The Da Vinci Code
I dont usually comment on recently released films, but after reading an article posted by Boris Johnson MP on the Da Vinci Code, i thought i might as well give my point of view towards the film (especially as im a confirmed Christian).
In all truth, i can understand why the Catholic church is fearing its release, after all, surveys show that over 60% of the adult population in Britain believe it to be true (which according to old Boris here, is about 7 million people in this country).
But being a Christian, most people would expect me to be completely against this book by author Dan Brown, believing that not only is it blasphemous, but also mocks the Catholic church by claiming that they have covered up the descendants of Christ who are supposingly living in France........not true.
In fact, when i have the time, the chances are that i will be visiting my nearest cinema in Newport (most likely with my girlfriend) and viewing this film which is supposed to be one of the best films of all time. Dont get me wrong, i cant exactly say that i agree with Dan Browns argument, i dont even believe that Jesus married Mary Magdalene (let alone had a child/children)...but then again, i also consider that Dan Brown (like the rest of us) is only human, and therefore (like most Christians in the world) conjure their own opinions to the meaning of the bible.
And im one of them. There are many situations in my life where i dont fully agree with the bible, such as its belief that all spiritual mediums are contradictory to God. Call me crazy, but i dont agree with this at all, as i regularly visit my family medium for advice and guidance in life, even though the bible forbids this...and i think its also the same with Dan Brown.
He may have his different opinions on the New Testament, but we cant judge him as being any less of a Christian as us......it is un-Christian to do that in the first place!
He may have created a best-selling book, which may have turned into one hell of a film, but lets not get carried away with this. It doesnt mean that his story must be added to the gospel...it simply means that, like most us, Dan Brown has differing opinions about the bible, and it is up to us whether we choose to believe it.
Does Dan Brown's book pose a threat to the Catholic Church and Christian beliefs world-wide?
In all truth, i can understand why the Catholic church is fearing its release, after all, surveys show that over 60% of the adult population in Britain believe it to be true (which according to old Boris here, is about 7 million people in this country).
But being a Christian, most people would expect me to be completely against this book by author Dan Brown, believing that not only is it blasphemous, but also mocks the Catholic church by claiming that they have covered up the descendants of Christ who are supposingly living in France........not true.
In fact, when i have the time, the chances are that i will be visiting my nearest cinema in Newport (most likely with my girlfriend) and viewing this film which is supposed to be one of the best films of all time. Dont get me wrong, i cant exactly say that i agree with Dan Browns argument, i dont even believe that Jesus married Mary Magdalene (let alone had a child/children)...but then again, i also consider that Dan Brown (like the rest of us) is only human, and therefore (like most Christians in the world) conjure their own opinions to the meaning of the bible.
And im one of them. There are many situations in my life where i dont fully agree with the bible, such as its belief that all spiritual mediums are contradictory to God. Call me crazy, but i dont agree with this at all, as i regularly visit my family medium for advice and guidance in life, even though the bible forbids this...and i think its also the same with Dan Brown.
He may have his different opinions on the New Testament, but we cant judge him as being any less of a Christian as us......it is un-Christian to do that in the first place!
He may have created a best-selling book, which may have turned into one hell of a film, but lets not get carried away with this. It doesnt mean that his story must be added to the gospel...it simply means that, like most us, Dan Brown has differing opinions about the bible, and it is up to us whether we choose to believe it.
Does Dan Brown's book pose a threat to the Catholic Church and Christian beliefs world-wide?
posted by James.R.Skinner at 8:22 pm
25 Comments:
If you check what Boris says old boy, it's only 60% of those that have read the book that believe it could be true.
As for visiting Mediums? Come on, I know you're a Tory and all that, but I had expected you to be a rational person at least.
I should go and have a chat to the Chaplin if I were you to sort all this out.
hi there. have just been recomended to read your article on the Da Vinci Code. I agree with most of what you say about the book. Dan Brown makes it clear in the front of the book that it is only fiction and the only resemblance of fact are the places used and described. all else is perfectly fictional and this has been pointed out. however i think the issue has come about how it is presented as fact so cleverly. many many people will read the book and not read the article at the front. and those who read it with reading the article may also have problems disregarding it as fact. it is a clever piece of writing that can really make you question whether there actually is any truth in what is being said. and i think it is primarily here where the Church has a problem.
Why is everybody getting so het up about the Da Vinci Code? Dan Brown wrote a novel; a story; make believe.
That he took as the basis for this story the various conspiracy theories about the Knights Templar, Jesus's marriage to Mary etc. does not mean he's either pro- or anti-christian or pro- or anti-catholic. It simply means he is a mediocre writer who is lucky enough to have struck a chord with the book buying public. Actually I suspect the book's success is more due to some clever marketing by his publishers rather than Mr Brown's own efforts.
I very much doubt that when he ripped off the idea from "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" and various other pieces of dodgy pseudo-history that Mr Brown ever intended to rock the catholic church to its foundations. He suspect he simply wanted to write a successful book so he could retire to whatever idyl he aspires to and live a life of luxury.
So why doesn't everyone calm down, take a deep breathe and view Mr Brown's magnum opus for what it is. A piece of fiction that may or may not have been turned into an entertaining film. If thrillers with a religious background aren't your thing, don't buy the book, don't watch the movie. If you think you may enjoy either, try them out.
My guess is that a church that's stood the travails of nearly two thousand years will still be around long after Mr Brown's and Hollywood's meagre efforts are long forgotten.
RM
PS Declaration of Interest: the closest I can describe my faith is "Pagan, attached CofE" and thus the religious aspect is of supreme indifference to me except as wallpaper to the storyline. And, I personally don't rate Dan Brown as much of an author, but that's based on my opinion of his writing style and poor background research.
I agree with both of the comments made by "the remittance man" and anonymous. The story is merely fiction, and as anonymous pointed out, the article at the front of the book is necessary to read as not to get carried away with the book (as so many Christians have done). We shouldnt get carried away with a best selling book, and treat it as gospel.
Mediums?
As anthropax has shown, visiting mediums is strictly against the bible in all cases, but like i have said, i do visit my family spiritualist now and again. In my opinion, i am causing no harm to anyone by doing so, and it is something which i attend to in my private life, not in my political life.
Relating this to Dan Brown though, it just goes to show that everyone has differing opinions about what they feel is right in Christianity (myself included), but it doesnt mean to say that we have to follow those who believe differently, we make our own choices...therefore we make our own choices whether we believe Dan Browns fictional book or not.
I completely agree James. Why are so many people making such a fuss over a fictional book? The basis of Christianity has remained the same for over 2000 years....do they honestly believe that one book is going to change all that? I like the website by the way.
No. Dan Brown claims to be a Christian, but really he has contradicted everything that is in the bible, and has tried to make everyone belive (60% of the population infact) that his thoery of Christ is true. It is so blasphemous to say that Christ married a prostitute and had children.
There are many contradictions in the bible, so surely there is a contradiction in there somewhere about mediums? I too watch "Crossing over with John Edward" on Living TV now and again, and i find nothing anti-christian about the show whatsoever. The entire programme is conducted in a compassionate gallery, and he simply re-unites those in the spirit world with those still in life. What is so anti-Christian about that? I would mainly like to hear from anthopax on this one considering, he seems to be quite the religious sort (from viewing his site).
I'm not the one who raised it as being anti-Christian. I quite agree with 'franco' about there being contradictions in the Bible - a reason why the fundamentalist approach is not the correct way. Where/what is this 'spirit world' that you speak of?
"He simply re-unites those in the spirit world with those still in life" - who says he does? The only authority he uses is his own, and the audiences are often made up of those made desperate by the loss of a loved one, so desperate that they are willing to pay to see one person who claims that he can speak to their loved one. While this may provide comfort to those "still in life", it doesn't make it true, or indeed ethical.
I will take the medium John Edward as an example here, but just so you know anthropax, people in the audience do not pay for him to give readings. They merely apply to be in the audience of one of his broadcasts, and John Edward delivers messages to certain people in the audience at the will of spirits who wish to contact them. Its as simple as that...no profit maiking scams, no devil worshipping...just re-uniting those in the physical world with those who have crossed over (as he likes to put it).
This may help in relation to John Edward
http://www.re-quest.net/entertainment/movies-and-tv/tv/john-edward/
I have read the article Anthropax, and in all truth, this is not much to go by. This is written by one sceptic who in my opinion, just wanted to sell her story to a local website...we do not hear of anybody else who was on the John Edward show and claims that the show was a hoax.
It may also interest you to know that the famous British medium, Derek Acorah, is coming to St.Davids theatre in Cardiff on July 17th, of which, i was fortunate enough to get tickets for. I strongly doubt that this show will be a hoax somehow (like you wish it to be).
The web address didn't come out well above try:
http://www.re-quest.net/entertainment/
movies-and-tv/tv/john-edward/#sample
This gives examples of John Edwards using the 'cold calling' technique to gain information from members of the audience. Can you not see, as a rational human being (which, despite being a Tory, I assumed you were) what is going on? You watch carfully when you go to see Derek, to see these methods in practice. How much were the tickets by the way?
The techniques used by John Edward and Derek Acorah are very different when put into practise, so it will be interesting to see how your supposed "Cold Calling" somehow works for the both fo them.
And tickets i believe were around £12 each...not a bank breaker you must admit.
I highly recommend the Da Vinci Code to anyone, its just a shame that these Christian radicals dont understand the meaning of "fictional literature".
But the argument these people are putting across is that reading the Da Vinci Code might cause readers to believe something else, compared to what is actually written in the Bible.
My argument (and indeed yours also) is that if you are going to start believing in Christianity and research into what its all about, you start by reading the Bible, and not following what is written in some best-seller.
While commending your opinion of The Da Vinci Code as something that the Catholic church (in any of its western, eastern, orthodox or Anglican guises) has to fear. After all, it is complete and utter rubbish. I can say this from a perspective of reasonable authority, given that I have indeed read the book.
However, I would like to question your interpretation of Dan Brown's methods as being "differing opinions about the bible". While he offers a different opinion about Christianity, he does not offer opinions on the Bible, other than vaguely describing the Gospels as having been chosen by Constantine (not true) in order to further the idea of Christ as a separate substance to the Father. (Arian heresy, anyone?) Rather, Brown asserts that the Gnostic "Gospels" (such as those of Mary Magdalene and Simon, similar to the recently-discovered Gospel of Judas) are part of the Christian tradition. He is less putting his enterpretation on the Bible than rehashing two (millennia-old and thoroughly refuted) heresies.
Now, the problem that many people have with the book is this phrase before the first chapter: "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents [...] and secret rituals in this novel are accurate". By this, Brown is presenting DVC as being a fiction story (i.e. that of Langdon and Neveu, along with the Opus Dei bits) over historical facts (i.e. Priory of Sion, Mary Magdalene being the Holy Grail, the novel ideas about the Council of Nicea). It is this confusion over how far Brown's fiction goes that draws complaints. If this "claimer" (as opposed to a disclaimer) were to be omitted, I would have no problem at all with the book, because it is very plainly complete rubbish when you actually read it. It is the claim to historical accuracy that disturbs and annoys.
And if you want to realise quite how awful DVC is, just read the first sentence. Read it a few times, then ask yourself what your first form English teacher would have made of it.
I will have to disagree with you when you say it is "complete rubbish". I believe the book to be very well written (and the fact that its a best-seller justifies this status).
However, you do make a valid point mentioning the disclaimer at the front...it does lead to confusion about fact or fiction as we have seen from surveys taken around the nation (and especially from the Catholic church). It could also be said about the TV commercial advertising the film in cinema's, stating "no matter what you believe, no matter what you have heard...seek the truth". I agree with you when you say all these aspects could lead to some confusion.
However, we must accept the fact that these "promotions" of the story (giving the reader the impression that the book is factual evidence of the Da Vinci Code), are only to advertise the book and indeed publicise the film. The conclusion still remains that the book is mere fiction, and not a true representation of Christs life.
Oh come on James, I know you believe that the dead contact you, but I didn't expect you to be so naive as to think that popularity has very much to do with quality. The Da Vinci code is simply a retelling of all of Brown's other books, that all follow the same formula, and feature nearly identical characters. Waugh's Brideshead Revisited is a fantastic book, but where is it on the bestseller lists? Films can be hugely popular, yet be worthless drivel, and can one really say that because Brittney Spears is popular that her 'music' is any good? I think not.
Just for the pleasure of demolishing Dan Brown (not at all that of ridiculing you, James), I quote the first few sentences of the first chapter of DVC:
"Renowned curator Jacques Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum's Grand Gallery. He lunged for the nearest painting he could see, a Caravaggio. Grabbing the gilded frame, the seventy-six-year-old man heaved the masterpiece toward himself until it tore from the wall and Saunière collapsed backward in a heap beneath the canvas"
Starting a book with the word "renowned" is not a great start, but it doesn't get better. Just look at the clumsily elliptical language. Just look at how everything is stuffed into as few sentences as possible. The construction here is appalling, and remains as such to the very end of the book.
To say that it is a gripping story is certainly not unfair. I enjoyed it when I read it. But to say that this clumsy rehashing of his previous novels (particularly Deception Point) layered with pseudohistory constitutes good writing and thus the cause for the book's popularity is false. The book's popularity is based upon three things, as are most popular publications today (read The Sun, The Mail, &c.): conspiracy theories, people in power, and sex.
Ah Sam! You should start blogging Old Boy! I may well see you at Holy Mass this coming Sunday.
But saying that Anthropax, that is only your conclusion to the matter. Other people may think that the Da Vinci Code (and even Britney Spears) are of the highest quality in their public areas. You cant just assume that your opinion will be shared by the rest of the public.
In relation to Sam however, i will take your word on it that the book is not very well grammatically written (after all, you seem to be very intelligent when it comes to your use of the English language). But none the less, as you say, the book was very enjoyable to read...which is why i protest to radical Christians trying to boycott the book, after all, it is a best seller.
You have an outstanding good and well structured site. I enjoyed browsing through it Cell phone company reviews school and student service for financial aid hard drives deactivates Sport betting wagering Ladywood high school Headlight chrysler sebring lxi 1997 Facelift a3 2005 http://www.free-educational-stationery-borders.info/jovan-dresses.html
interestingly enough anthropax, the study of britney spears' music could feasibly be a new research topic within musicology- after all, people have written academic studies of rap music.
Post a Comment
<< Home