The Da Vinci code

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Au contraire, mon frere.

It is clear to me that the IGNORED (not supressed) teachings of Jesus are available for any and all who can read. But the illiteracy of people over the last two millenia has made it so that false teachers can construe his teachings*, using methods not unlike those used by Dan Brown in his novel. So in my opinion, the Church getting all twisted about Dan Brown is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

The construing is on the modernist, anti-tradition agenda, not the christian agenda.

As to your assertion that women under Christianity were treated better than women under paganism, I do think it is negationism. Women have been treated as second-class citizens throughout the entire Christian Era. Any attempt to whitewash it, minimize it, apologize for it, or deny it, is exactly the same as saying the Holocaust didn't happen. And that is called negationism, a form of revisionism that ultimately uses the rhetorical fallacy called "begging the question".

* edit: ... and these false teachings have become dogma. Yes, that is what I am saying.

Proof that Hildegard von Bingen was really a man? Because only a man could advise Kings, Princes, and IL PAPE himself?

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by inked

Elfhelm,

... they are referred to in polite society as bunkum, total and absolute bunkum. Less kind individuals might allude to bovine feces in the more vernacular.

The details of your arguments are staggering.

edit: blah...

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The construing is on the modernist, anti-tradition agenda, not the christian agenda.

HB,

I don't even have to look far for evidence:

Woman is the gate of the devil, the path of wickedness, the sting of the serpent, in a word a perilous object." - St. Jerome

Speech may be employed in two ways: in one way privately, to one or a few, in familiar conversation, and in this respect the grace of the word may be becoming to women; in another way, publicly, addressing oneself to the whole church, and this is not permitted to women. First and chiefly, on account of the condition attaching to the female sex, whereby woman should be subject to man, as appears from Gn. 3:16. Now teaching and persuading publicly in the church belong not to subjects but to the prelates (although men who are subjects may do these things if they be so commissioned, because their subjection is not a result of their natural sex, as it is with women, but of some thing supervening by accident). Secondly, lest men's minds be enticed to lust, for it is written (Sirach 9:11): "Her conversation burneth as fire." Thirdly, because as a rule women are not perfected in wisdom, so as to be fit to be intrusted with public teaching. - Thomas Aquinas

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Proof that Hildegard von Bingen was really a man? Because only a man could advise Kings, Princes, and IL PAPE himself?

Or St. Catherine of Siena, for that matter.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

The details of your arguments are staggering.

edit: blah...

Yes, I know. You ignored them. Like straw men, don't you?! Is there a name for that strawmosexual or something?

edit:just to refresh your memory....
However I must note for our readers less capable of ascertaining your speculative assertions as equivalent to fact, that it is not so. And that is an historically established fact verifiable through competent scholars in world-wide institutions unlikely to participate in the coverup you allege.

I am impressed in your faith in this, however. So little evidence so much construction. Perhaps, next, a novel?

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by inked

Yes, I know. You ignored them. Like straw men, don't you?! Is there a name for that strawmosexual or something?

edit:just to refresh your memory....
However I must note for our readers less capable of ascertaining your speculative assertions as equivalent to fact, that it is not so. And that is an historically established fact verifiable through competent scholars in world-wide institutions unlikely to participate in the coverup you allege.

I am impressed in your faith in this, however. So little evidence so much construction. Perhaps, next, a novel?

I fail to see how this is an argument, inked. It's just begging the question, as is common with most negationism. Though I can pile up a mountain of evidence demonstrating that women were treated as second-class citizens, you will simply find another way to phrase your accusation that they are lies (toro poopoo means "lie" and we both know it). So you are practicing negationism.

As a paean to your beloved tactic, I give you a link proving that the moon does not exist!
http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

"Speech may be employed in two ways: in one way privately, to one or a few, in familiar conversation, and in this respect the grace of the word may be becoming to women; in another way, publicly, addressing oneself to the whole church, and this is not permitted to women. First and chiefly, on account of the condition attaching to the female sex, whereby woman should be subject to man, as appears from Gn. 3:16. Now teaching and persuading publicly in the church belong not to subjects but to the prelates (although men who are subjects may do these things if they be so commissioned, because their subjection is not a result of their natural sex, as it is with women, but of some thing supervening by accident). Secondly, lest men's minds be enticed to lust, for it is written (Sirach 9:11): "Her conversation burneth as fire." Thirdly, because as a rule women are not perfected in wisdom, so as to be fit to be intrusted with public teaching. - Thomas Aquinas"

This seems to be arguing against women as theologians. But on his deathbed, St. Thomas said "If I err in any way, I submit to the teaching of the Holy Church." I think that making women Doctors of the Church qualifies as teaching that they can be theologians.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I fail to see how this is an argument, inked. It's just begging the question, as is common with most negationism. Though I can pile up a mountain of evidence demonstrating that women were treated as second-class citizens, you will simply find another way to phrase your accusation that they are lies (toro poopoo means "lie" and we both know it). So you are practicing negationism.

As a paean to your beloved tactic, I give you a link proving that the moon does not exist!
http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

I never thought the moon was real even when viewing it with my own eyes through my many telescopes (in a serial and not orgiastic fashion, of course!).

Negationism sounds an awfully difficult proposition to prove, what with proof of a negative being inordinately difficult propositionally. However, if it makes you feel better to employ affect inductively, feel free. It doesn't make the induction logical, recall.

Do you know what a paean is?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
CS Lewis once remarked that it was the praise one uttered when one found the men's room in an unfamiliar train station. That feeling I do know positively. I have long held that the mind cannot retain more than the bladder.

[Earniel]

Back on topic, please.

[sun-star]

I went to see the film last night (I literally had nothing better to do ) and something struck me rather forcibly: if "The Da Vinci Code" is meant to be about redressing the Church's oppression of women, why is the only female character so useless? At every crucial moment, Sophie just stands around looking pretty and asking dumb questions to make Langdon look clever. She seems smart enough while they're in Paris, but as the film goes on she gets progressively stupider - she's incapable of solving the simplest anagram, she doesn't seem to have the least bit of general knowledge, and she even appears to be afraid of gargolyes. Talk about a stereotypical weak and feeble woman! If this is worship of the sacred feminine, I can't see that it's much different from Hollywood's usual worship of pretty young Frenchwomen

[inked]

hey, I read the book on it's publication in hardback! I spent even longer than you at the movies! But as I recollect your assessment is spot on for text as well as the flick.

Did it bore you or did it provide entertainment or merely fodder for the 'Moot?

[sun-star]

It was interesting to begin with, but really began to drag after a while. There's just so much exposition, which is fine in a book but tiresome in a film, especially when all you've got to look at are washed-out flashbacks. Tom Hanks was very dull and unemotional - I think I could have liked his character if he seemed like a genuine intellectual, someone who's actually excited by ideas, but he never came across like that. Ian Mckellan is too good an actor to do the "I'm an English nobleman we drink tea all the time isn't that funny" routine, and should go back to panto, IMO.

I do wonder how much of the appeal of this book/film on the other side of the Atlantic is due to the fact that it features an American making fools of the French police and smashing up Paris

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Back on topic, please.

And the topic is:

The church's oppression of women and the refusal of the indoctrinated to acknowledge it even in the face of overwhelming evidence and personal experience.

So what do you think about the "code"? Is the V shape the secret grail that has been hidden so long? Is it the sign of the feminine? I've never heard of that one.

[hectorberlioz]

You know, if every "V" implies the female you know what, we live in a land of secret perverts. But I don't think it does, and just because there were v's "in olden times" doesn't really mean it was THAT. Or the Romans, who used V in the same way we use U, were really really obsessed with it.

But I don't think that issue is that big a deal.

What I want to know is: why did my history lesson above get ignored, but the Goddess issue was almost forced? ...to scared to reply anyone?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sun-star

I do wonder how much of the appeal of this book/film on the other side of the Atlantic is due to the fact that it features an American making fools of the French police and smashing up Paris

You might have a point there

Equally funny were reports that a french audience laughed in a moment which we americans would identify as "solemn"...those batty french!

[sun-star]

I think I laughed at those bits too

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

why did my history lesson above get ignored?

You mean the reference to one or two lucky women who happened to be allowed to have an opinion?

Perhaps you didn't read my reply? I quoted Aquinas differentiating between public and private speech. Gwai argued my quote. So, we didn't ignore you. We wouldn't. Ever.

[inked]

Anachronistic, Elfhelm, and you know that. There was not equality for females as for males in those societal structures. Tautology. But to ignore the changing place of women in society because of the good positive influence of the Church and the cult of the Virgin Mary is equally as culpable as "The church's oppression of women and the refusal of the indoctrinated to acknowledge it even in the face of overwhelming evidence and personal experience."

The V theory was made for profit by Dan Brown. I am unaware of any serious such proposal, but I would be open to correction if any knows more and would enlighten us on this.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by sun-star

I went to see the film last night (I literally had nothing better to do ) and something struck me rather forcibly: if "The Da Vinci Code" is meant to be about redressing the Church's oppression of women, why is the only female character so useless? At every crucial moment, Sophie just stands around looking pretty and asking dumb questions to make Langdon look clever. She seems smart enough while they're in Paris, but as the film goes on she gets progressively stupider - she's incapable of solving the simplest anagram, she doesn't seem to have the least bit of general knowledge, and she even appears to be afraid of gargolyes. Talk about a stereotypical weak and feeble woman! If this is worship of the sacred feminine, I can't see that it's much different from Hollywood's usual worship of pretty young Frenchwomen

Too funny.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by inked

Anachronistic, Elfhelm, and you know that. There was not equality for females as for males in those societal structures. Tautology. But to ignore the changing place of women in society because of the good positive influence of the Church and the cult of the Virgin Mary is equally as culpable as "The church's oppression of women and the refusal of the indoctrinated to acknowledge it even in the face of overwhelming evidence and personal experience."

The V theory was made for profit by Dan Brown. I am unaware of any serious such proposal, but I would be open to correction if any knows more and would enlighten us on this.

I'm trying to understand what you say is a tautology, inked. I quoted Aquinas, you said there wasn't equality, but that the Church brought it about. So those suffragettes who embraced Marxism? Where do they fit in. Since they are the ones who got women the vote and put an end to slavery. I was under the confusion that they were going against the established order as it was laid down by the Church. Where is this tautology? Because the only one I see is where you say the Church improved the lives of women, and the reason is because life in pre-Christian times wasn't a bowl of cherries, either.

I do actually subscribe to a progressionist perspective here. The lot of women has gradually improved. And the theological concepts have gradually become more abstract, with male dominant monotheism being a step along the way to an abstract non-gender divine being concept. But the parallel progression doesn't imply any cause and effect relationship to me.

And frankly, the lot of women under the rule of the Amazons, which includes the island of Lesvos in the 8th c BCE was pretty darn good. So that's my evidence.

By the way, I sure hope my lively chatting on this has not offended anyone. I'm mostly playing devil's advocate.

I think this book is a pet rock. Everyone knows it's nonsense, but everyone has to say they read it. Pet Rocks were cool. It was never about the rock, know what I mean?