a novel. I wrote this story in an effort to explore certain aspects of Christian history that interest me. The vast majority of devout Christians understand this fact and consider The Da Vinci Code an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate."

So why are so many people feeling the need to disprove a fictional book/story?? I think its silly, but hey it will help sell the bokk and movie.

What do you all think..?? Am I alone or is this all over blown??
religion
3,188 views 21 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Very overblown. I brought this subject up in Sunday School last week, and we discussed it for some time.
I guess you could kind of compare it to "Raiders of the Lost Ark" or "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade", or even "The Omen" or "The Exorcist", in that a few stated, known facts are taken waaaay out of context or even altered somewhat, and used to make the story seem plausible.
"Code" has taken on a life of its own, however. People (morons, really) are actually believing it as though it were a a non-fiction tale or documentary, printed as fact, which, as you pointed out, it was not.

See the movie, read the book, or vice versa. Then ignore it as best you can.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
RW, I couldn't agree more. I saw a show advertised on TV called "Brown's Code is Wrong" and thought "it's FICTION!" Was DaVinci Code ever claimed as nonfiction by the author? Good grief! It is meant for entertainment. People need to lighten up.

I thought the comparison to the Indiana Jones movies was a very spot on one BTW.
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, if you check the History Channel and A&E's lineup, they have had several programs discussing the "facts" presented in Dan Brown's novel. Dan Brown has appeared in interviews on these programs, leading me to believe he at least tacitly endorses them. And he has stated on more than one occasion that although the book is fiction, the history contained within the book is factual. This is a false statement, easily disproven; as a starting point, look up the "priory of Sion", around which much of the plot centers. While there WAS a monastical order called the priory of scion in the middle ages and there is a current order, the current order was founded by a contemporary con man who declared that he was, himself, a direct descendant of Jesus. The fact that he was never taken seriously by ANY serious scholar speaks volumes. As to the order of the Middle Ages, it bears no connection to the current order.

All of that aside, you're right. It does not affect my faith, nor that of any sincere Christian guided by the Holy Spirit. It's just this book, see....
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
" RW, I couldn't agree more. I saw a show advertised on TV called "Brown's Code is Wrong" and thought "it's FICTION!" Was DaVinci Code ever claimed as nonfiction by the author? Good grief! It is meant for entertainment. People need to lighten up."


SOrry to differ with you Jill, but that isn't true. Brown states that it is a work of fiction, but claims that the historical circumstances on which the mystery is based are true:


"HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE?
The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history." (Link)


People know that it is fiction, but it is fiction supposedly based upon fact, and many/most of those 'facts' that Brown cites are mistakes or fabrications. He, in my opinion, ripped off other people to write the book to begin with, to the point that he even copied their mistakes. One author noted that the same scene happens in his book, ON THE SAME PAGE.

Take a moment and look into Browns claims, and look into the folks that are debunking his "facts". Look at what he says about his own book. He talks about how he is pleased that it is opening a dialogue about the supposed truth of early Christianity. There is a lot more involved in this than just a fictional work.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
There's a conspiracy alright....a conspiracy to sell books and movie tickets..........
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is a lot more involved in this than just a fictional work.


Only if you decide there is. I read it as fiction for entertainment value...period. I always laugh off the "based on true...." crapola that usually preceeds fictional stories in both books and movies. Heck, I take most stuff that is claimed as nonfiction with a fair helping of scepticism. I guess that is why I don't get worked up about this sort of thing.

Stuff like Frey claiming his "Million Little Pieces" was a true account bugs me a lot more.

Seriously though, anyone who feels their faith is threatened by a fictional book or movie has much bigger problems than said book or movie.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
It doesn't have to do with what I decide, it has to do with what the book and its author states. My faith isn't threatened by Brown, but lies are lies. I'm more offended as a student of art and history, frankly. You don't have a horse in the race, cool, but that doesn't mean people who do are more uptight or insecure than you.

It is annoying to see the mindless reading junk like this and taking the historical detail in it as fact. People understand when American Indians toss a fit when their culture is skewed in popular culture, or when people start saying every other historical figure was gay, etc. I'm not one who thinks that baseball teams should change their names, but if an author claimed that all American Indians were bloodthirsty cannibals, I'd be annoyed.

When it is the christianity, though, we're uptight or insecure to point out when someone profits from lies and people believe them. He's hijacked revisionist history to make a point thinly disguised as fiction. He's a kook, frankly, and a kook that can't even make original blather, he has to borrow it from other kooks...
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Perhaps I'm an optimist, but I don't think that people are actually being fooled that the book is historically accurate. I think that the people who take it seriously are simply the people already looking for another excuse to deny Christianity. It's funny actually. The same people who would think me less intelligent for being a Christian (a creationist Christian for that matter!) are learning history from a book that's as historically accurate as Dragon Ball Z!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's funny actually. The same people who would think me less intelligent for being a Christian (a creationist Christian for that matter!) are learning history from a book that's as historically accurate as Dragon Ball Z!


I prefer Dr. Seuss as a historian myself.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dan Brown's book borrows liberally (I can't say plagarizes, a court has decided otherwise) from Holy Grail, Holy Blood by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. Which in turn draws upon the documented Priory of Sion hoax of Pierre Plantard. Both the original hoax and the Holy Grail, Holy Blood book were supposed to be factual.

Eventually, people will realize that there is no historical basis behind the work. Dan Brown lives in a world where the Free Masons and the Illuminati gather with the Elders of Zion to plot destruction. The man has never met a conspiracy theory that he didn't like.

What is sad is that the end result will be that true scholarly works such as Elaine Pagel's The Gnostic Gospels will end up being lumped in with lessor works.

Some links for those inclined:

Holy Blood, Holy Grail: Link

Pierre Plantard and the hoax: Link

Council of Nicea: Link

Leonardo Da Vinci: Link
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dan Brown's book borrows liberally (I can't say plagarizes, a court has decided otherwise) from Holy Grail, Holy Blood by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. Which in turn draws upon the documented Priory of Sion hoax of Pierre Plantard. Both the original hoax and the Holy Grail, Holy Blood book were supposed to be factual.

Eventually, people will realize that there is no historical basis behind the work. Dan Brown lives in a world where the Free Masons and the Illuminati gather with the Elders of Zion to plot destruction. The man has never met a conspiracy theory that he didn't like.

What is sad is that the end result will be that true scholarly works such as Elaine Pagel's The Gnostic Gospels will end up being lumped in with lessor works.

Some links for those inclined:

Holy Blood, Holy Grail: Link

Pierre Plantard and the hoax: Link

Council of Nicea: Link

Leonardo Da Vinci: Link
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dan Brown's book borrows liberally (I can't say plagarizes, a court has decided otherwise) from Holy Grail, Holy Blood by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. Which in turn draws upon the documented Priory of Sion hoax of Pierre Plantard. Both the original hoax and the Holy Grail, Holy Blood book were supposed to be factual.

Eventually, people will realize that there is no historical basis behind the work. Dan Brown lives in a world where the Free Masons and the Illuminati gather with the Elders of Zion to plot destruction. The man has never met a conspiracy theory that he didn't like.

What is sad is that the end result will be that true scholarly works such as Elaine Pagel's The Gnostic Gospels will end up being lumped in with lessor works.

Some links for those inclined:

Holy Blood, Holy Grail: Link

Pierre Plantard and the hoax: Link

Council of Nicea: Link

Leonardo Da Vinci: Link
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dan Brown's book borrows liberally (I can't say plagarizes, a court has decided otherwise) from Holy Grail, Holy Blood by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. Which in turn draws upon the documented Priory of Sion hoax of Pierre Plantard. Both the original hoax and the Holy Grail, Holy Blood book were supposed to be factual.

Eventually, people will realize that there is no historical basis behind the work. Dan Brown lives in a world where the Free Masons and the Illuminati gather with the Elders of Zion to plot destruction. The man has never met a conspiracy theory that he didn't like.

What is sad is that the end result will be that true scholarly works such as Elaine Pagel's The Gnostic Gospels will end up being lumped in with lessor works.

Some links for those inclined:

Holy Blood, Holy Grail: Link

Pierre Plantard and the hoax: Link

Council of Nicea: Link

Leonardo Da Vinci: Link
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dan Brown's book borrows liberally (I can't say plagarizes, a court has decided otherwise) from Holy Grail, Holy Blood by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. Which in turn draws upon the documented Priory of Sion hoax of Pierre Plantard. Both the original hoax and the Holy Grail, Holy Blood book were supposed to be factual.

Eventually, people will realize that there is no historical basis behind the work. Dan Brown lives in a world where the Free Masons and the Illuminati gather with the Elders of Zion to plot destruction. The man has never met a conspiracy theory that he didn't like.

What is sad is that the end result will be that true scholarly works such as Elaine Pagel's The Gnostic Gospels will end up being lumped in with lessor works.

Some links for those inclined:

Holy Blood, Holy Grail: Link

Pierre Plantard and the hoax: Link

Council of Nicea: Link

Leonardo Da Vinci: Link
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dan Brown's book borrows liberally (I can't say plagarizes, a court has decided otherwise) from Holy Grail, Holy Blood by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. Which in turn draws upon the documented Priory of Sion hoax of Pierre Plantard. Both the original hoax and the Holy Grail, Holy Blood book were supposed to be factual.

Eventually, people will realize that there is no historical basis behind the work. Dan Brown lives in a world where the Free Masons and the Illuminati gather with the Elders of Zion to plot destruction. The man has never met a conspiracy theory that he didn't like.

What is sad is that the end result will be that true scholarly works such as Elaine Pagel's The Gnostic Gospels will end up being lumped in with lessor works.

Some links for those inclined:

Holy Blood, Holy Grail: Link

Pierre Plantard and the hoax: Link

Council of Nicea: Link

Leonardo Da Vinci: Link
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, five posts. Please feel free to delete four of them.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here is a excerpt from Dan Brown's web page.
"My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history"


Hey Shadow. WHile I have no problems with the movie or the book, it is fiction after all, I have to call all y'all out on this one. That is pure, unadulterated horse shit. We dont need casper the ghost as a catalyst to discuss religion!

Go see if if you want, but dont peddle that horse shit.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
The same people who would think me less intelligent for being a Christian (a creationist Christian for that matter!) are learning history from a book that's as historically accurate as Dragon Ball Z!

Not so. Rightly or wrongly, the same people who think you less intelligent for being a creationist Christian are the same people who laugh at the gullible people who 'believe' the Da Vinci code. You seem to think that the DVC is a tool of atheism and unbelief, whereas it is simply a work of fiction - the purpose of which was to make money for its author - that a (very) few people are apparently choosing to buy into as a religious alternative.

Eventually, people will realize that there is no historical basis behind the work.

Don't mean to be rude, but outside of the United States people have already realised this.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Don't mean to be rude, but outside of the United States people have already realised this."


You mean the people protesting in Italy or the ones that are fasting in protest in India? What a snide and basically pointless remark. There's more people upset outside the US than inside it.

If it is intended to simply be a work of ficiton perhaps Brown should stop asserting that the framework on which the fiction hangs is factual. If you listen to Brown you'll hear him talk about how he is constantly approached by women who tell him his book opened their eyes to truths about their faith. This furor has been baited, Chak, whether you are willing to blind yourself to it or not.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
OK, fair point. I've googled a bit and found some protests in Thailand (??!!) and South Korea also, and I'm never shy about admitting when I'm wrong. As to whether or not the furor has been baited, I still find it hard to believe that there is much beyond a sensationalist and financial motive behind the book/movie.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not so. Rightly or wrongly, the same people who think you less intelligent for being a creationist Christian are the same people who laugh at the gullible people who 'believe' the Da Vinci code. You seem to think that the DVC is a tool of atheism and unbelief, whereas it is simply a work of fiction - the purpose of which was to make money for its author - that a (very) few people are apparently choosing to buy into as a religious alternative.


You'd think so. Of course, I'll admit that "freethinkers" on religious forums aren't the brightest of the bunch.

Don't mean to be rude, but outside of the United States people have already realised this.


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