Why was the DiVinci Code so bad?

[Phil Lawton]

But if believers understand that it isn't true, what care they how non-believers see/interpret it?

I'm an atheist, but I didn't read it thinking "Great!! This'll upset the buggers..."

It's a novel, pure and simple....if some people can't grasp that, then it's their loss, mate.

 

[Willamena]

Nowhere in the Lord of the Rings is the claim made that it is based on fact - the Da Vinci Code makes precisely those claims about its central claims. In other words it might be fiction but it is touted as historical fiction when it's anything but.

James

But it's which facts that it's based on that people misrepresent. This is from the author:

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.

http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html

 

[McBell]

Nowhere in the Lord of the Rings is the claim made that it is based on fact - the Da Vinci Code makes precisely those claims about its central claims. In other words it might be fiction but it is touted as historical fiction when it's anything but.

James

Fair enough.
Now if you would be so kind as to present who is claiming what as fact...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You mean those non-existent imaginary writings?

For the umpteenth time, the Council of Nicea did not even consider the issue of the canon of Scripture far less settle it (the first council to try and do that wasn't until much later) and didn't ban or suppress any texts whatsoever. Where on earth does this complete nonsense come from? Just because the ignorant incessantly repeat the accusation doesn't make it true, it's just a good indicator of who has the barest grounding in Church history - anyone who claims that Nicea suppressed texts is basically wearing a sign that says 'Ignore everything I say because I haven't a clue'.

James

oops my mistake.......

I was reading some of the decrees but I meant to say Council of Trent.

I believe it was there where the books were decided upon.

Even so....I would still like to get some of the other stories and letters written, if any are still in existence.

 

[ChristineES]

I think the Da Vinci Code caused a lot of people who had weak faith to question their beliefs. It was just a book and later a movie, for goodness sake!
We do not know if Jesus was married, it isn't mentioned in the 4 gospels. I am going to say that I just don't know. I assume he wasn't married since a wife or in-laws are not mentioned, but you never know.

 

[James the Persian]

Fair enough.
Now if you would be so kind as to present who is claiming what as fact...

The who is obvious - Dan Brown. The what is more difficult because, firstly, he's deliberately vague and secondly he's changed his tune since so many people started protesting his so-called scholarship. Early on he was publicly saying things like all of the history was true, 99% of it was true and that it wouldn't have been any different if he'd written it as non-fiction, though, so to claim that Dan Brown wrote and marketed the book as pure fiction is unsustainable. He clearly meant to portray the basis for his novel as fact. There can be absolutely no doubt about it. Just as there can be absolutely no doubt about the fact that there's barely a single historical claim in the book that actually stands the light of scrutiny.

Having said that, as I stated from the beginning in this thread I couldn't care less how many ignoramuses believe the so-called 'history' in the Da Vinci Code. I do consider Dan Brown to be duplicitous and to have a personal agenda which is inimical to our faith, however, and the book and film undoubtedly served to promote a quite staggering number of heresies. That's all very well for those who make no claim to be Christian but for someone like Tom Hanks, claiming as he does to be Orthodox, to take part in it is beyond the pale. I reserve by far my striongest criticism for his hypocrisy and unfaithfulness and, as I have heard nothing to the contrary even from those who attend the same church, for his priest's lack of an adequate response to that promotion of heresy on his part.

James

 

[James the Persian]

oops my mistake.......

I was reading some of the decrees but I meant to say Council of Trent.

I believe it was there where the books were decided upon.

Even so....I would still like to get some of the other stories and letters written, if any are still in existence.

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

 

[McBell]

The who is obvious - Dan Brown. The what is more difficult because, firstly, he's deliberately vague and secondly he's changed his tune since so many people started protesting his so-called scholarship. Early on he was publicly saying things like all of the history was true, 99% of it was true and that it wouldn't have been any different if he'd written it as non-fiction, though, so to claim that Dan Brown wrote and marketed the book as pure fiction is unsustainable. He clearly meant to portray the basis for his novel as fact. There can be absolutely no doubt about it. Just as there can be absolutely no doubt about the fact that there's barely a single historical claim in the book that actually stands the light of scrutiny.

Having said that, as I stated from the beginning in this thread I couldn't care less how many ignoramuses believe the so-called 'history' in the Da Vinci Code. I do consider Dan Brown to be duplicitous and to have a personal agenda which is inimical to our faith, however, and the book and film undoubtedly served to promote a quite staggering number of heresies. That's all very well for those who make no claim to be Christian but for someone like Tom Hanks, claiming as he does to be Orthodox, to take part in it is beyond the pale. I reserve by far my striongest criticism for his hypocrisy and unfaithfulness and, as I have heard nothing to the contrary even from those who attend the same church, for his priest's lack of an adequate response to that promotion of heresy on his part.

James

Perhaps you have a link or two where Dan Brown himself, not one of his promoters or anyone else 'speaking for him', actually says something of the like?

 

[doppelganger]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/25/sm.21.html

Though I would add, Dan's "99 percent true" claim is no more or less ridiculous than any other faith claims, whether regarded as "orthodoxy" or "heresy."

 

[McBell]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/25/sm.21.html

Though I would add, Dan's "99 percent true" claim is no more or less ridiculous than any other faith claims, whether regarded as "orthodoxy" or "heresy."

Thank you for the link.

Unfortunately for me, you have already pointed out the next step.

 

[James the Persian]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/25/sm.21.html

Though I would add, Dan's "99 percent true" claim is no more or less ridiculous than any other faith claims, whether regarded as "orthodoxy" or "heresy."

If you say so (though given the absolute impossibility of many of his claims being even vaguely true, I disagree) but that does not alter my points which were that a.) Dan Brown did not intend the work to be pure fiction at all and b.) that people who claim to be Christians, such as Tom Hanks (and in his case he specifically had to renounce all such things at his conversion - I know as I've done the same), have no place promoting those views. Whether you believe them or not is really irrelevant to my main point which is that Tom Hanks, as an Orthodox Christian, should never have had anything to do with that film and the fact that he did should have earnt him censure.

James

 

[doppelganger]

If you say so (though given the absolute impossibility of many of his claims being even vaguely true, I disagree)

How do you reconcile that methodology of testing the veracity of knowledge when it comes to such things as "virgin birth," "resurrection of the dead," etc., etc.?

 

[Panda]

I'm sorry but it is a book(and a film which is terrible). It is actually quite a good book, not as good as Angels and Demons but still a good book. The thing is it is a work of FICTION. If you are going to start complaining about this book maybe you should start complaining about other works of fiction? Harry Potter maybe? Lord Of The Rings? The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy "trilogy".

 

[doppelganger]

If you are going to start complaining about this book maybe you should start complaining about other works of fiction? Harry Potter maybe? Lord Of The Rings? The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy "trilogy".

. . . the Gospel of John . . .

 

[Willamena]

The who is obvious - Dan Brown. The what is more difficult because, firstly, he's deliberately vague and secondly he's changed his tune since so many people started protesting his so-called scholarship. Early on he was publicly saying things like all of the history was true, 99% of it was true and that it wouldn't have been any different if he'd written it as non-fiction, though, so to claim that Dan Brown wrote and marketed the book as pure fiction is unsustainable. He clearly meant to portray the basis for his novel as fact. There can be absolutely no doubt about it. Just as there can be absolutely no doubt about the fact that there's barely a single historical claim in the book that actually stands the light of scrutiny.

Fiction can be based on fact.

Edit: He's saying that the history that he did include in the story is true, not that the story he wrote is that history.

 

[doppelganger]

Fiction can be based on fact.

And vice versa. :rainbow1:

 

[Willamena]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/25/sm.21.html

Again, in that link he's specifying which bits he considers to be "99 percent true" when he says, "All of the architecture, the art, the secret rituals, the history, all of that is true, the Gnostic gospels. All of that is -- all that is fiction, of course, is that there's a Harvard symbologist named Robert Langdon, and all of his action is fictionalized. But the background is all true. "

He doesn't claim that the conclusions that the fictional character comes to are included in the "99 percent true."

 

[James the Persian]

He's saying that the history that he did include in the story is true, not that the story he wrote is that history.

I know what he's saying and it's a lie. The 'history' is not true. There are, in fact, so many elementary errors, all of which miraculously aline themselves perfectly with his anti-Christian neo-gnostic agenda, that the history is not even approaching true. His knowledge of the early Church is woefully inadequate, his ignorance of the entire Christian east is even worse. The man is no scholar and certainly no historian. His claims are, almost completely, false.

However, you are all completely missing my point which wasn't that the Da Vinciu Code should have been banned or the like (though I do think that that would have been an artistic service to the world as it's truly awful) but that Tom Hanks, and other supposed Christians, have no place promoting such heresy. 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.

James

 

[FFH]

Nice posts James...

I would frubal you again if I could.

 

[kadzbiz]

According to a poster......Why is it 'such a production'? Excluding acting, etc., Why is this storyline so horrible?

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.