The Da Vinci code

[Falagar]

Agreed, Gaffer.

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

That's your opinion. Which of course you are entitled to.

The history of the Priory of Sion was, to take an example, fabricated in the 1960's.

[Grey_Wolf]

I think THBTHG is more believable than the Bible anyway. There is a number of deficiences in the latter which is pointed out in the former.

[littleadanel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

If people really like this kind of stuff, they should read Foucault's Pendulum.

It's fun to see this comment of yours, Gaffer! I couldn't agree more.

I started to read the books of Eco I found at home, including the Pendulum, a couple of weeks after finishing the Da Vinci code, and I practically banged my head against the wall. I wanted to give it to that woman who recommended the Da Vinci code for me... but then again, I don't know if she'd appreciate it...

[The Gaffer]

Yes, I suppose one might say that the Da Vinci Code is a bit more accessible than Eco.

Have you read The Name of the Rose?

[Rían]

*reads Merc's review link*

Ah, then, I won't bother to get the book - it's the female thing I didn't get that far at Borders when I was reading it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Galileo was blashphemous. So was Newton, and Thomas Paine, and - Joan of Arc but I don't think she wrote anything to read!

They were not. They were merely censured (with varying degrees of valid reason) by churchmen. People think that ecclesiastics should keep their noses in their missals, and so if they censure someone they assume its because they are heretical or blasphemous, but it sure wasn't so back in those days.

[BeardofPants]

Ooh, ooh, yes, Umberto Eco is a delightful read. Much, much better than this Da Vinci Code pap.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

So I hear. Eco is one of the many on my 'to-read' list.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

They were not. They were merely censured (with varying degrees of valid reason) by churchmen.

Excuse me, but "they were so!" Galileo was imprisoned by the Church for his blashpemous idea that the world was round, and not flat. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for her blashphemous claim that God spoke to her directly. Censured, yes. Labelled as blashphemors par exemplar, most definitely! I'm not understanding how you can actually say that these people were not called blashphemors by the church in their day. Very confused as to why you say "They were not!" Why do you say that these people were not called blashphemors by the church?

And, Eco is the bomb. I started to read In The Name of the Rose ages ago, then my book got lost and I never finished reading it, but I intend to get ahold of it again one of these days & finish it. Umberto Eco is an amazing writer.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Excuse me, but "they were so!" Galileo was imprisoned by the Church for his blashpemous idea that the world was round, and not flat. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for her blashphemous claim that God spoke to her directly. Censured, yes. Labelled as blashphemors par exemplar, most definitely! I'm not understanding how you can actually say that these people were not called blashphemors by the church in their day. Very confused as to why you say "They were not!" Why do you say that these people were not called blashphemors by the church?

Did you not see what I wrote? They were censured; they were not blasphemous.

Galileo was not imprisioned for teaching that the earth was round. St. Bede the Venerable taught that in the eighth century. St. Thomas Aquinas believed in a round earth. Copernicus taught belief in a round earth, being a Catholic clergyman. Galileo was condemned because of his overbearing arrogance, and his insistence on teaching heliocentrism as fact, when it was as yet an unproven theory. He was intent on ramming his theory down the throat of Christendom, to quote Johnston. It was not a matter of blasphemy.

To say that the concept of God speaking directly to someone is blasphemous to the Roman religion is absurd. The visionaries are simply too numerous, too influential, and too canonised throughout history to take such a view seriously. For one example, St. Augustine, one of the greatest theologians and saints and Father of the Church, before he was Christian saw a Bible, and heard a voice that said, "Tolle, lege". Take and read.

And also, you are neglecting an important distinction between Church and churchmen. Ecclesiastical judges and inquisitors are churchmen, not the Church.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Galileo was not imprisioned for teaching that the earth was round. St. Bede the Venerable taught that in the eighth century. St. Thomas Aquinas believed in a round earth. Copernicus taught belief in a round earth, being a Catholic clergyman. Galileo was condemned because of his overbearing arrogance, and his insistence on teaching heliocentrism as fact, when it was as yet an unproven theory. He was intent on ramming his theory down the throat of Christendom, to quote Johnston. It was not a matter of blasphemy.

St. Bede wasn't declared saint until late 19th century. Anyway, Galileo was imprisioned (and burned) for refusing to back off on teaching that the earth wasn't the centre of the universe, even going as far as to claim that it revolved around the sun; not because he taught that the earth was round (something tested by and argued among scholars since long before Christ). Copernicus, however, did back off and thus escaped the fires, IIRC.

[Lief Erikson]

Galileo was threatened with burning, according to my history professor, and that's why he backed down. He wasn't burned. He lived his life out under house arrest.

I asked about Copernicus, because Copernicus also believed the world was round. Copernicus got away with it because he was in Poland, which was a pretty crazy place, very much out of the control of the political arm of power.

I personally think I agree with Lotesse about the blasphemy deal with Galileo. Unless they had a habit of putting people on Inquisitorial trial and threatening them with conflagration for mere "censureable" offenses .

Joan of Arc was actually burned for wearing men's clothing, not for hearing voices. Everything she claimed she heard from the angels was theologically sound, so they couldn't come against her on that score. Wearing men's clothing was the only thing they could pin on her! Insane!

Perhaps we're getting off-topic though . I've just made a new religion thread about the faults of Christianity. Discussion of those faults and whether some of them really were faults is completely on-topic there. Discussion of Galileo and the justice/injustice of his treatment would be on-topic in that thread.

[Falagar]

Ah, sorry, confused Galileo and Copernicus with Giordano Bruno (who was burned) and Galileo (who backed down).

I asked about Copernicus, because Copernicus also believed the world was round. Copernicus got away with it because he was in Poland, which was a pretty crazy place, very much out of the control of the political arm of power.

I think it was the teaching of heliocentrism, not round earth, that created all the fuss.

[Khamûl]

I enjoyed The Da Vinci Code, but it was a little too jumpy for me. "Wait, we're in Paris? We've got to be in London! What we need isn't in London, it's in Ireland!"

After reading The Da Vinci Code, I read Angels and Demons, which I enjoyed much more. I've also read most of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and it's basically the da Vinci Code without the thriller plotline.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Anyway, Galileo was imprisioned (and burned) for refusing to back off on teaching that the earth wasn't the centre of the universe, even going as far as to claim that it revolved around the sun; not because he taught that the earth was round (something tested by and argued among scholars since long before Christ). Copernicus, however, did back off and thus escaped the fires, IIRC.

You are absolutely right; it was heliocentrism, not round earth! What foolishness overcame me? *smacks self* I'm terribly absent-minded.

Copernicus was not threatened by the Church; Cardinal Schonberg told him to make his ideas known to the world. Note that I did bumble across something of value here, as Copernicus did hold to heliocentrism.

[inked]

On the Da Vinci Code, here's an excellent read:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110008303

Seeking Truth at the Movies
Some religious leaders plan to use "The Da Vinci Code" to teach people about faith.

BY JOHN J. MILLER
Friday, April 28, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

(Wall Street Journal)


and, here's another....

http://www.theindiancatholic.com/news_read.asp?nid=1510


enjoy!

[Elfhelm]

You know what I thought was funny? There's a review at Amazon that basically goes like this: 'Partway through the xth chapter the female protaganist says to the male protaganist "this isn't American television, you know". Would that it were true.' Then after describing all the similarities between television and this book, the reviewer twists the knife saying basically the expository prose passages sound like they were downloaded from the internet. LOL!

Personally, I'm too well versed in the material to be sucked in. He keeps quoting things out of context. Even if he were right, which would be an interesting late night chat, the scholarship is dubious so it invalidates his thesis. It like if you made a boat but it had holes in it. Maybe the boat is a good idea, but the poor craftmanship makes it unusable.

[HOBBIT]

I recently finished this book (picked it up last weekend determined to read it before I saw the movie).

Very enjoyable and quick read.

Theory seems perfectly reasonable to me. And to all those complaining and getting all worked up - even though the book uses "facts," - it is a work of fiction.

[Tessar]

I'm just thankfull the book was so short. I read it a year or two ago and only finished it because I was determined to figure out what it was that other Catholics hate about it so much.

Maybe I'm just clueless, but I think that if someone's faith was shaken by that book, then they were a pathetic Catholic or Christian to begin with. The whole thing reads like a 50 cent romance novel. Even I can write characters better than Dan Brown can, and while I admired the female character at first, she turned into the bitch of the story. Even though she was supposed to be smart, she never figured out anything important, and the men did all the real work and the puzzle fitting. Plus she was just a weak little person.


The theory behind the book is interesting, I suppose, but what he calls his 'facts' are laughable, and the writing is even more so. I'll stick with Tolkien, thanks.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

even though the book uses "facts," - it is a work of fiction.

Most people aren't as bright as you