The Davinci Code

Parent Cafe
41

<p>The book, as well as the movie, are apparently FULL of factual, geographical, and historical errors. I saw a Science Chanel show a couple of nights ago that methodically enumerated a seemingly endless list of The DaVinci Code’s factual errors. It was actually pretty astonishing to see how sloppily Dan Brown researched his novel. But he has insisted from the beginning that the book is accurately based on biblical and historical fact.</p>

<p>Which brings us to the question of why religious people are in an uproar over this movie. Come on, can it really be that hard to fathom? The DaVinci Code not only de-deifies Jesus Christ, but also says he was probably just an ordinary guy who regularly gave in a guy’s basest passions—and with a former prostitute no less— and that he the “baby daddy”! (Sorry for the ebonics, folks, but I’m looking around for Maury Povich here.) Plus, it makes Opus Dei out to be a dangerous cult (if not the Catholic Church itself)! Really, it’s not rocket science. </p>

<p>I know Democrats who were more offended by the “vast right-wing conspiracy” to besmurch the reputation of Bill Clinton than they are by the smear job Dan Brown does on Jesus Christ.</p>

42

<p>Maybe I just dont get all the hullabaloo because im not particularly religious or whatever but i find it all somewhat entertaining that as poetsheart kindda said that all these catholic people who are protesting it are so set in their ways that they wouldnt even consider an alternative to what they believe or whatnot anyways yeh…</p>

43

<p>Ok I actually Liked Bride and Prejudice :wink:
I thought it was hilarious- it helped that I saw it in a neighborhood theater with the campiest queens around who were having an equally good time.
I just don’t have much patience with Austens characters- they just make me want to shake them- I have never gotten all the way through any of her novels, since many of our book group books seem to have similar settings, and since I by far have the least education/income of anyone in our book group- I really don’t feel like I can relate to the situations in the books
My ancestors likely didn’t have time to worry about " manners" they were too busy to worry about the hole in the roof or that their oldest sons leg had to be amputated and he can’t work.
The situations don’t seem * real* to me- just fussy.
I realize austen is very popular with many people- my sister for one loves them- but my sister is also a pretentious social climber so there you go ;)</p>

44

<p>Just came home from the movie: I don’t regret spending two hours of my life seeing it but it’s not one I’d bother to acquire on DVD. The changes from the book are mostly for the worst, though some are expedient for making a comprehensible movie that comes in at a reasonable amount of time. Tom Hanks is totally wrong–a younger Harrison Ford is needed but that option is available–and the chemistry between him and Audrey Tatou is laughable. And it really bogs down into tedium when they get to Roslin Chapel. And as TheMom says, what a come down for Gandalf (Ian McKellen playing Teabing…probably the best acting in the film).</p>

<p>The question of the nature of Jesus doesn’t bother me at all. Early Church history included a three-way tug of war regarding the nature of Jesus–human, divine, or dual–and the question was slugged out in the early church councils. Brown merely posits that one of the “losing” factions was the truth…which is a different matter than a “smear” job. An examination of how and which gospels became canonical and which were ordered destroyed or suppressed is fair game for historical inquiry as well…not even Protestant and Catholics agree on this today. I don’t necessarily agree with her conclusions but Elaine Pagel’s THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS (reffed in TDVC) is a serious examination of the Nag Hammadi manuscripts and has been in my reference library for more than 20 years.</p>

<p>PH, it does well to remember that history is written by the winners and that it doesn’t always accord with what actually happened. And you’re right, I’m much more offended by the treatment of Bill Clinton by the Republican Noise Machine than I am Dan Brown’s novel. The latter is at least clearly labeled “fiction.” (Had to laugh at the article where a Jesuit theologian was being pressed about TDVC and responded with something along the lines of, “You do know this is fiction, don’t you?”)</p>

45

<p>I confess I haven’t seen the movie, but I thought the book was seriously over-rated. Not because I’m Catholic (I’m not) or offended as a Christian. </p>

<p>First, because it was badly written. That had to be the longest night in the history of the world, esp since it started at midnight. The second half descended into blocks and blocks of speeches to get across Brown’s point. The mirror writing “code” was so numbingly obvious–yet the codebreaker had trouble with it. The characterizations were beyond paper thin. </p>

<p>And it gets a lot of theology wrong. First, nowhere in the Gospels does it say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. She’s actually portrayed as a wealthy business woman (yes, I know you could say a prostitute could be that; it still never , anywhere, calls her a prostitute).</p>

<p>Also, it posits that women are played down in the gospels as currently passed down. Did Brown not read Acts? Many of the house church leaders were women, such as Lydia and Priscilla. Women are shown as being equals in a way never before seen. The fact that Paul had some issues in his Letters (and these have been somewhat misinterpreted) does not negate what is plainly seen in the Scriptures as they are passed down. If there was a conspiracy to shut women out, we wouldn’t see so much equality plainly included, like the fact that Mary M was a close advisor, or that the sisters Mary and Martha were considered equal in stature to other disciples.</p>

<p>Also, this royal blood thing of Jesus and Mary is just silliness. The whole point of Jesus’ teaching is that everyone is sacred; you’re not more important because of who your parents are. Which is why calling a possible descendent the “Holy Grail” is similarly besides the point–there are not holy bloodlines, there are holy people (which is everyone.)</p>

<p>And ya know, I don’t know if Jesus slept with anyone or not. But why the prurient interest, anyway? It reads like the giggly teenage girl version of religion–just sooo dreamy to think about.</p>

<p>Sexuality is a wonderful part of many human’s lives, but it’s not unthinkable that someone might focus their entire Self in a spiritual direction; it’s a common thread in many varieties of spirituality. As I said, I don’t know, I wasn’t there–I just don’t get why whether someone did it or not is really an important question to ponder.</p>

<p>So, those are my opinions, from a literary critique and progressive Christian point of view. To reiterate, I’m not offended by the book, I just think it was kinda, well, dumb.</p>

46

<p>garland, I agree that the book will never become a classic but then, how many will? :wink: It was entertaining and a story which has encouraged much discussion, not only by those who have read it, but also by those who have not! Not a bad thing.</p>

<p>Just wanted to clarify one thing, though. It was never stated, by either Langdon or Teabing in the book that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. It was mentioned by another character, probably Sophie, who was then told that it wasn’t true.</p>

<p>chucknorrisrules, that was the point I was trying to make which poetsheart seems to have missed. If someone’s faith is so shakey as to be tested by a work of fiction, then that’s sad. Added to that, if a church or a priest or a believer is so worried about the discussion of this issue, or feels that it is threatening in some way, what does that say about the church, priest, or believer? Are people not allowed to question?</p>

47

<p>Alwaysamom–the point is, that as I remember it, they argue that she wasn’t a prostitiute despite the fact that the Bible says she was. It’s true that she was labeled so by the Catholic church for many years, but it’s clear in the officially accepted gospels that she was not.</p>

<p>My argument is that Brown pretends to be arguing with the official gospels, while seriously misrepresnting what they say.</p>

<p>And for the record, I enjoy reading lots of writers who are genre writers but seem to care much more for their craft than Brown does–you don’t have to be producing a classic to write well.</p>

48

<p>It’s possible that I’m not remembering that detail clearly. I don’t know enough about official gospels or the Bible to be able to intelligently discuss what type of misrepresentations are made in the novel. I just feel that it is a work of fiction and like many works of fiction, regardless of the subject, inaccuracies abound. </p>

<p>I didn’t mean to insinuate that you need to produce a classic to write well. Brown will never be considered a great writer but in the spectrum of popular contemporary fiction, I would imagine he’d fall somewhere in the middle of the pack. His book was engaging because of the story, which, I admit, is not usually enough to get me to read a book but I also have to admit that I enjoyed it. </p>

<p>And, now, back to The Mysteries of Pittsburgh by Michael Chabon. Now there’s a great writer! :)</p>

49

<p>If you go with me to Pakistan, I will take you to the little town of Marieh, where I can show you the tomb of Mary, when went with Jesus back to India after the events in Jerusalem. When the war stops, I will take you to tomb of Jesus, about 6 miles outside of Srinagar, which has been guarded by his followers for some 2,000 years. Then we can go south to Kerala (the beaches are great!), where we can meeting 30 million Thomasine Catholics (including Arundhati Roy), descended from the missionary activity of St. Thomas, who had accompanied Jesus and Mary on the trip east, and went south when Jesus headed north.</p>

<p>No great mystery to me.</p>

50

<p>Mini–I won’t pretend to be an expert on Thomasine or other gnostic type churches. i’m sure they work for lots of people. For me, from what I have meagerly read, they seem to fall into the category of “what can i get out of it?” religion–with emphasis on secret knowledge, enlightenment, etc. I’ll be an equal opportunity offender by saying I am seriously turned off by the “Jesus saves” version of Christianity. In both cases, it seems to be all about me.</p>

<p>I think that the more religion gets into mysteries, secret knowledge,and “salvation”, the less it has anything to do with Jesus’ radical call to act–the rest seems like navel-gazing to me. So gospels like St. Thomas seem to get away from the central call to do good. Thus, secret knowledge about what really happened that the “inner circle” knows, and the rest of the world is ignorant of, just doesn’t resonate for me. I’m sure that’s my failing, but there it is. </p>

<p>So I’d love to accompany you and that trip, but I don’t know that I’d get the same messages out of it.</p>

51

<p>“I think that the more religion gets into mysteries, secret knowledge,and “salvation”, the less it has anything to do with Jesus’ radical call to act–the rest seems like navel-gazing to me.”</p>

<p>Hey, my biases are clear: I’m a Quaker. Jesus’ life provides A (some say “the”) paradigm for living, and you can gain by studying his life and teachings. We are big on the Sermon on the Mount. The rest is speculative. He said he was the son of God, and explained exactly what he meant by it: “Blessed are the Peacemakers - For they are the Sons of God.”</p>

<p>The folks in Marieh made no money off their little grave site; the folks in Srinagar guarding the tomb make no money off it; the Thomasine Catholics have lived peacefully with their neighbors for 2,000 years. Thomasines aren’t gnostics, and they have no knowledge of the Gospel of Thomas whatsoever (except what they read in National Geographic.)</p>

52

<p>As I said, I’m not an expert. I’d read up some on Thomasines, and the ones I read described themselves as a kind of gnostics. i’d assumed since you traced them to Thomas that they connect to the Thomas gospel–I see that is not correct.</p>

<p>I pretty much base my “religious” view on the Sermon on the Mount, also. I think I would resist the story which says that Jesus didn’t really die, but actually moved away, as a little deflating (I don’t need a death, but I’d be disturbed by a deception). His followers, esp close friends like Peter, would then have been heartbreakenly misled. It just doesn’t seem to fit his character.</p>

53

<p>Perhaps we should just call them “St. Thomas Catholics” to distinguish them from the Thomasine ones.</p>

<p><a href=“SBOBET: Situs Judi Bola Sbobet88 & Judi Online Terpercaya”>SBOBET: Situs Judi Bola Sbobet88 & Judi Online Terpercaya;

54

<p>some “genre” books I think have some of the best writers.
Dorothy Sayers comes to mind and Sarah Caudwell- both highly educated mystery writers although that was not their primary occupation.</p>

55

<p>Garland nails it square that TDVC is badly written. And is the first person anywhere who has mentioned something I hooted at: Langdon has only one hour’s sleep and then runs through a thriller-chase scenario with mental faculties and physicality for the rough-and-tumble fully intact. </p>

<p>I’m not much older than his character’s age and I’d tell the incipient mystery to come back at 10am after I’ve had a full night’s sleep and my morning tea.</p>

<p>EK, I agree with you about some “genre” writers being outstanding writers period: Mary Renault, John LeCarre, Larry McMurtry, and at least a dozen SF writers.</p>

56

<br>

<br>

<p>Langdon got one hour’s sleep? What a wimp! (From someone who is watching Jack Bauer and the season ending episode of 24 tonight)</p>

57

<p>ellemenope, I was thinking exactly the same thing! Jack makes Robert look like a total slacker. :)</p>

58

<p>Jack Bauer vs. Billions of Chinese…my $$ is on Jack!</p>

59

<p>I admit I haven’t read it or seen the movie- but this makes it sound like fun!
Now as I haven’t read it- I can only presume it contains spoilers ;)</p>

<p>

<a href=“Log in”>Log in;

60

<p>ROFLMAO !!</p>