'Da Vinci Code'et al....Is the public really that gullible?

[Draka]

Why is it when I see things like this it automatically reminds me of Dan Quail scolding Murphy Brown? If people argue with a work of fiction, as adamently as certain churches are doing, it makes THEM appear the gullible and ridiculous ones...not the mass of population. ALL fiction must have some basis in reality and fact. Otherwise we would have nothing to go on to make up from there. Even science fiction has boundaries we adhere to as what we percieve as life and being. Just because some factual (or BELIEVED to be factual) information is used as a backdrop or foundation to a fictional story doesn't make it any less fictional.

 

[bunny1ohio]

There are, in fact, Christians I've talked to, who debate its factuality. I'm sure there are many more, not familiar with Biblical source texts, biblical criticism, and the history of the Church, who are now making assumptions about Christianity, based upon a "factual" reading of this book. I'm sure there are many who, believing the book to be factual -- or even a credible source of historical accuracy, are using the credibility of this story to refute the truthfulness of traditional Christianity.

The concern here is that people may be misled by a false assumption, based upon a false credibility given to a fictional story. It's not the story that is being shushed, as you say, so much as the factual credibility of the story.

No, it wouldn't have that much of an effect on the religion, but it might have a wide impact on the credibility of the religion, and on the Biblical sources of the religion. That's where the harm would lie.

We do question the sources -- that's why there's controversy surrounding the Judas text -- there's question as to its veracity. In truth, there is still ongoing questioning of canonical texts, too.

*Cheeky grin*... sorry sojourner didn't mean to get your panties in a twist.... I guess the best way to get about what I'm trying to say is that if you walk into any given library or bookstore... it is shelved in the FICTION section of the store. I'm wondering why people would even let it affect their faith in their church or beliefs... unless they are fanatics of course... but those are a completely different ball-game there. And so what if someone uses the book to refute Christianity? Does that mean they are right? No. Does it mean you can't talk circles around them and point out all the little fictitious things in the book and show them where they are mistaken? No. Does it mean you will change the minds of those who buy into it as a conspiracy theory (about church cover-ups not necessarily the grail story)?..... again unfortunately ... No.

But by raising such a ruckus over this book the church only draws attention to it instead of away from it. People hear them shouting from the rafters all over the news and such that this book is FAKE its FICTION its NOT REAL.... and people wonder.... what's all the hype about? Why are they so worried about a story? THEN... they begin to question... not because of the book itself... but because of the church's overwhelming reaction to the book.

Again... who cares about the factual credibility of the story?.... It's a story... that's all. Why should the facutality of this one book be so all-important when it encourages people to read up about their religion? It encourages them to question their beliefs, yes... BUT it also encourages them to talk to their church leaders and ask questions they may not have thought about before and taken on faith alone. Is that a bad thing? :areyoucra

How would it impact the credibility of the religion? You said yourself it wouldn't truly hurt the religion one way or another if it were proven that Christ was married and had a family. And just among the small populace on the board... I would say the credibility of the original books and their sources are already in question and have been for a very long time.... so again.... what difference does it make? :hug: Sorry for pushing your buttons so much soj.... you're one of the better debaters on here and you're always so... errmmm... emphatic about what you say I just can't help myself lol

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings redux!

What exactly is Baha'i? I keep seeing it mentioned on the board, but what is the difference between that and regular Christianity?... Just for curiosity's sake lol

In brief, the Baha'i Faith is the newest world religion (we just entered year 163 on the Baha'i calendar about three weeks ago).

Its primary teachings are what we call the “Three Onenesses":

1. The first is the oneness of God. There is only one God, known by different names in different languages and cultures. God is unknowable by human means; the only knowledge of God possible to humankind is that brought by His divine Messengers.

2. The second is the oneness of humankind: there is only one race, the human race, and we are members of one family.

3. The third is the oneness of religion. All the major religions of the world are divine in origin, sent by God as stages in a single evolving divine plan, the Faith of God.

All Baha'is world wide accept and believe in both Christ and the Bible, though what we actually follow is the 200 volumes of the Baha'i scriptures revealed by Baha'u'llah (our Founder) and the other central figures of the Baha'i Faith (you can see these at www.bahai-library.org by clicking on "Baha'i Writings, and another, more general site is www.bahahi.org for those who are interested).

And the primary difference between the Baha'i Faith and mainstream Christianity is that we believe that Christ's promise that He had more to tell us and so would send the Spirit of Truth to teach us more was fulfilled by Baha'u'llah, Whom we see as the Return of the Christ Spirit with the new name the Bible prophesied, thus fulfilling the prophecies about the Second Coming.

BTW, the books I mentioned before that I have online explain these fulfilled prophecies in great detail (as well as containing the mentions of possible reinterpretations of the significance of Mary Magdalene and Judas Iscariot). I'll be most happy to email them to you or anyone else who'd care to send me an email address and request them!

There are many other teachings in the Baha'i Faith, but I won't monopolize the traffic here by posting them now. For those who are interested, I refer you to the "Baha'i Faith" heading under the "Abrahamic Religions" category in this forum. (But I'll send you an overview, Bunny, along with a website list.)

So... what does being a "veiled" apostle mean? I don't understand the reference there.

It means that it's possible that Jesus gave Mary Magdalene the status of Apostle like the Twelve, but that her status wasn't proclaimed or otherwise publicized by them. This makes sense given the view of women at that time.

(This is also analagous to the Jewish tribes in the Tanach <Jewish scriptures> and Old Testament, where Dinah apparently held the same status as the other founders of tribes but wasn't publicized--and hence, was "veiled." This is also discussed in--guess where! --the books I'm offering to email.)

And I love the fact that you seem to be keeping an open mind about what could be possible or not, and the fact that more research into these topics couldn't hurt instead of strictly jumping up and saying "NO that's wrong! :149: It must be this way because my book doesn't tell me that!" :biglaugh:

I try.

This is in part because I'm a Baha'i, in that another of our central teachings is what we call Individual Investigation of Truth: this means that every person has the right and obligation to investigate the various religions, decide where the truth lies, and follow that! And no one else--including parents--has the right to force this decision on anyone. For this reason, we Baha'is have no clergy or hierarchy whatever. Anyway, derivative of this, I endeavor to be open-minded about things not yet proven.

And it certainly didn't help that these two books, which were written by someone else but for which I did the indexes, specifically mentioned both of these possibilities decades ago! So neither the Mary Magdalene nor the Judas speculation is at all new or shocking to me....

Nice post... and nice to meetcha Bruce

Thank you, and likewise, I'm sure!

Best,

Bruce

 

[sojourner]

*Cheeky grin*... sorry sojourner didn't mean to get your panties in a twist.... I guess the best way to get about what I'm trying to say is that if you walk into any given library or bookstore... it is shelved in the FICTION section of the store. I'm wondering why people would even let it affect their faith in their church or beliefs... unless they are fanatics of course... but those are a completely different ball-game there. And so what if someone uses the book to refute Christianity? Does that mean they are right? No. Does it mean you can't talk circles around them and point out all the little fictitious things in the book and show them where they are mistaken? No. Does it mean you will change the minds of those who buy into it as a conspiracy theory (about church cover-ups not necessarily the grail story)?..... again unfortunately ... No.

But by raising such a ruckus over this book the church only draws attention to it instead of away from it. People hear them shouting from the rafters all over the news and such that this book is FAKE its FICTION its NOT REAL.... and people wonder.... what's all the hype about? Why are they so worried about a story? THEN... they begin to question... not because of the book itself... but because of the church's overwhelming reaction to the book.

Again... who cares about the factual credibility of the story?.... It's a story... that's all. Why should the facutality of this one book be so all-important when it encourages people to read up about their religion? It encourages them to question their beliefs, yes... BUT it also encourages them to talk to their church leaders and ask questions they may not have thought about before and taken on faith alone. Is that a bad thing? :areyoucra

How would it impact the credibility of the religion? You said yourself it wouldn't truly hurt the religion one way or another if it were proven that Christ was married and had a family. And just among the small populace on the board... I would say the credibility of the original books and their sources are already in question and have been for a very long time.... so again.... what difference does it make? :hug: Sorry for pushing your buttons so much soj.... you're one of the better debaters on here and you're always so... errmmm... emphatic about what you say I just can't help myself lol

Don't apologize -- you're not really pushing my buttons. Maybe we don't have the whole story here. Maybe there's some important controversy that i'm not aware of. My denomination certainly has not made a big deal out of the book. I don't know why others are.

I think part of the concern may be that some are reading The DaVinci Code and taking it as "gospel truth," or using it to refute some part of the theological infrastructure. Both of those things are OK, as long as there is some fact inherent there. But there just is no fact in that particular conspiracy story. why "cloud the issue" with fantasy?

It's a great story, but I think there's a problem when we try to make it look some kind of credible source. That's what causes people to doubt the other, truly credible sources.

 

[Bishka]

Don't apologize -- you're not really pushing my buttons. Maybe we don't have the whole story here. Maybe there's some important controversy that i'm not aware of. My denomination certainly has not made a big deal out of the book. I don't know why others are.

I think part of the concern may be that some are reading The DaVinci Code and taking it as "gospel truth," or using it to refute some part of the theological infrastructure. Both of those things are OK, as long as there is some fact inherent there. But there just is no fact in that particular conspiracy story. why "cloud the issue" with fantasy?

It's a great story, but I think there's a problem when we try to make it look some kind of credible source. That's what causes people to doubt the other, truly credible sources.

Agreed. My denomination isn't taking it all too seroiusly either, why should they, if it threatens your faith, like I said, it's your problem, not the books.

Yes, unforutnatley the guilliable masses will think otherwise, but do I see anyone stepping up to the plate trying to dispel myths about the LDS Church, about LHP (like Danisty's), about Paganism and Wiccanism. Yes, it is done, but not as much as it should be.

It's a book, and I think it would be better if those efforts that are being put into that book, would be better put into the religious sector, and showing the people that's not what they believe, or maybe it is.

Focus on something other then fictional books that aren't going to affect anyones salvation one way or another.

:flower: :flower: :flower:

 

[maggie2]

Having read the New Testament many times and the da Vinci Code once I can say that IMO both are great works of fiction.

It seems to me that the Church is making much ado about nothing because they are afraid of the book. The Church doesn't get up in arms unless something threatens their hold over people. They don't want the doctrine of the church questioned. Period.

I find it totally amusing to watch the church squirm and twist over this book, trying to condemn it. It is truly humorous to see such distress from church leaders over a work of FICTION!!

 

[bunny1ohio]

Thank you, and likewise, I'm sure!

Best,

Bruce

Thanks for all the great info Bruce... I'll hafta look into some of this and get reading... It sounds like the way you describe your religion is very similar to the way I believe (other than belief in Christ as the son of G-d)... but definately something I will be reading up on

 

[bunny1ohio]

I think part of the concern may be that some are reading The DaVinci Code and taking it as "gospel truth," or using it to refute some part of the theological infrastructure. Both of those things are OK, as long as there is some fact inherent there. But there just is no fact in that particular conspiracy story. why "cloud the issue" with fantasy?

It's a great story, but I think there's a problem when we try to make it look some kind of credible source. That's what causes people to doubt the other, truly credible sources.

I agree completely. Personally I think anyone who uses a fictional novel as a basis to argue against a theological institution needs something better to do with their time. The premise that Christ may have married and born children has been a topic of discussion for many years, and I think this book just really brought it into the foreground of people's thought. The church having such a tizzy fit over the book I think is only causing more harm than good though, because like I said... it makes people wonder WHY they are so upset over a fiction novel and it encourages people to question and dig deeper to find out the answer to that why...

That may be why they are trying to use it to dispute theology (although that makes no sense to me), because they think there MUST be some truth to it for the church to react so strongly.... I would say of course there's a grain of truth in there or else it wouldn't grab people's attention so completely. There have been instances of the church covering up things that they felt could be detrimental to the theology of the religion, and we know not only information but people were suppressed and condemned by the church as heretics for even questioning the church in the past.

I think all this contributes to the books popularity and controversy. If everyone would just step back and research the pieces of the book that are in contention, most would see that it is simply what it is presented as... a work of fiction. Too many people nowadays though are (please pardon me, but I don't have a better word for this) just plain lazy and want someone else to do the work and research for them. Maybe they think that this author has done the research already (without checking WHAT research he did) and that's why they are trying to use it as a factual reference? :bonk:

 

[Halcyon]

Ahhh... okey dokey then.... that makes things about clear as mud :biglaugh: No seriously though I get what you mean.... so exactly what is a Gnostic then? A different kind of Christian or is it another religion entirely? I've never really heard anybody define Gnosticism before. LOL

Gnosticism in brief is a search for truth. We don't believe/worship in the God of the OT, instead we believe in a much higher power.
We study the gnostic teachings of Christ, of Mani, the path of Buddha and any other relevant teachings we can find. Our goal is to become one with God while still on Earth through Gnosis, which means 'knowledge' in the sense of realisation/insight/enlightenment. Head over to the Gnosticism forum for more info.

 

[Popeyesays]

The non-fiction book on which the NOVEL is based is cited in The Da Vinci Code.

Holy Blood, Holy Grail is far more sensational than The Da Vinci Code as it suggests that Jesus did not die on the cross. At least The Da Vinci Code did not attempt that claim. So the loudest shouters should give the author of the novel a couple of kudos for restraint.

"Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, and Richard Leigh, authors of The Messianic Legacy, spent over 10 years on their own kind of quest for the Holy Grail, into the secretive history of early France. What they found, researched with the tenacity and attention to detail that befits any great quest, is a tangled and intricate story of politics and faith that reads like a mystery novel. It is the story of the Knights Templar, and a behind-the-scenes society called the Prieure de Sion, and its involvement in reinstating descendants of the Merovingian bloodline into political power. Why? The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail assert that their explorations into early history ultimately reveal that Jesus may not have died on the cross, but lived to marry and father children whose bloodline continues today. The authors' point here is not to compromise or to demean Jesus, but to offer another, more complete perspective of Jesus as God's incarnation in man. The power of this secret, which has been carefully guarded for hundreds of years, has sparked much controversy. For all the sensationalism and hoopla surrounding Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the alternate history that it outlines, the authors are careful to keep their perspective and sense of skepticism alive in its pages, explaining carefully and clearly how they came to draw such combustible conclusions. --Jodie Buller "

Regards,
Scott

 

[bunny1ohio]

Gnosticism in brief is a search for truth. We don't believe/worship in the God of the OT, instead we believe in a much higher power.
We study the gnostic teachings of Christ, of Mani, the path of Buddha and any other relevant teachings we can find. Our goal is to become one with God while still on Earth through Gnosis, which means 'knowledge' in the sense of realisation/insight/enlightenment. Head over to the Gnosticism forum for more info.

Thanks Hal! I'll do that... it sounds interesting... I've heard people refer to the "Gnostic Gospels" and such and have even read through some of them, but never exactly got the difference between a "Gnostic" gospel and a regular one Very odd to classify the gospels no matter how strange they may sound to us or to the church... I think gospel is gospel... if it's part of the story it should be included.... but I won't ramble :biglaugh: Thanks for the info Hal and I'm gonna take you up on that one

 

[bunny1ohio]

The non-fiction book on which the NOVEL is based is cited in The Da Vinci Code.

Holy Blood, Holy Grail is far more sensational than The Da Vinci Code as it suggests that Jesus did not die on the cross. At least The Da Vinci Code did not attempt that claim. So the loudest shouters should give the author of the novel a couple of kudos for restraint.

Very well said Popeye... Isn't one of the reasons they believe that Christ survived the crucifiction to be an old old painting? One of the first known paintings of the crucifiction depicts them taking his body down from the cross with a night sky behind them. The fact that it was night-time belies the fact that he died on the cross because in Christ's day it was considered VERY bad to touch a dead body after dark... I don't remember the whole story, but it was something along those lines right? And I have seen a copy of the painting in question and would definately say it was night in the painting... please jump in here and help me out

 

[Halcyon]

Thanks Hal! I'll do that... it sounds interesting... I've heard people refer to the "Gnostic Gospels" and such and have even read through some of them, but never exactly got the difference between a "Gnostic" gospel and a regular one. Very odd to classify the gospels no matter how strange they may sound to us or to the church... I think gospel is gospel... if it's part of the story it should be included.... but I won't ramble :biglaugh: Thanks for the info Hal and I'm gonna take you up on that one

No problem bunny . They're called gnostic gospels because they were not included in the orthodox bible and because some of them were written by gnostic christians.

 

[Booko]

Any religion that cannot bear to be brought to scrutiny and cannot hold up to being compared to another religion... well let's just say that's not a church I would want to join

Tell it, bunny1! :clap:

 

[bunny1ohio]

Tell it, bunny1! :clap:

:biglaugh: Preach to the people Booko! :curtsy: :takeabow:

 

[Booko]

Ahhhh.... Sojourner speaks .... The point of the thread sojourner, I think anyways, is that everyone KNOWS the book is a work of FICTION.... it is not an attempt to undermine Christian history. People already know it is a work of fiction... so why all the hubbub by the Church to shush up this book when it only draws attention to it?

While the hubbub may be overdone in some quarters, I remember when "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was published. That's the work of (allegedly) nonfiction that was a large part of the inspiration for Da Vinci Code.

I knew a few people who took that seriously at the time, even though the history was laughably off track. And believe it or not, there are actually some people who think the background info for the fictional story holds some water.

I really don't have a problem with Christians, and esp. leaders in the faith, trying to defend their faith and put some correct information out there.

I just hope they don't go too overboard and start looking silly while doing so, that's all.

 

[Squirt]

I was surprised to see the apparent need for the Archbishop of Canterbury's denouncing of the Da Vinci code; do you think we do need 'wetnursing' by our religious leaders?

Well, I have kind of mixed feelings on this issue. On one hand, I really, really hate censorship. I believe that adults don't have the right to tell other adults what's appropriate for them to read, watch and listen to. On the other hand, I do believe that on matters of morality and spirituality, Church leaders (it doesn't matter which church you're speaking of) have the right, and maybe even the responsiblity, to comment. But, in the end, I think each of us has the right to make our own decisions on these issues.

 

[Booko]

I think all this contributes to the books popularity and controversy. If everyone would just step back and research the pieces of the book that are in contention, most would see that it is simply what it is presented as... a work of fiction. Too many people nowadays though are (please pardon me, but I don't have a better word for this) just plain lazy and want someone else to do the work and research for them. Maybe they think that this author has done the research already (without checking WHAT research he did) and that's why they are trying to use it as a factual reference? :bonk:

I dunno, Bunny1...it seems that this was a popular work long before anyone in Christianity said much about it. I didn't read it for several years, and then finally got it from the library and read it. It's a darned good page turner, and I think would be just as popular with or without any comments from Christian leaders.

I guess compared to the fuss over "Last Temptation of Christ" the this seems like no reaction at all.

Though it's possible that in some regions there's more fuss than there is around here.

 

[Popeyesays]

Very well said Popeye... Isn't one of the reasons they believe that Christ survived the crucifiction to be an old old painting? One of the first known paintings of the crucifiction depicts them taking his body down from the cross with a night sky behind them. The fact that it was night-time belies the fact that he died on the cross because in Christ's day it was considered VERY bad to touch a dead body after dark... I don't remember the whole story, but it was something along those lines right? And I have seen a copy of the painting in question and would definately say it was night in the painting... please jump in here and help me out

I do't think the painting shows night-time, but rather the darkness that was reported - in the middle of the afternoon = after Christ expired.

Interestingly enough (to me anyway) was the similar darkness in the middle of the day when the Bab was executed in the barracks square of Tabriz. A huge storm rolled in right after they cut down the body of the Bab, and enveloped the men who pitched the corpse into the old moat around the city. The darkness continued until dawn the next day which allowed the faithful Babi's to retrieve the body and hide it successfully.

It was actually TWO corpses that were retrieved, because the Bab and one of His followers were tied together on a rope and exposed to the fire from 600+ muskets. The bodies were so badly damaged that they could not be taken apart - though both faces were hardly touched by bullets. This is shown in a pencil sketch made by the order of the Russian ambassador to Persia at the time. The sketch is not displayed publicly, but resides in the Archives building at the Baha`i World Center in Haifa.

Regards,
Scott

 

[bunny1ohio]

I dunno, Bunny1...it seems that this was a popular work long before anyone in Christianity said much about it. I didn't read it for several years, and then finally got it from the library and read it. It's a darned good page turner, and I think would be just as popular with or without any comments from Christian leaders.

I guess compared to the fuss over "Last Temptation of Christ" the this seems like no reaction at all.

Really? I had never even heard of the book until I heard about it on the news how the church was up in arms over it and rebuking it as a fraud. But, then again I'm not so much into scanning through book reviews or new releases.... I had just not heard of it before that.... Although I did hear about Holy Blood Holy Grail.... I think that one is quite a bit older than the DaVinci Code though... which one did you mean?

Again very true.... which is another one I don't understand.... I mean I know they were upset about them portraying Christ as a "normal" man with the whole family thing etc.... but why be upset when the movie says he turned those things down and the whole movie was basically the last temptation thrown to him by S-you-know-who and he refused it.... it made a LOT of sense to me.

But then.... Christ as a normal mortal man makes a lot more sense to me than a divine one... but that's back to my personal beliefs, so I'll leave that alone