The Da Vinci code

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Tessar

The whole thing reads like a 50 cent romance novel. Even I can write characters better than Dan Brown can<snippety snip>

Must be a cold day in hell atm cos I find myself agreeing with you.
*gives tess a noogie
Awwwww. This mean we can be coke buddies now?

[HOBBIT]

I don't get why people are insulting the writing of the book. You all wish that you could have a novel as successful.

[BeardofPants]

Tristan, you bein' a pigheaded knob for the sake of bein' a pigheaded knob again?

Might I remind you that it is a free world, and we're all allowed to express our disatisfaction over a poorly written novel. And you know what? Would that I could figure out how to write such crap AND get a lot of suckers to buy it. I know, maybe I should write a book filled with controversial "facts" about the catholic church's corruption! *rofl*

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Must be a cold day in hell atm cos I find myself agreeing with you.
*gives tess a noogie
Awwwww. This mean we can be coke buddies now?

AGHHHH! Not the hair! o(>.<)O

No coke for you. *hides the soda cans* ().

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

I don't get why people are insulting the writing of the book. You all wish that you could have a novel as successful.

Next time you say you don't like something popular, remind me to mention this moment to you.

[Elfhelm]

Well, when he quotes things out of context and states theories as if they are fact, it raises my hackles. But it's just fiction. I do wish I could be so successful. I'm sure it's random that this book happened to take off like it did.

[BeardofPants]

It's prolly cause he caught the right mood of the time, ie, a lot of people are dissatisfied with established religion. I mean, that hooky Holy blood, holy grail whatever book never took off and it covers the same kinda shite.

Tessar, never step between a girl and her diet coke, not if you know what's good fer ya.

[GreyMouser]

What was that silly book about the aliens in South America?
The Celestine prophecies?

There are a million books written about any stupid theory- one of them now and then catches on and..

[BeardofPants]

Yup, anyone remember Erich von Daniken?

[Khamûl]

I have a copy of Chariots of the Gods? that I found at a library for about 10 cents.

[BeardofPants]

Ahem.
*points and laughs at Khamie

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

I know, maybe I should write a book filled with controversial "facts" about the catholic church's corruption! *rofl*

It's fool-proof!

[Grey_Wolf]

It oughta be called That Damn Vimsical Crap!!

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

I know, maybe I should write a book filled with controversial "facts" about the catholic church's corruption! *rofl*

You'd make a million - anti-Catholicism like this never goes out of fashion, today as in the 16th or 19th century.

I'm not bothered about "The Da Vinci Code" until people start saying, very seriously, "well, if so many people find it interesting, there must be some truth in it." Then I weep for the general stupidity of humanity

Also, I find the idea of the sacred feminine incredibly sexist.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Also, I find the idea of the sacred feminine incredibly sexist.

How so?

[sun-star]

Nice to see you again, Beren

As I understand Dan Brown's use of the term, the sacred feminine refers to the idea that because women are, biologically speaking, life-givers, they are supposed to be more closely in touch with the divine or the sacred through their bodies. I think this is bunkum, first off, but that's not my main point Historically, the subordination of women in the Church (and the Christian tradition more widely) has often been justified by the argument that women are in some way more physical than men - that they are essentially unable to transcend their bodily impulses and desires because they inherit Eve's (supposed) carnality and sensuality. This means, the theory goes, that women are less able to enter into spiritual matters, and should therefore not be given a prominent role in the Church. This is a crude summary, but I don't want to bore you with an essay Some people still believe this, which is fine; but I personally don't. And it seems to me that the idea of the sacred feminine participates in the same tradition of seeing women as solely or primarily physical beings. By focusing on women's bodies as the most important thing about them, it objectifies and demeans women. It also undermines the important role women have sometimes been able to play in the church (in the widest sense) on an intellectual and spiritual level.

To summarise, as a woman and a Catholic, I find the idea that my identity and my spirituality must be defined by the fact that I am biologically capable of giving birth both limiting and sexist.

Did that make any sense? I was trying to be concise, and had to sacrifice subtlety.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by sun-star

As I understand Dan Brown's use of the term, the sacred feminine refers to the idea that because women are, biologically speaking, life-givers, they are supposed to be more closely in touch with the divine or the sacred through their bodies.

I didn't see that when I read it. Can you cite a page number?

I thought he depicted a fantasy of gender equality in some sort of pastoral pre-Nicean idyll.

By the way, I want to cite this excellent debunking.
http://www.envoymagazine.com/planete...inci-Part1.htm

[sun-star]

I don't have a copy with me, but this is quoted on the site you linked to:

"The Grail is literally the ancient symbol for womanhood, and the Holy Grail represents the sacred feminine and the goddess, which of course has now been lost, virtually eliminated by the Church. The power of the female and her ability to produce life was once very sacred, but it posed a threat to the rise of the predominantly male Church, and so the sacred feminine was demonized and called unclean. It was man, not God, who created the concept of ‘original sin,’ whereby Eve tasted of the apple and caused the downfall of the human race. Woman, once the sacred giver of life, was now the enemy" (p. 238)."

Dan Brown didn't invent this idea, of course.

ETA: the speaker in the quote above is Langdon.

[Elfhelm]

Thanks.

I still don't read into that quote a special link that makes women MORE spiritual. He still seems to be lamenting the loss of some sort of EQUALITY, which I think is also mere fantasy.

[Tessar]

Plus come -on-. No woman will ever be the equal of a man.



Most of them refuse to stoop that low .

[Earniel]

How delightfully honest of you, Tessar.