CountVerilucus Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I just finished reading it, good stuff. Even if it was a fiction, it had some very enlightening material. What do you guys think? It wouldn't surprise me much if some content were true, every organization has something or will have something to hide. With an organization as influential and old as the Church, I'm sure they have a couple "skeletons in the closet". No offense to any Christians here (I was a Catholic myself, but left the church long before I read this book). I also believe in the fact that the bible should be interpreted metaphorically and philosophically. Not literally, like the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. The Bible has many good life teachings. But isn't a good source for accurate historical accounts all time. That's just what I think, hope nobody is offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I'm only on around chapter 8 so far but I'm really liking it so far I'm a Catholic but I know the book is fiction so it still makes for a good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 its a good novel. its well written, and it moves at a good pace. the ideas presented aren't very accurate historically, but Brown does put forth some interesting ideas none the less. being a Christian, my view of the novel is that you read the novel for the entertainment value. the novel may really run up against Christianity, but since the ideas presented aren't true (aka, fiction), i've never particularly understood the outcry against it. some people might get offended by it, but it really didn't deserve the controversy its recieved. the movie, on the other hand, was one of the most boring movies i've seen in my life. i think that the only movie that was more sleep inducing would have to be 'Alexander'. it was also missing that nice pacing the novel had. and despite some big names on the payroll, the acting wasn't as good as it should've been. definately not the way the summer movie season should've started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Spoilers ahead for those who haven't seen the movie or finished the book yet. I enjoyed bothe book and the movie. I've always liked adventure/treasure hunt stories so this was appealing to me. Many times I, as well as a few people I was with in the movie, had to chuckle over what was told regarding the Holy Grail. It does a good job at trying to get you to believe what they're saying is true by opening sentences with such lines as: "Some scholars believe...", or "Scientists agree...". Though a lot of the people I know were very intrigued about the Last Supper painting in the "Teacher's" house, all of the answers regarding why there is no chalice on the table or why John appears to be so feminine can be found via google and in countless books. They took these relatively known features and used them against an audience unfamiliar with the painting(s) in the first place. It was a very clever tactic. Also, this story about Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene is not a new story. None of what he claims is original to him and has all been done and said before. Check out such books as Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation in case you're interested. Also, the "Priory of Sion" and its list of "grand masters" has been proven to be fraudulent documents. The Frenchman that created these documents in the 1950's even came forward and said they were not true. Then Brown tries to back his claims by using gnostic gospel passages that aren't even recognized by the Vatican as true gospels. Not to mention, the verses we were given do not prove anything about Jesus's relationship with Mary: "He often kissed her on the ______", as depicted in the gnostic gospel of Phillip. Kissed her on the what? Lips? Cheek? Forehead? Who cares? He kissed many people in the same places, not just Mary Magdalene. Ironically, Brown never quotes anything from the New Testament where Mary is often talked about, as well as her relationship with Christ and the other apostles. Again, Brown has taken fictional books, combined them, added a nice adventure plot and sold it to the public; a public that's very gullible and willing to suck up and believe any type of conspiracy theory. All-in-all, though, a good book. And movie. Amazing soundtrack (one I'll have to buy at some point, if it comes out), entertaining action, and good acting. I am a little worried, though, that the younger kids will read/see the story and will think it's the truth when it's far from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 LOL, Doc's doing Satyagraha. I loved The Code, it was a quality novel. I didn't find it particularly enlightening, since I'm a non-Christian and I don't give a damn whether Jesus had a bloodline or not. The book in itself, though was a good and engaging read. It keeps you on the edge of your seat, and Brown's masterful writing makes you wanna constantly keep reading it. What's even more interesting is the chilling fact that all locations in the book are completely real-to-description. But what's sad is, the story is just one of his recycled stories he's used in Digital Fortress and Deception Point and reused in Angels & Demons. For those who haven't read, let me tell what's common - 1. One male and one female protagonist. 2. One antagonist, whom you least suspect to be. 3. One character made to look like the antagonist, but is actually an ally. 4. One ruthless, wordless and mindless killer. 5. One real and controversial organisation. 6. (Atleast) One example of ultra high-tech weaponry/technology. There are many more, but I won't mention them here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountVerilucus Posted May 25, 2006 Author Share Posted May 25, 2006 Well I've never read his other books so I wouldn't know. I'm going to see the movie despite what stingerhs says. But it can't be as boring as Alexander or Artificial Intelligence (AI was one of the biggest waste of time in my life) if youve read the book, can it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 ^^^^ one of the biggest problems was content. yeah, they stayed true to the novel, but they also managed to cram way too much content from the novel into the movie. and, by the way, that movie is about 2 hrs and 40 mins. so, that's a lot of stuff to cram into that much time. all it did was to really slow down the pace of the story. parts of it have that thriller aspect to it, like the novel, but the vast majority of the movie was just downright dull. i'm not trying to say "don't go see it" for several reasons. first, its your decision in the first place. second, its not a bad movie; it's just a boring movie which makes things quite less entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I also believe in the fact that the bible should be interpreted metaphorically and philosophically. Not literally, like the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. The Bible has many good life teachings. But isn't a good source for accurate historical accounts all time. That's just what I think, hope nobody is offended. I was OK with it up until this paragraph. I'll even give you that the Church has its share of nasty little skeletons hanging around in closets. One only has to see the issue of the recent lawsuits over child sexual abuse to know that this is an organization run by imperfect humans (and it is not limited to the Catholic church, unfortunately--they just have the biggest organization and the deepest pockets for a lawsuit). Anyone who says their church is perfect a. isn't following Biblical principles and b. is lying. I do take exception with the comparison of Biblical literalists to those people over at Westboro. I've lived in Topeka, KS, and seen these people in action. I guarantee you that both as someone who takes a pretty literal view of the Bible and someone who has more experience with Westboro members than probably anyone else here, I can safely say we have extremely little in common other than we both have read the Bible. They are not literalists in the truest sense of the word, because Fred Phelps has chosen to take certain verses, magnify or minify their importance or ignore correct context, generally inappropriately in order to suit his particular way of life. No where in the Bible does it say stand around on street corners with your kids (young ones!!) holding up borderline obscene signs, yell hateful slogans at soldiers' funerals, and beat your wives and children to a pulp if they happen to disagree with what color socks you have on that day or they don't serve you your breakfast quickly enough. He has attempted to mold the Bible to the way he wants to live, rather than the other way around, and the negative consequences are obvious. Literalists choose to try to conduct their lives according to Biblical principles, not adjust them in relativistic fashion to suit their own whims and feelings. Historical inaccuracies--that's an entire thread in itself, and obviously I disagree with the statement that it is historically inaccurate. I'd like to discuss that, but another thread or a PM would be a better place for it because of the complexities and controversy. Da Vinci Code itself--it's a very hot topic in the evangelical community. It's such a hot topic that that I can't turn on Moody radio without hearing something about it at least once an hour if not more, which I'm finding almost tiresome after a number of weeks now. Many evangelicals are upset with the portrayal of Christ and are very worried about people believing some of the "facts" in the book and movie, even knowing full well that it is fiction. I'm probably one of the few people in my church who plan on seeing the movie when my schedule finally frees up enough where I can get a babysitter and go, chiefly because I don't feel bothered by the pseudo-religious issues--my faith isn't going to be altered by some fiction. Some people in my church are upset by the movie's treatment of Christ, which they feel is disrespectful and/or blasphemous, and don't want to contribute financially by attending the movie or buying the book. I'm certainly not upset by their choice, and I respect their decision. All they're really missing is a few hours of reading or movie-watching if they don't read/go to the movie--no big deal. I really want to see what Tom Hanks does with the character and observe the historical sites more than anything else, along with seeing some entertaining fiction. If nothing else, the movie has sparked some serious interest in religious discussion, which I'm finding quite fascinating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 It was an entertaining read. I was glad to see that he didn't pull any punches in regards to the gradual paternalization of religion that took place as Christianity's influence grew. I was also glad to see that he didn't demonize pre-Christian religions and popularized how many Christian practices, etc were taken directly from predecessors. I feel that Brown's general assertions of factualness are rather foolhardy. His theories definitely make for entertaining reading, but I don't think that they should be taken too seriously in and of themselves. If nothing else, I think that the book might cause more people to spend more time thinking about Judeo-Christian prejudices (I use the term loosely) toward women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachineCult Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Maybe add another option inbetween "Yes, a quality novel and enlightening" and "No, it offended me". Thats a pretty big gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ztalker Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 *spoiler alert* I've read it too, but i found it a bit far-fetched...the Mona Lisa as a clue? I've been in the actual Louvre some years ago, and other places in Paris they visited, and only some of the things mentioned in the book are real. Da Vinci the leader of the Illuminati? Yeah right...that wouldn't make sense at all. It's just like the rumour that the Mona-Lisa is a self-portrait, in female form. What bothers me the most is that people actually believe this conspiracy theory. it's a very good book, but not realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTV2 Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 if u read the Da Vinci Code, read Angels & Demons. it's about Robert Langdon's "first adventure" and builds up who he is... Da Vinci the leader of the Illuminati? Yeah right...that wouldn't make sense at all. It's just like the rumour that the Mona-Lisa is a self-portrait, in female form. it never says that Da Vinci is the leader of the illuminati. i think Galileo is the leader of the Illuminati. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-1162 Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 the Illuminati was a Satanic cult (read angels and demons). anyway, the DVC was a great book, though only for its level of fiction. the only thing that i was enlightened bout was that Brown would use popular conspiracy theories to make money. im not condemning him or anything, the book was a good read. ive read digital fortress also and like Sabretooth said, all the things he listed are there in common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ztalker Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 @ MTV2, sorry, my bad You guys are again refering to a fictional book about the illuminati How would Dan Brown possibly know about them? he wan't like an eye-witness or something I'll read it though...Robert Langdon to own ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I haven't read Angels and Demons, but I heard it's really good, better than the DaVinci Code. As for the Code, it was a really interesting read and I'm sure there's some truth in it. Every church was, in its history, ultimately about power over the people. It doesn't seem they (the churches of different religions) have that power now, but take a closer look - they really try to stay close to power, but don't ask for it directly. There must be something they hid in order to maintain that grip on power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremia Skywalk Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I didn't realy like that book, well it was better, than most of Brown's books but it still didn't seem to be quality literature at all. It didn't offend me in any way or anything like that, but i can't realy say i liked it. Of course this might just be beacause i read the book about that supercomputer by Dan Brown later and it realy sucked, it felt like he thought i am an idiot and wouldn't understand all the "mysteries" so explained anything and everything 25 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 You guys are again refering to a fictional book about the illuminati Angels and Demons are about the Illuminati. The DaVinci Code is about the Knights Templar and the Priory of Sion. Same guy is in both of them. The DaVinci Code I read before Angels and Demons and I found it to be quite interesting and enlightening. True some of the things that Dan Brown uses are inaccurate but I checked out his source list (researcher here) and some of the authors are reputable scholars. I did research on the things he mentioned and I came up with some good hits which eventually led me to start reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Coming from a person who was taught how to read for pleasure in a family that only reads one book, the Bible, I've gained alot of insight on various styles. This book I thought was a good one and it sparked such a controversy in response that it makes me wonder how much people really do criticize it. Well, the ideas Brown mentions are authentic, they have been proposed and backed with evidence so who knows? My two creds worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 All of the bottom three. I refuse to have it in my house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Then you refuse to accept that religion isn't completely what it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Then you refuse to accept that religion isn't completely what it seems. Why is there something wrong with saying 'I don't agree with it, I have a religious objection to it, and I don't wish to financially support it?' Is that any different than refusing to buy coffee that's not organically shade grown because you don't want to support serf-style labor? Or different than refusing to buy any items that contribute to pollution? Or refusing to wear fur because of the way animals are treated? I fail to understand how this equates with your statement above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I'd understand that someone doesn't like this book because that someone found evidence that this book presents inaccurate information as facts (because there are cases of this), or that this book speaks bad on religion because its author has something against it. But, to say you're offended by this book because it suggests a different story than the one you like, well that I just can't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-1162 Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 it just contradicts 2000 years of christianity, so obviously there will be objections. and everyone has the freedom of speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Oh Boy now we are getting into natural law here. The way I saw the book was that it presented another possibility. History is written by the winners I think Teabing says in the book and that what the Templer and the Priory had was merely another version of the same set of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Yeah, I mean basically what the book claims is that Christ had descendants and that his blood line endures even today. That's why I can't understand people who are offended by that. I mean, if I was religious, I'd be happy that there's a possibility that a figure like Christ had descendants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 ^ But the 'fact' that Christ had a child proves his mortality, somehow. I still don't see how Jesus couldn't be both Divine and a father, but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.