Why was the DiVinci Code so bad?

[Dirty Penguin]

For Roman Catholics. That council is well post-Schism and has no relevance to anyone in the east. It also excluded no books at all but rather defended the existing canon against Protestant moves to reduce it.

As for the stuff that wasn't included in the canon, much of it still exists. Some of it is still considered valuable by the Church. Some of it even is considered canonical in certain churches. There simply was no Dan Brown style conspiracy to produce the Bible we have and, to be honest, most of what you might be interested in can be found online pretty easily. Just don't make the mistake of thinking there was ever any doubt about the sorts of texts found at Nag Hammadi. Most of those were denounced as heretical forgeries almost as soon as they appeared, in marked contrast to the texts that ended up in the canon, and even some that did not.

James

Yeah.... I hear ya....I was doing some research the other night and came across some of the "scriptures" that have been translatted and was pleased to read the information and the styles inwhich they were written. I find them all to be an interesting read but I wouldn't quote them as gospel. The reason for that is they aren't generally accecpted. It would be foolish to quote something that isn't recognized by others or quoting something others have never heard of before.

I do have question though....What makes the scriptures of the bible more acceptable?

The reason I ask is most of the scriptures' authors are unknown... so what makes one believe that the information is accurate?

Are they accepted because they were supposedly written after the deathe of Jesus?

opps...I did say one question didn't I?...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I watched it. I liked it. It's just a movie. A fictional movie. I wish people would just get over it and stop taking it so seriously like it was some documentary.

I agree....

 

[Willamena]

My point was that Tom Hanks should have been unable to remain in good standing with the Church until he repented. Even those of you who are gullible enough to have swallowed all the 'history' should be able to understand that reasoning.

I don't gullibly swallow anything in a work of fiction. It's purpose is just to entertain.

There simply was no Dan Brown style conspiracy to produce the Bible we have and, to be honest, most of what you might be interested in can be found online pretty easily.

That would not be a part among the part claimed as "99 percent true." It would be among the conclusions drawn by the fictional character.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Fiction is a form of fact.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Fiction is a form of fact.

Oh, and also vice-versa!

 

[Phil Lawton]

Oh, and also vice-versa!

Good catch, that man.

 

[Booko]

Since when? Last time I checked absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Who even said there was absence of proof? "Tradition" is just another word for "history" really.

One can question the reliability of particular traditions, religious or otherwise, but when there is some great weight in one direction, historians typically lean in favor of it being more reliable.

 

[Booko]

The DaVinci Code might have been bad religion for some, but for others (like me) it was good entertainment.

Also, don't be so easily dismissive: much of the "fallen Woman" myth which surrounds the story of M. Magdalene is derivative of the Sophia odyssey from Gnosticism, and in the tale Sophia is the Bride of Christ and representative of the Sacred Feminine.

Well, and he is quite correct that the in Western Europe Mary Magdalene was conflated with the woman taken in adultery. In the Eastern Church, MM is considered a saint and her background is not so tarnished.

 

[michel]

From an Orthodox point of view, it was a collection of a startling number of heresies portrayed as fact. I couldn't care less who watches or believes that dross, but no Orthodox Christian in good standing should have been involved in it - hence my comments about Tom Hanks. Given the blatant misrepresentation of certain aspects specific to the Roman Catholic faith (such as the portrayal of Opus Dei), they probably would have even more than I to say on the matter.

James

But James, it was fiction; everyone one was aware that it was so. Don't you think that "methinks he dost protest too much"?.............you know, I have never understood why Noddy and bigEars books were banned at one time (alledgedly because of an insinuation that the two had a homosexual relationship).......I have re-read my baby books from cover to cover, and still don't understand what is so vile.............

I think people are too quick to take offence, and see evil where it was not intended.

My view on this is that no publicity is bad; anyone with half a cent's worth of common sense is going to buy into the fiction - but, as with any form of controversy, it makes people interested in the true subject matter.............

 

[Booko]

It's like an idiot's version of Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco. It lacked the historical grounding, the complexity and the artistry of Eco's work and tried to make up for it with theatrics. Yuck.

Eco is a much better writer and actually does his research.

DaVinci is more of a fictional rehash of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail."

 

[Booko]

My view on this is that no publicity is bad; anyone with half a cent's worth of common sense is going to buy into the fiction - but, as with any form of controversy, it makes people interested in the true subject matter.............

The flip side of that, Michel, is that at least here there are such large numbers of people who purport to be Christian that really have no idea about the basis of Christianity and certainly nothing about history and tradition. (The stats put out in the recent book "Religious Literacy" are truly mind-numbing.)

If people don't take the next step and do their homework, they actually can be misled by what they read in a book and see in a movie. I've actually met people who take all this stuff seriously and now believe that Christ was married and had progeny and it's all an evil plot of some religious leaders back when to stamp out "the truth." The concern about DaVinci is not wholly unmerited.

I don't suppose that's the movie's problem, though. If individuals fail to do their work and dig to see if the ideas have any merit, it's on them, and I'd never suggest banning such a work as "dangerous" because some people actually believe what Hollywood puts out there. :cover:

 

[michel]

I don't suppose that's the movie's problem, though. If individuals fail to do their work and dig to see if the ideas have any merit, it's on them, and I'd never suggest banning such a work as "dangerous" because some people actually believe what Hollywood puts out there. :cover:

I guess you are right; I remember hearing about "The Day of the Triffids" when it was broadcast on the radio, when apparently some listeners thought they were listening to real news.

Mush the same can be said of those who listen to advertisments about how caring and kind the credit card industry is, and how they will lead one to a paradise of fast, nice cars, beautiful women, and all the other pleasures normally denied to "Mr financially challenged".......I guess people hear what they want to hear.

 

[Booko]

I guess you are right; I remember hearing about "The Day of the Triffids" when it was broadcast on the radio, when apparently some listeners thought they were listening to real news.

Do you mean "War of the Worlds" here in the U.S.? Or did you have a similar craze in the UK over Triffids?

That was in the 30s here. These days, if you want to hear real news you have to watch the fake news on The Daily Show and the Colbert Report.