The Da Vinci Code

[Oily]

Ninja said:

I should've been more clear I guess - I was referring to people who believed in both. Whoops.

I guess they logic it out with themselves. Perhaps they believe in fate or a scientific explanation for it *shrug*

Ninja said:

Al, how do you know these facts are true? ;D

Well, a painting and the references in it are true because you can see it or perhaps even read da Vinci's own words. And the secret society could have evidence, like diaries of members or something. *shrug* I don't know; I haven't read it.

[Stal]

Oily said:

Well, a painting and the references in it are true because you can see it or perhaps even read da Vinci's own words. And the secret society could have evidence, like diaries of members or something. *shrug* I don't know; I haven't read it.

Not having read it myself, I'm keeping that as an option, but I'm still waiting to hear about the facts. I mean, sure a contrived reference may be present...but that doesn't mean it means what they say it does, if you understand what I'm saying.

[althechia]

Tdyans said:

In that his disciples were the beginning of the Church, yes. I can't really argue with people who say "prove it" or "where's the direct evidence"? To a Christian, the Bible is the proof. It is indisputable, the word of God, revealed through men. That takes a leap of faith, and I realize that not everyone believes it, so it's not really something that I can or want to debate about.

But if we're discussing what is said in the Bible, then I can respond. In the Bible, he performs miracles (and the fact that they defy logic is what makes them miracles and kind of the point), and he gives the moral teachings that everyone is referring to, but all of the authority and reason for those moral teachings and miracles rests in the basis of his claim that he is the Son of God (not "a God," the God-- I don't know if that might have been a typo, but it's an important point, so I had to clarify). What Lewis is saying is that you can't pick and choose what you want to believe of what Jesus said (and again, I'm referring to the Bible); you can't separate out his moral teachings and ignore his claims to divinity. If you argue that parts of the Bible may be wrong/exaggerated/whatever, and maybe he never said that he was God in real life... then can't it also be argued that he never gave any of those "moral teachings" besides that as well? You have no proof for either as you define proof. What you do have presents the two things together, dependent on each other, inseparable. You have to take it all or leave it all.

Like I said, there are people who probably disagree with Lewis' "all or nothing" challenge and believe there are other ways of looking at it, and I wasn't/am not really trying to start an argument or antagonize anyone. This post is really just... clarification, I guess. And the last was food for thought.

So, you're saying you can't learn from Christ unless you're Christian? That the bible is an absolutely worthless peice of trash to everyone but you guys?

And yes, I have no proof that he didn't claim to be the son of God either.

[althechia]

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

HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE?
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 Louvre pyramid, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpretted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that the theories discussed by these characters 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.

[althechia]

www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/excerpt.html

FACT:

The Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.

The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic group that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brain-washing, coercion, and a practice known as "corporal mortification." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

[althechia]

Ninja said:

Al, how do you know these facts are true? ;D

Sure, maybe these references are real. But were they interperted right? I mean, I can say that The Village is an allegory based on post-9/11 America. The references in the works are all there...for me. But it may not be true as I've misinterperted that whole thing anyway.

Seeing as how I really don't know the references referred to and how clear they are, I can't comment too much on that. But where's the proof that this society existed? The proof that this society, if it did exist was as powerful as stated and had the members it's believed to have.

The Bible says that all it's facts are true. Not something you take to be true at all. Yet a Fictional book can say its facts are true and you have an easier time believing that? And you're taking the author's word for it, too! Wow.

It's funny in a very ironic sense.

You know, I've never read the Bible, so I can't really dismiss it as quickly as you have the Da Vinci Code. I cannot claim to have any authority on it, so I trust everything you say about it, but I also consider you a little biased since you're Christian.

So, you must have read the book cover-to-cover, and have some heavy evidence discrediting all of the author's sources to be able to make such a bold statement as you've made about his work. I'd like to see your research on the topic, as I've been too lazy to really do any beyond linking to the author's website, which has a bibliography on it, by the way.

I'm not comparing this book to the bible, certainly, but the author has definitely done some research. This fiction is rooted in fact. And yes, all of these facts are interpreted by the characters, who each have their own biases. But still, they're very convincing interpretations. At least, for me.

I'm happy that our society allows enough space for us to form our own opinions based on all the information we get. Sure, they might not be the truth, but who's to say they aren't either?

[Stal]

Okay, Al...so these documents and so forth exist, I'll give you that.

Now prove to me it's real. Prove to me that the Priory of Sion was more than just something they found on a piece of parchment. How can you so easily accept the existence of that organization (and it's members) and so forth when the only records are via ancient parchments and the like...

And then disregard the Bible that has existed for even longer and not just 'found'? That's something most people don't realize...the Bible just didn't appear. It just didn't get 'found'. It's been around forever. As history went on, more accounts were added to it and so forth. But these scriptures have been there for quite a long time! Moses himself wrote the Pentatuech (SP...) (The first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). Yet it is so easily disregarded in many people's minds.

Yet all this other stuff is not a problem to accept.

It confounds me to no end how people rationalize it.

EDIT -- This was typed before Al's final post in the series was posted up.

[Stal]

Classic said:

You know, I've never read the Bible, so I can't really dismiss it as quickly as you have the Da Vinci Code. I cannot claim to have any authority on it, so I trust everything you say about it, but I also consider you a little biased since you're Christian.

So, you must have read the book cover-to-cover, and have some heavy evidence discrediting all of the author's sources to be able to make such a bold statement as you've made about his work. I'd like to see your research on the topic, as I've been too lazy to really do any beyond linking to the author's website, which has a bibliography on it, by the way.

I'm not comparing this book to the bible, certainly, but the author has definitely done some research. This fiction is rooted in fact. And yes, all of these facts are interpreted by the characters, who each have their own biases. But still, they're very convincing interpretations. At least, for me.

I'm happy that our society allows enough space for us to form our own opinions based on all the information we get. Sure, they might not be the truth, but who's to say they aren't either?

Al, I've not made any bold statements regarding his work. Other than the fact I find the mere idea of it to be blantantly wrong and I have my own reasons for such. Personal miracles and experiences where I can feel God working in my life? That's enough for me.

I make note that I've not read the book nearly every time I post. If you're referring to the post that you quoted, where's the bold statements? I'm asking you the questions since you were the one who read it. And I'm still waiting for the answers on some of them. It's still amazing to me that someone can trust something some wrote about so easily or trust their interpertations of writings and so forth...and then disregard the Bible just as easily. It's so funny (in that ironic sense) yet sad, too.

So, by all means, continue to research. You claim to be lazy, but if you're the one who wants to believe it...why leave the researching to the author? Why not prove it to yourself? I expect nothing less from Christians, either. I expect a Christian to prove their beliefs to themselves other than taking their pastor's/preacher's word for it. So, as far as I'm concerned, ball is in your court.

[althechia]

Ninja said:

Al, I've not made any bold statements regarding his work. Other than the fact I find the mere idea of it to be blantantly wrong and I have my own reasons for such. Personal miracles and experiences where I can feel God working in my life? That's enough for me.

I make note that I've not read the book nearly every time I post. If you're referring to the post that you quoted, where's the bold statements? I'm asking you the questions since you were the one who read it. And I'm still waiting for the answers on some of them. It's still amazing to me that someone can trust something some wrote about so easily or trust their interpertations of writings and so forth...and then disregard the Bible just as easily. It's so funny (in that ironic sense) yet sad, too.

So, by all means, continue to research. You claim to be lazy, but if you're the one who wants to believe it...why leave the researching to the author? Why not prove it to yourself? I expect nothing less from Christians, either. I expect a Christian to prove their beliefs to themselves other than taking their pastor's/preacher's word for it. So, as far as I'm concerned, ball is in your court.

Alright then. What questions are unanswered about the book? I'd be more than happy to answer them.

Blah. I shouldn't say I have deep, deep faith in everything the characters in the book claim. That, I don't. You've actually challenged me to think about what I really do put deep faith in, and I'll have to think about that.

About forming my own theories about religious history; that would actually be something very interesting to do. I wouldn't want to prove the theories in the Da Vinci code, though.

I've looked at a lot of other people's ideas about the origins of the Bible, God, and all religion, but I haven't really formed my own. I think I'll make a project of it during school this year. I probably won't make any trips to Jerusalem or have any conferences with the Pope, but the school has a library, and it's not like what I've heard has no merit, including what I've heard from you.

Um...I'll get back to you in November.

And you should read it! It's a fine peice of work despite its flaws. The author's purpose for writing it was to invoke debate like we just had. ;D

[Tdyans]

Classic said:

So, you're saying you can't learn from Christ unless you're Christian? That the bible is an absolutely worthless peice of trash to everyone but you guys?

Not exactly. And like I said, I wasn't and am not trying to get into a debate about this really. I was just stating what Lewis said-- which is basically just that Christ never intended to be seen as just a moral teacher, which doesn't discount the fact that you can learn morality from Him-- and then expounding on it, while leaving open the possibility that people can certainly find ways to disagree with it, as several posters have shown. By all means, don't take it as a statement that you or anyone else should never look at the Bible because it's a "worthless peice of trash" unless you see it the way I do. I'm sorry if I offended-- that wasn't my intent.

You bring another interesting memory to mind, though. I had more than a few English professors in college who insisted that every English major should read the Bible because it has so much bearing on so much literature from just about every period, and there are tons of allusions that you'll miss without that background knowledge. Just a completely unrelated tangent that popped into my head.

[Stal]

Classic said:

Alright then. What questions are unanswered about the book? I'd be more than happy to answer them.

Actually, right now I think they've been answered. The most part it was how you accepted it, or how other people do so easily. It's mostly rhetorical, but you answered your part no problem.

Blah. I shouldn't say I have deep, deep faith in everything the characters in the book claim. That, I don't. You've actually challenged me to think about what I really do put deep faith in, and I'll have to think about that.

About forming my own theories about religious history; that would actually be something very interesting to do. I wouldn't want to prove the theories in the Da Vinci code, though.

I've looked at a lot of other people's ideas about the origins of the Bible, God, and all religion, but I haven't really formed my own. I think I'll make a project of it during school this year. I probably won't make any trips to Jerusalem or have any conferences with the Pope, but the school has a library, and it's not like what I've heard has no merit, including what I've heard from you.

Um...I'll get back to you in November.

That's all I wanted to do. Ask questions that you could answer, or that would make you stop and think about the results of.

And you should read it! It's a fine peice of work despite its flaws. The author's purpose for writing it was to invoke debate like we just had. ;D

I'll consider it. I have many other books to read and that thing is just thick. XD So it looks a bit daunting. But who knows.

[althechia]

Ninja said:

I'll consider it. I have many other books to read and that thing is just thick. XD So it looks a bit daunting. But who knows.

I was up all night to finish it. The language can get very technical at times, but it reads so fast it's over before it starts.

[Deleted]

SLE said:

But the thing is - Christians believe that God created these laws of physics. God is superior - basically, He can do anything. So why can't he be immaterial? He created physics, so He has the right to defy them, yes?

You say your parents have had encounters with ghosts, which conflicted with what you call the law of physics. So, because of that, you say you can't deny their existence or admit to it. But you still deny the existence of God because He wouldn't exist due to physics. What if your parents had a spiritual encounter with God? Would you actually wonder if there might be a God just like you wonder about the ghosts, or would you call your parents off their rockers? I'm really curious, here, as well as trying to make an argument.

I don't think ghosts are immaterial. I don't know what they are, but I think they're material. That's why they have force and temperature.

As for my parents seeing God, I'm not sure. It'd depend on what happened. If they saw a vision while they slept, then it's obviously a dream.

[Oily]

Ninja said:

Okay, Al...so these documents and so forth exist, I'll give you that.

Now prove to me it's real. Prove to me that the Priory of Sion was more than just something they found on a piece of parchment. How can you so easily accept the existence of that organization (and it's members) and so forth when the only records are via ancient parchments and the like...

And then disregard the Bible that has existed for even longer and not just 'found'? That's something most people don't realize...the Bible just didn't appear. It just didn't get 'found'. It's been around forever. As history went on, more accounts were added to it and so forth. But these scriptures have been there for quite a long time! Moses himself wrote the Pentatuech (SP...) (The first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). Yet it is so easily disregarded in many people's minds.

But that's the thing. People found ancient parchments telling them these things. You can carbon date them to prove they're from that age. You can evaluate them against other sources. They're perhaps untouched since they were written hundreds of years ago.

But the Bible has been around forever. It's probably been added to, translated into and out of languages, been edited and changed, to reflect the biases of the time or of the translator. And, in the end, the Bible has been a piece of ancient parchment too.

Ninja said:

I expect nothing less from Christians, either. I expect a Christian to prove their beliefs to themselves other than taking their pastor's/preacher's word for it. So, as far as I'm concerned, ball is in your court.

But how do Christians prove their beliefs? Have they all gone back to where Jesus lived, to root around for historical evidence? Have they ever tried to properly trace back all the myraid of versions of the Bible, right back to its very roots? Can they prove that someone saw Moses sit down and pen bits of it? They can prove it all they like to themselves, but proof may not convince others. Just as the author proved to himself the Da Vinci code existed, and you are refuting it. Proof is such a hard thing, and I think belief comes in absence of it and eagerly gathers up any shreds of evidence that then fall into its path.

Uh, and I'm not asking for you to prove the Bible to me I think it's enough for people to believe in things - to question their faith a little, sort out in their mind what they truly think, and then believe in it. Proof is too hard sometimes.

[Deleted]

Ninja said:

And then disregard the Bible that has existed for even longer and not just 'found'? That's something most people don't realize...the Bible just didn't appear. It just didn't get 'found'. It's been around forever. As history went on, more accounts were added to it and so forth. But these scriptures have been there for quite a long time! Moses himself wrote the Pentatuech (SP...) (The first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). Yet it is so easily disregarded in many people's minds.

Wait a second...Moses wrote the book of Genesis? But was that years before his time, like a couple hundred or thousand?

Gee, what great credibility he has.