The "controversy" on the Da Vinci Code

[richter915]

Well...we live in a society of ignoramouses (wtf?) who can't discern between fact and fiction so of course, this book of fiction has exploded all over people's faces and turned into an unnecessary issue making some "holy" men very very rich. Read my blog (http://blog.myspace.com/17142315)response to this whole issue and post here as to how you feel.

here's the article anyway:
To stupids who complain about the Da Vinci Code...stfu kthx?


Srsly...I've had enough of people sitting around and bitching saying that a book of FICTION is indeed NOT FACT. If you people had the tiniest bit of education...like, fourth grade...you would know this shit isn't true.

This book is a NOVEL. Do you people know the definition of a novel? Before you go write a million books to counter me on this, here's the definition of NOVEL (from Dictionary.com): A fictional prose narrative of considerable length, typically having a plot that is unfolded by the actions, speech, and thoughts of the characters.

Now, I'm sure many of you don't know what fictional means so here's that one too: An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented. To you slack-jawed inbreds..that means NOT REAL.

So, ya, many of you are now saying "but Jamaican me Crazy, what about his FACT page omg omg omg zomg" ya shut up...again, if you could read you would realize that his FACT page does nothing but say that "the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture" are all real. Is that not true, or did Dan Brown think up the Mona Lisa and Last Supper paintings to destroy your "faith"? Here's an example of what is true vs. what is made up in this novel. Dan Brown says that Da Vinci was a member of the Knights Templar (or Opus Dei I forget things at my old age)...Truth: Da Vinci existed and drew pretty pictures. Not True: Him being a member of some organization. He makes this claim to further his story. Some people think it might be disrespect but you all stfu...it's called historical fiction. I'm sure Ben "the Nazi" Franklin turns over in his grave when people say he got shocked by lightning but no one complains there.

My biggest complaint on this issue is the plethora of books released to counter this and it's typical of the ignorant in the US. People, who probably know all the shit I just said, who write these books to "crack" the Da Vinci code...they're the worst. They don't know simple definitions. They don't know when to stop and say "good thing this is a FICTIONAL STORY" Instead...they look and say "omg, leik, he jus says Christ had maaaaaaaaad biches lolol. I kin rite bookz on dis rofl $$$" I guess in these peoples' defense...they do take the Bible (another book of FICTION) literally. So ya, if you believe in talking bushs, women made from men's ribs, and a 5000 year old Earth...you already suffer from some kinda mental disability so...it's no surprise you eat this shit up. You're a cunt.

Also, read Brown's FAQ on this whole issue, he gives some wholesome responses that you should all read: http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html

[richter915]

bump, I want people to see/read this.

[aminorthreat55]

I've watched way too many Da Vinci Code specials in the last 2 weeks.

[FallingOut]

Anybody who actually takes any of this stuff as real is insane. The Bible is clearly a fictional novel, as well as Da Vinci.

[noodledancer]

i haven't read the book, but it seems people confuse the facts in the book (ie: the existence of various pieces of art & locations) with the fiction (the plot). my parents went to paris a couple years ago, & heard people saying shit like "omg! everything's where they say it is in the book!" like they thought dan brown invented europe or something.

as for the "controversy," people just like drama- especially when they can profit from it.

[richter915]

I've watched way too many Da Vinci Code specials in the last 2 weeks.
they've been all over the place. Anything to make a buck, it makes me sick. "Debunking" a fictional novel, oh man, nice job.

[maledixtion]

The book ruled, the movie sucked.

[maledixtion]

Well...we live in a society of ignoramouses (wtf?) who can't discern between fact and fiction so of course, this book of fiction has exploded all over people's faces and turned into an unnecessary issue making some "holy" men very very rich. Read my blog (http://blog.myspace.com/17142315)response to this whole issue and post here as to how you feel.
The book itself is fiction, but it has a lot of factual information. It left a lot out though. Jesus was never crucified for example.

[richter915]

The book ruled, the movie sucked.
I wanted to see the movie but it's getting really bad reviews...how can you interpret an adventure novel poorly? the book was written like a movie in my mind.

[richter915]

The book itself is fiction, but it has a lot of factual information. It left a lot out though. Jesus was never crucified for example.
Of course...the fact within the book revolves around factual places and groups...but nothing beyond that should be taken as fact and Brown never asserted it as fact.

[dai the flu]

The book itself is fiction, but it has a lot of factual information. It left a lot out though. Jesus was never crucified for example.
i originally missed this. im interested in how you came up with this though.

[richter915]

i originally missed this. im interested in how you came up with this though.
i'm actually curious of that. If you go by the Bible, then yes he was, but maybe that's not true based on history records?

[ArTkY_]

In Islam Jesus wasn't crucified.

[richter915]

ya, but nobody knows what happened in reality apparantly.

[dai the flu]

i'm actually curious of that. If you go by the Bible, then yes he was, but maybe that's not true based on history records?
well we've had this discussion before on here. there are a few sources outside of the bible that confirm this, which typically would be plenty of proof to corroborate any historical event from so long ago. but for some unknown reason, when it comes to jesus, people like to dispute these things.

[maledixtion]

In Islam Jesus wasn't crucified.
Christianity is the only religion that claims Christ died on the cross. Every other one believes he either wasn't crucified or didn't die on the cross, he was taken down and Simon of Cyrene put up in his stead.

Most of what the Da Vinci Code says is historically accurate, although some names and groups have been changed.

In depth analysis of European history, released secret files from the Vatican, and 1st century texts reveals too many linked inconsistencies that provide a true history of events at odds with those canonized by the Vatican.

[dai the flu]

Christianity is the only religion that claims Christ died on the cross. Every other one believes he either wasn't crucified or didn't die on the cross, he was taken down and Simon of Cyrene put up in his stead.

and this is proof that jesus wasnt crucified?

[ArTkY_]

and this is proof that jesus wasnt crucified?
Its just a different perspective.

[maledixtion]

and this is proof that jesus wasnt crucified?
I could explain the full history of events that proves it but it would take 3 hours to explain just the abridged version. 2000 years of history is hard to summarize appropriately.

[richter915]

I could explain the full history of events that proves it but it would take 3 hours to explain just the abridged version. 2000 years of history is hard to summarize appropriately.
I think it's doable...as long as your source of facts isn't the Bible (or any other Holy Book).

[dai the flu]

i could be wrong, i dont have the time to double check this, but im sure the only references to jesus from non-biblical sources at or near his lifetime (tacitus, josephus...) all mention jesus being crucified. then of course you have the gospels themselves which claim to be eyewitness accounts.

now really id like to know where this idea that he wasnt crucified came from?

[cal1082]

i could be wrong, i dont have the time to double check this, but im sure the only references to jesus from non-biblical sources at or near his lifetime (tacitus, josephus...) all mention jesus being crucified. then of course you have the gospels themselves which claim to be eyewitness accounts.

now really id like to know where this idea that he wasnt crucified came from?

you're somewhat right. i dont know if they all mention him being crucified but many do.

[Shatter590]

one must also take into account this:

Stavros, the greek word for cross, also is the greek word for stake. i know some denominations believe christ was impaled.

[dai the flu]

one must also take into account this:

Stavros, the greek word for cross, also is the greek word for stake. i know some denominations believe christ was impaled.
yeah another word used in the bible for it literally means "tree" or "timber", there's no mention of a cross specifically. the idea that jesus died on a cross is more a tradition than an established fact.

maledixtion, are you disputing the way he was killed (cross, stake etc...)? or that he was even killed at all?
maybe i misunderstood.

[oldwirehands]

Anybody who actually takes any of this stuff as real is insane. The Bible is clearly a fictional novel, as well as Da Vinci.

As our past is also fictional.

[Broken Parachute]

I'm Catholic so I've been basically taught my whole life this is what happened. Just because people have doubts, I'm not going to change my whole religion..even if I'm wrong, it's still my religion and I'm going to follow it.

And the story is obviously a fictional story, people just blow things up worse than they need to be. Tom Hanks even said it's a fictional story and he knows it. The only people who won't admit it's fictional are Dan Brown and Ron Howard.

[catscradle]

The thing people are all up in arms about is that he is trying to present the book as fact. All those books made to counter these beleifs don't just counter Dan Brown, but also counter many other works that lay claim to these beliefs, such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail. People see it as a direct attack on the catholic religion and see the film and story as an attempt to scrutinize Catholic beliefs.

Also, i've never heard of this Jesus not being crucified theory. There are many historical accounts that credit his death to be by crucifixion, those ranging from the Bible(which countrary to what many think is an excellent account of historical events, just b/c its a "holy" book doesn't mean everything it says has to be discredited) to the writings of Josephus. I'm interested in hearing this theory though, so enlighten all of us b/c i am really curious about this.

[richter915]

As our past is also fictional.
what you mean like, textbooks and stuff? if so I say I partly agree...they're not pure fiction because there're historical records of these events...we're just given one perspective to almost any issue...the winners write the history books.

[richter915]

The thing people are all up in arms about is that he is trying to present the book as fact. All those books made to counter these beleifs don't just counter Dan Brown, but also counter many other works that lay claim to these beliefs, such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail. People see it as a direct attack on the catholic religion and see the film and story as an attempt to scrutinize Catholic beliefs.

Also, i've never heard of this Jesus not being crucified theory. There are many historical accounts that credit his death to be by crucifixion, those ranging from the Bible(which countrary to what many think is an excellent account of historical events, just b/c its a "holy" book doesn't mean everything it says has to be discredited) to the writings of Josephus. I'm interested in hearing this theory though, so enlighten all of us b/c i am really curious about this.
what? no he's not. he's trying to present a fictional idea in a fictional novel...he's not pushing anything as fact at all...see again, I wish you'd have read some shit about this. Go read the link and see what Brown asserts as fact. The problem is that the retarded Christian populace (not all Christians, just the retards) like to pretend Brown is pushing fact on them but he's not.

[open mind]

i don't see what the big deal is, it's like writing a book about george washington and the founding fathers really just wanting to steal land through ethnic cleansing and get away from taxes, then cloaking our nations founding in freedom for everyone........bad example i guess.
okay it's like writing a book where george washington made first contact with aliens, took on a alien lover, then traveled the galaxy spreading freedom flowers.
and that is my 9,200th post HOORAY!

[maledixtion]

I shouldn't have said he was never crucified. I should have said, "didn't die on the cross". According to many Gospels in the Nag Hammadu scrolls Jesus was removed from the cross by Mary Magdelene, John the Baptist, John of Arimathea, and a group of Essenes who paid the Roman soldiers to turn a blind eye, and then Simon of Cyrene was put up in his place.

In the Apocryphal of John there is a section written by Jesus adressing this, calling the Romans fools and laughing at them.

[dai the flu]

I shouldn't have said he was never crucified. I should have said, "didn't die on the cross". According to many Gospels in the Nag Hammadu scrolls Jesus was removed from the cross by Mary Magdelene, John the Baptist, John of Arimathea, and a group of Essenes who paid the Roman soldiers to turn a blind eye, and then Simon of Cyrene was put up in his place.

In the Apocryphal of John there is a section written by Jesus adressing this, calling the Romans fools and laughing at them.

i know myself i dont view the apocryphal books as being reliable. they were never recognized as part of the bible canon, even in the 1st century, so anything found written in them i take with a grain of salt. there's really no basis for believing that they are legitimate historical records.

but interesting enough, not to bash catholics, but even though on the one hand they claim the same, not to give any credence to the apocryphal books, it appears a lot of their internal doctrines have been derived from them, such as the celibacy of priests and so on.

[catscradle]

what? no he's not. he's trying to present a fictional idea in a fictional novel...he's not pushing anything as fact at all...see again, I wish you'd have read some shit about this. Go read the link and see what Brown asserts as fact. The problem is that the retarded Christian populace (not all Christians, just the retards) like to pretend Brown is pushing fact on them but he's not.
In the link you posted Dan Brown himself says "While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit... 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." If that doesn't sound like he's trying to get people to question their faith i don't know what does. He's definately pushing the book as a plausible occurence and directing people to question the catholic church's historical teachings. You can't deny that. He mocks religious groups such as Opus Dei and openly admits to it, stating that it is his own interpretaion of past interviews and books. It's quite easy to see how people find it disrespectful. I think you need to take a step back and consider having more of an open mind like you are asking everyone else to have.

[dai the flu]

In the link you posted Dan Brown himself says "While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit... 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." If that doesn't sound like he's trying to get people to question their faith i don't know what does. He's definately pushing the book as a plausible occurence and directing people to question the catholic church's historical teachings. You can't deny that. He mocks religious groups such as Opus Dei and openly admits to it, stating that it is his own interpretaion of past interviews and books. It's quite easy to see how people find it disrespectful. I think you need to take a step back and consider having more of an open mind like you are asking everyone else to have.

i think you just reaffirmed what richter said. brown has never said that any of this was fact.
does he want people to question the church? absolutely.
is that wrong? no.
its not wrong to investigate your beliefs. in fact its necessary. how do you know that what you've been taught is the truth? and what would you do if you found out it wasnt?

[richter915]

In the link you posted Dan Brown himself says "While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit... 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." If that doesn't sound like he's trying to get people to question their faith i don't know what does. He's definately pushing the book as a plausible occurence and directing people to question the catholic church's historical teachings. You can't deny that. He mocks religious groups such as Opus Dei and openly admits to it, stating that it is his own interpretaion of past interviews and books. It's quite easy to see how people find it disrespectful. I think you need to take a step back and consider having more of an open mind like you are asking everyone else to have.
I see how you can interpret it like that, but again nowhere in there does Brown say that he's pushing fact upon people. All Brown did was take a bunch of real groups and paintings and think up an original (but fake) idea to relate them all...in doing so he wants people to just talk about it like we are but at the end of the day know that none of it is real. Many people have actually read the book and looked more into their own faith and answered their own questions...I mean, we don't see historians, art scholars, and iconographers up in arms about this whole issue...the Christian church should do the same and realize it's just a book meant for people to think but not to be taken as literal fact.

and did you read this part of the FAQ:
"BUT DOESN'T THE NOVEL'S "FACT" PAGE CLAIM THAT EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THIS NOVEL IS HISTORICAL FACT?
If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader. "

and: "It's a novel. I wrote this story in an effort to explore certain aspects of Christian history that interest me. The vast majority of devout Christians understand this fact and consider The Da Vinci Code an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate. "

it's not here to destroy the Christian world.

[catscradle]

I see how you can interpret it like that, but again nowhere in there does Brown say that he's pushing fact upon people. All Brown did was take a bunch of real groups and paintings and think up an original (but fake) idea to relate them all...in doing so he wants people to just talk about it like we are but at the end of the day know that none of it is real. Many people have actually read the book and looked more into their own faith and answered their own questions...I mean, we don't see historians, art scholars, and iconographers up in arms about this whole issue...the Christian church should do the same and realize it's just a book meant for people to think but not to be taken as literal fact.

and did you read this part of the FAQ:
"BUT DOESN'T THE NOVEL'S "FACT" PAGE CLAIM THAT EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THIS NOVEL IS HISTORICAL FACT?
If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader. "

and: "It's a novel. I wrote this story in an effort to explore certain aspects of Christian history that interest me. The vast majority of devout Christians understand this fact and consider The Da Vinci Code an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate. "

it's not here to destroy the Christian world.
People aren't acting like it's here to destroy the Christian world, they are just offended by it. I agree that people should be open minded about the book and take it as fiction, but i also understand why people are so upset with it as Brown doesn't say it is fact, but he doesn't present it as entirely fiction either, this indecisivness is what upsets people. All in all everyone will get over it.

[richter915]

People aren't acting like it's here to destroy the Christian world, they are just offended by it. I agree that people should be open minded about the book and take it as fiction, but i also understand why people are so upset with it as Brown doesn't say it is fact, but he doesn't present it as entirely fiction either, this indecisivness is what upsets people. All in all everyone will get over it.
oh ya definitely but it shouldn't be as much of an issue as it's been made out to be. I don't see how he's pushing it as fact though. I think people get heated because it's a pretty well constructed and feasible story he made up but he's not pushing it as fact...I can see how people would think it but it shocks me that these people refuse to take a step back and remember it's fiction...and not just that, many people have profited from this...I think over fifty books have been published to counter this whole idea...a bunch of TV specials about it...there's no reason to make such a fuss over it.

[berk18]

Hey guys, I don’t really post but it seemed you were interested in some of this stuff:

As to non-Biblical sources mentioning the crucifixion, there are two versions of the Josephus passage (early 90’s AD), one in Arabic, and one in Greek (of which we have, I think, three copies). The Greek copies are believed by most scholars to be corrupted by later Christian additions. The Arabic still contains pertinent information about the crucifixion, and is as follows:

“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.”

And now for Tacitus (115 AD):

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome..."

So, how are these as historical sources when it comes to the crucifixion? The Josephus passage comes from Jewish Antiquities, the same book wherein he says that Abraham taught the Egyptians science (not a ton of historical support for that one). Tacitus, as you can tell, is hardly an unbiased source when it comes to Christianity. In both cases, this was the age of history begun by Herodotus, who wrote about such fancies as the Ring of Gyges, and Apollo saving Croesus from the pyre. In any other story from ancient historians, we DO take the information with a grain of salt. Jesus is treated no differently.


Crucifixion was seen, by Romans and Jews in the time of Jesus, as a brutal punishment only to be used on the worst of political criminals. Interestingly, the penalty for blasphemy was stoning. If Jesus’ crime was stating that he was the sun of God, or God himself, he would have been stoned. If Jesus was crucified, some good questions can be asked about the reason. It isn’t just for being called “King of the Jews,” which could have been seen as threatening to Roman authority. Remember it was Pilate, the Roman Governor, who (according to the Bible) found no reason to put him to death.

There is more that is strange about the crucifixion story, namely that the same “people” who were feared in devising a plot to put Jesus to death, later called for Jesus’ death and Barabbas’ freedom.



The authority of the Gnostic Gospels is a whole other lengthy post.


If you found this interesting, or have any more Da Vinci Code questions, feel free to ask. I don’t know much past 300 AD, but there you go.

[maledixtion]

Why do people act like the Bible hasn't been proven wrong hundreds of times in the past?

And the Apocryhpals were written at the same time as the canonized gospels, just because they weren't sanctioned by the leaders of Christianity doesn't make them untrue. They are in fact more accurate. The Catholic Church has done everything in it's power to control people, by excluding gospels, banning literature and scientific documents, excommunication, indulgences, inquisitions, crusades, etc.

Jesus = good
Catholic Church = not so much.

You can have faith in Jesus, but the rules and history taught by the Vatican are man-made, by people with political agendas. Whether or not Jesus had kids or didn't die on a cross doesn't make his message any less important. He was a brilliant man, and people should look more closely at what he says rather than the bullshit Popes have created over the years as control techniques.

[berk18]

And the Apocryhpals were written at the same time as the canonized gospels...They are in fact more accurate.

I'd be really into seeing sources on these two claims, as I think it'd be fascinating if they were true. I've read quite a bit though, and I see the first as being inaccurate (unless you have a pretty broad definition of "at the same time") and the second as being as unfounded as the statement that the canonical gospels are more accurate than the apocryphal.

[catscradle]

Why do people act like the Bible hasn't been proven wrong hundreds of times in the past?

And the Apocryhpals were written at the same time as the canonized gospels, just because they weren't sanctioned by the leaders of Christianity doesn't make them untrue. They are in fact more accurate. The Catholic Church has done everything in it's power to control people, by excluding gospels, banning literature and scientific documents, excommunication, indulgences, inquisitions, crusades, etc.

Jesus = good
Catholic Church = not so much.

You can have faith in Jesus, but the rules and history taught by the Vatican are man-made, by people with political agendas. Whether or not Jesus had kids or didn't die on a cross doesn't make his message any less important. He was a brilliant man, and people should look more closely at what he says rather than the bullshit Popes have created over the years as control techniques.

First off the Catholic Canon does include the apocryphal books in it. I'm not exactly sure what apocryphal books you are trying to bring into mention b/c the apocryphal books deal with the old testament and have nothing to do with Jesus. What i think you are refering to are the Gnostic Gospels( sometimes refered to as the new testament apocrypha). These are not included in ANY Christian Canon, not just the Catholic canon, for a number of reasons. Some ranging from the contradictions they would place in the new testament, to many of them were just recently discovered in 1945 when canon was already established, and b/c many of them are not historically accurate and WERE written at different times than the gospels of the new testament, ranging from 100- 180 yrs after christ died . As Prof. James Hitchcock states, "The gospels were not to be taken at face value but as stories with hidden symbolic meanings." The Gnostics that wrote these gospels weren't concerned with what happened to Jesus on Earth, so their stories did not reflect historical accuracy, thus making them INACCURATE. So to use these books as a historical reference is just like using the Davinci Code as a historical document. I would rather have you read more into this before you go off about these books and state that they are truth.

And further more i would rather you not slander my church. As it's faith is based on written and oral tradition, not on those of corrupt popes from the dark ages. The Catholic canon has gone through much deliberation and resaerch to reach the final edition it is today. There was a little thing called the 2nd Vatican Council that completely reiterrated the beliefs of the Catholic church, making changes that were necessary for the church to thrive in the modern times of our days. To portray the church as a massive enitity that is trying to amass power over all people is ridiculous. Sure the church had its problems, but these problems were at the beggining of the millenium, and even earlier, and the church has gone through major reform since then, thanks to a little thing called the Renaisance. In fact, in more recent times, since the inception of protestant religions, especially in early America, catholics were those that were being oppressed by the Anglo-Protestant communities that dominated this country, in which religion was actually used to control people in much more recent times. The church puts all emphasis on the teachings of Christ and his followers, as well as emphasizing the sancity of Him being the son of God. So, please don't make it out that the church does not practice and preach the message of Christ, it'squite a blasphemous statement.

[Zeran]

The book ruled, the movie sucked.
i just saw the movie and i thought it was prretty good. i also read the book and loved it. i've heard a lot of people thought it sucked, but why exactly did it suck?

[richter915]

i just saw the movie and i thought it was prretty good. i also read the book and loved it. i've heard a lot of people thought it sucked, but why exactly did it suck?
a lot of my friends complained about it not being true to the book...but both of these guys are the biggest sticklers I know so it doesn't surprise me. I mean, it was really just minor things that bugged them but people have a tendency to fail a movie if it's slightly off from perfection. Given what Howard had to work with...I think he did an alright job in 2.5 hours...though the end kept dragging.

[catscradle]

a lot of my friends complained about it not being true to the book...but both of these guys are the biggest sticklers I know so it doesn't surprise me. I mean, it was really just minor things that bugged them but people have a tendency to fail a movie if it's slightly off from perfection. Given what Howard had to work with...I think he did an alright job in 2.5 hours...though the end kept dragging.
I agree the end dragged out a little, but all in all it wasn't too bad of a movie. I enjoyed it for its theatrical value.

[maledixtion]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/chemicalbirds/Random%20shit/1148629985172.jpg

[SuperWoman7700]

Why do people act like the Bible hasn't been proven wrong hundreds of times in the past?

And the Apocryhpals were written at the same time as the canonized gospels, just because they weren't sanctioned by the leaders of Christianity doesn't make them untrue. They are in fact more accurate. The Catholic Church has done everything in it's power to control people, by excluding gospels, banning literature and scientific documents, excommunication, indulgences, inquisitions, crusades, etc.

Jesus = good
Catholic Church = not so much.

You can have faith in Jesus, but the rules and history taught by the Vatican are man-made, by people with political agendas. Whether or not Jesus had kids or didn't die on a cross doesn't make his message any less important. He was a brilliant man, and people should look more closely at what he says rather than the bullshit Popes have created over the years as control techniques.

bullshit popes? elaborate please.

[FScott]

I never did get into this whole da vinci code but is the theory behind it still debatable, like what was written in The Holy Blood, Holy Grail? But the storyline in the book is made up to fit the theory? Am I right or just confused

[catscradle]

I never did get into this whole da vinci code but is the theory behind it still debatable, like what was written in The Holy Blood, Holy Grail? But the storyline in the book is made up to fit the theory? Am I right or just confused
You are right.

[maledixtion]

bullshit popes? elaborate please.
I didn't say "bullshit Popes" I said "bullshit Popes create"

[maledixtion]

Go Da Vinci Code
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/chemicalbirds/Random%20shit/1148631299607.jpg

[mps]

take the Bible (another book of FICTION) literally. So ya, if you believe in talking bushs, women made from men's ribs, and a 5000 year old Earth...you already suffer from some kinda mental disability so...it's no surprise you eat this shit up. You're a cunt.

You just made me smile so wide. I think I love you.

[morte]

Well...we live in a society of ignoramouses (wtf?) who can't discern between fact and fiction so of course, this book of fiction has exploded all over people's faces and turned into an unnecessary issue making some "holy" men very very rich. Read my blog (http://blog.myspace.com/17142315)response to this whole issue and post here as to how you feel.

here's the article anyway:
To stupids who complain about the Da Vinci Code...stfu kthx?


Srsly...I've had enough of people sitting around and bitching saying that a book of FICTION is indeed NOT FACT. If you people had the tiniest bit of education...like, fourth grade...you would know this shit isn't true.

This book is a NOVEL. Do you people know the definition of a novel? Before you go write a million books to counter me on this, here's the definition of NOVEL (from Dictionary.com): A fictional prose narrative of considerable length, typically having a plot that is unfolded by the actions, speech, and thoughts of the characters.

Now, I'm sure many of you don't know what fictional means so here's that one too: An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented. To you slack-jawed inbreds..that means NOT REAL.

So, ya, many of you are now saying "but Jamaican me Crazy, what about his FACT page omg omg omg zomg" ya shut up...again, if you could read you would realize that his FACT page does nothing but say that "the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture" are all real. Is that not true, or did Dan Brown think up the Mona Lisa and Last Supper paintings to destroy your "faith"? Here's an example of what is true vs. what is made up in this novel. Dan Brown says that Da Vinci was a member of the Knights Templar (or Opus Dei I forget things at my old age)...Truth: Da Vinci existed and drew pretty pictures. Not True: Him being a member of some organization. He makes this claim to further his story. Some people think it might be disrespect but you all stfu...it's called historical fiction. I'm sure Ben "the Nazi" Franklin turns over in his grave when people say he got shocked by lightning but no one complains there.

My biggest complaint on this issue is the plethora of books released to counter this and it's typical of the ignorant in the US. People, who probably know all the shit I just said, who write these books to "crack" the Da Vinci code...they're the worst. They don't know simple definitions. They don't know when to stop and say "good thing this is a FICTIONAL STORY" Instead...they look and say "omg, leik, he jus says Christ had maaaaaaaaad biches lolol. I kin rite bookz on dis rofl $$$" I guess in these peoples' defense...they do take the Bible (another book of FICTION) literally. So ya, if you believe in talking bushs, women made from men's ribs, and a 5000 year old Earth...you already suffer from some kinda mental disability so...it's no surprise you eat this shit up. You're a cunt.

Also, read Brown's FAQ on this whole issue, he gives some wholesome responses that you should all read: http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.htmlI totally agree with you. I don't understand why people complain that much, there are other novels that bitch about other things and nobody says nothing. The DaVinci Code is an amazing novel and I loved it but I don't belive all that shit and think that Jesus descendants are still alive or something.

[morte]

Go Da Vinci Code
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/chemicalbirds/Random%20shit/1148631299607.jpgGo small boobs.

[mps]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/chemicalbirds/Random%20shit/1148629985172.jpg

Hahaha that's great.

[mps]

Go Da Vinci Code
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/chemicalbirds/Random%20shit/1148631299607.jpg

I'd hit it.

[catscradle]

Just b/c it is a work of fiction doesn't mean it can't offend people. A perfect example of a work of fiction that offended people as it was purporting to be fact in the same light as "The Davinci Code" and miscontrued people's perceptions on a religious sect would be the infamous book, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Which portrayed Jews as schemers plotting the takeover of the world, even though it was fiction many people took the book as fact. Two notable people being Henry Ford and good ol' Adolf Hitler. Just b/c it is fiction does not mean people do not take the book as fact. 'Til this day, many Protestant sects of Christianity interpret every part of the Bible as fact, which is full of many parables and outlandish stories that are used to present ethical lessons and good morals. What i am trying to say is that just b/c it is a work of fiction doesn't mean people will not accept it as fact. The way the movie portrays the Catholic Church is misconstrued and mocks many basic principles of the Catholic church and is downright blasphemous. Many people will walk away from the movie and consider much of the movie as fact. Not everyone is as open minded as you guys i guess, it is very easy to se why so many people are offended by this film. If somebody was making googles amounts of money by mocking something you whole heartedly believed in and altering peoples perception of it, wouldn't you be offended?

[richter915]

I'd hit it.
dude she's like, ten.

[SuperWoman7700]

Just b/c it is a work of fiction doesn't mean it can't offend people. A perfect example of a work of fiction that offended people as it was purporting to be fact in the same light as "The Davinci Code" and miscontrued people's perceptions on a religious sect would be the infamous book, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Which portrayed Jews as schemers plotting the takeover of the world, even though it was fiction many people took the book as fact. Two notable people being Henry Ford and good ol' Adolf Hitler. Just b/c it is fiction does not mean people do not take the book as fact. 'Til this day, many Protestant sects of Christianity interpret every part of the Bible as fact, which is full of many parables and outlandish stories that are used to present ethical lessons and good morals. What i am trying to say is that just b/c it is a work of fiction doesn't mean people will not accept it as fact. The way the movie portrays the Catholic Church is misconstrued and mocks many basic principles of the Catholic church and is downright blasphemous. Many people will walk away from the movie and consider much of the movie as fact. Not everyone is as open minded as you guys i guess, it is very easy to se why so many people are offended by this film. If somebody was making googles amounts of money by mocking something you whole heartedly believed in and altering peoples perception of it, wouldn't you be offended?
i couldn't agree more.

[richter915]

Just b/c it is a work of fiction doesn't mean it can't offend people. A perfect example of a work of fiction that offended people as it was purporting to be fact in the same light as "The Davinci Code" and miscontrued people's perceptions on a religious sect would be the infamous book, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Which portrayed Jews as schemers plotting the takeover of the world, even though it was fiction many people took the book as fact. Two notable people being Henry Ford and good ol' Adolf Hitler. Just b/c it is fiction does not mean people do not take the book as fact. 'Til this day, many Protestant sects of Christianity interpret every part of the Bible as fact, which is full of many parables and outlandish stories that are used to present ethical lessons and good morals. What i am trying to say is that just b/c it is a work of fiction doesn't mean people will not accept it as fact. The way the movie portrays the Catholic Church is misconstrued and mocks many basic principles of the Catholic church and is downright blasphemous. Many people will walk away from the movie and consider much of the movie as fact. Not everyone is as open minded as you guys i guess, it is very easy to se why so many people are offended by this film. If somebody was making googles amounts of money by mocking something you whole heartedly believed in and altering peoples perception of it, wouldn't you be offended?
So pretty much, you've equated people who take DVC seriously to Hitler? Ya, sounds like they are just that dumb. I'm not calling out all Christians...just the dumb ones who take it for fact and decide to make a little profit off of it. The whole point of the book was to misconstrue historical facts to make a fictional and interesting story out of it. It definitely is easy to see why people are offended by the book/film...but that doesn't justify it...these people...grown educated adults, should know the difference. The point I'm making is that people shouldn't be so offended because it's not Brown's goal to go out there to destroy the Catholic Church...he's a story writer...he writes books on things outside of this.

honestly, would Catholics prefer stories written about true events in their past? the spanish inquisition? turning a blind eye to nazis and fascists? current scandals with priests and young men? For a Church which has swamped itself in sin, it sure makes a big deal about nothing.

[catscradle]

So pretty much, you've equated people who take DVC seriously to Hitler? Ya, sounds like they are just that dumb. I'm not calling out all Christians...just the dumb ones who take it for fact and decide to make a little profit off of it. The whole point of the book was to misconstrue historical facts to make a fictional and interesting story out of it. It definitely is easy to see why people are offended by the book/film...but that doesn't justify it...these people...grown educated adults, should know the difference. The point I'm making is that people shouldn't be so offended because it's not Brown's goal to go out there to destroy the Catholic Church...he's a story writer...he writes books on things outside of this.

honestly, would Catholics prefer stories written about true events in their past? the spanish inquisition? turning a blind eye to nazis and fascists? current scandals with priests and young men? For a Church which has swamped itself in sin, it sure makes a big deal about nothing.
obviously you didn't understand a word i said.

[mps]

dude she's like, ten.
Exactly :wink:

[richter915]

obviously you didn't understand a word i said.
I read and understood everything you said but I don't think that's a sufficient reason to justify the backlash to this book. Just because I may have offended people or you doesn't mean you can ignore my point.

I will add that one good thing the book did is it made people look more into their faiths and find out what happened in "actuality"...

[SuperWoman7700]

you should probably check out the catholic answer forums. they'll provide some insight into the catholic faith.

[okheidi]

It's this simple: If you believe what the Bible says, then The DaVinci Code is a load of bullshit. But if you don't, then look into it. While the characters and the situations were fictional, all of the history and theories are based on fact and actual events.