Catholic Church vs. The Da Vinci Code... oops!

BillieTheBot

Inspired by a thread in another forum... sorry.

The Catholic Church has spoken about The Da Vinci Code, a book the Vatican feels doesn't do it much justice. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4350625.stm

The Cardinal who spoke on behalf of the Church could perhaps have chosen his words more carefully:

"It astonishes and worries me that so many people believe these lies."

"The book is everywhere. There is a very real risk that many people who read it will believe that the fables it contains are true."

Er...

Former Member

What is your problem with religion? A religious persons faith is something to respect.

Former Member

Born Slippy wrote:

A religious persons faith is something to respect.

Indeed, when it's personal. But this isn't about a person's religion, it's about the Catholic Church as an entity.

What makes me laugh is that by coming out like this the Church actually proves some of what Dan Brown's books suggest.

But ultimately why are the church concerned about a work of fiction, surely they don't think that a book based loosely of fact will have a huge impact on people in general, are they?

Oh, hang on....

Former Member

Born Slippy wrote:

What is your problem with religion? A religious persons faith is something to respect.

Religion and faith are different things... You can question the Bible and still have faith in God.

Former Member

Name of the Rose, Madgeline Sisters, The Mission, Nearly every episode of South Park, Last Temptation of Christ, Focaunts Pendulum, Witchfinder General, Transmetropolitan, Hellblazer... god the list is endless of shows, books, comics and tv they could pick.

Seems sad that the Catholic church now needs to jump on bandwagons to get publicity

Former Member

The Da Vinci Code is a load of old flannel anyway. Ripped off from The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail from what I can tell, and that was a load of old nonsense too.

Former Member

The Da Vinci Code was a piece of crap, one of the worst books ive ever read and a carbon copy of his other Robert Langdon novel.

Former Member

I can see your point Aladdin, but other works havent sold SO many as this and many have stated they were either works of fiction or said that they arent certain. Dan Brown has done niether of these things.

He has stated known lies as fact, I can completely see why the Church is annoyed about that. And yes of course the Bible cant be proven totally either, but telling lies and saying they are fact is wrong in any situation.

Former Member

many people i know believe its all true

i think theyre trying to remind people its a work of fiction

crap book imo

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

I can see your point Aladdin, but other works havent sold SO many as this and many have stated they were either works of fiction or said that they arent certain. Dan Brown has done niether of these things.

The Bible's main pickle seems to be with suggestions that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had offspring. The fact is there is as much evidence (or lack of) to suggest he did just that as to accept the official version of the Catholic Church, that he did not marry anyone or indeed that he was the son of God. It is extremely rich (and rather funny) of this cardinal to express concerns about books being mass-produced and read, and full of fables that people might take as the truth.

Which brings me to my second point:

He has stated known lies as fact, I can completely see why the Church is annoyed about that. And yes of course the Bible cant be proven totally either, but telling lies and saying they are fact is wrong in any situation.

*Ahem* Man descending from a single couple created by a God, a chap building a giant ark and putting a couple of each animal species in it to save those species from drowning in a world-wide flood that covered the earth for 40 days and 40 nights, the languages that exist in the world today being the result of a punishment by a God who wanted to sabotage the building of a tower, etc etc etc ad infinitum... *Ahem*

Whereas it is perfectly okay for individuals to have faith and believe in greater beings, only close-minded fundamentalists would suggest that every last word, passage and story written in the Bible is the word of God and the Absolute and Undeniable Truth. Which is precisely what the Catholic Church is implying.

And yes, the Da Vinci Code has a lot of bollocks and hot air within it, but the fact remains there is not a single thread of evidence that might suggest Jesus remained single during his life any more than that he married a former prostitute and had children with her.

Former Member

BTW, the church's official stance is to remain silent

But the cardinal's spokesman denied reports that the clergyman was asked by the Vatican to hit back at the book.

Carlo Arcolao told the BBC's News website that it had been the cardinal's own decision to make a public statement about the book.

Former Member

I just think that he should have put a little disclaimer at the back, it wouldnt have changed the book in anyway but would have been considerably more sensitive to what a lot of people believe.

Former Member

Yes, I agree with that. One thing is writing a popular thriller that some (or many as the case might be) consider good entertainment, and another is pasing it as fact.

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

I can see your point Aladdin, but other works havent sold SO many as this and many have stated they were either works of fiction or said that they arent certain. Dan Brown has done niether of these things.

Given that it's sold as fiction, I'd say that point has been covered.

Which is more than you can say about the Church's selling of The Bible.

Former Member

TheShyBoyInTheCorner wrote:

BTW, the church's official stance is to remain silent

I was just going to say the Church should keep quiet about it. Because they might have right to complain about Brown portraying fiction as fact, but they're not exactly on solid ground themselves.

Former Member

The difference is that The Da Vinci code IS lies, and could never be the truth. But the Bible can't be proved wrong, you might not want to believe it, but you can't prove it wrong.

Former Member

The Da Vinci codes contain some elements of truth in them, and a lot of poetic licence. Are you suggesting that a book written some 1000 years + after the events it portrays won't be the same?

Former Member

I am, essentially. Comparing the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah and a Current translation, and they are scarily similar. There are differences, but NOTHING of theological importance, it comes down to a comma here and there.

Former Member

Dan Brown, for what it's worth, is a plagiarising bastard anyway. I wouldn't wipe my arse with the da Vinci Code, it's the literary equivalent of The Sun.

But I digress.

Aladdin, don't you think that, just this once, you could actually have some respect for the beliefs and faiths of others? So you don't believe in God, or The Bible, or whatever. Fair enough. But why all the carping?

We've been through all this before: there's as much evidence that the Universe was made in seven days as there is that it came from a "big bang"- the big bang theory is dubious at best, certainly more so than any ideas of creationism. As for evolution, there is little or no proof that evolution ever occurred- there's certainly a glaring abscence of "missing link" skeletal remains, even in Hull.

The anti-Christian carping on here really is tiresome.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

Dan Brown, for what it's worth, is a plagiarising bastard anyway. I wouldn't wipe my arse with the da Vinci Code, it's the literary equivalent of The Sun.

But I digress.

Aladdin, don't you think that, just this once, you could actually have some respect for the beliefs and faiths of others? So you don't believe in God, or The Bible, or whatever. Fair enough. But why all the carping?

We've been through all this before: there's as much evidence that the Universe was made in seven days as there is that it came from a "big bang"- the big bang theory is dubious at best, certainly more so than any ideas of creationism. As for evolution, there is little or no proof that evolution ever occurred- there's certainly a glaring abscence of "missing link" skeletal remains, even in Hull.

The anti-Christian carping on here really is tiresome.

I bow to you sir.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

Dan Brown, for what it's worth, is a plagiarising bastard anyway. I wouldn't wipe my arse with the da Vinci Code, it's the literary equivalent of The Sun.

But I digress.

Aladdin, don't you think that, just this once, you could actually have some respect for the beliefs and faiths of others? So you don't believe in God, or The Bible, or whatever. Fair enough. But why all the carping?

We've been through all this before: there's as much evidence that the Universe was made in seven days as there is that it came from a "big bang"- the big bang theory is dubious at best, certainly more so than any ideas of creationism. As for evolution, there is little or no proof that evolution ever occurred- there's certainly a glaring abscence of "missing link" skeletal remains, even in Hull.

The anti-Christian carping on here really is tiresome.

Agreed, to have your religious beliefs ridiculed or insulted can be deeply insulting. Yes I am a believer in free speech but also in respect for others.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

We've been through all this before: there's as much evidence that the Universe was made in seven days as there is that it came from a "big bang"- the big bang theory is dubious at best, certainly more so than any ideas of creationism.

Yes we have been through this before. There is far more evidence for the big bang - red shift and background radiation to name 2 things. What evidence is there for creationism?

Former Member

Blagsta wrote:

Yes we have been through this before. There is far more evidence for the big bang - red shift and background radiation to name 2 things. What evidence is there for creationism?

The Bible!!!!!

Former Member

Blagsta wrote:

Yes we have been through this before. There is far more evidence for the big bang - red shift and background radiation to name 2 things. What evidence is there for creationism?

One of many

ps Red shift and background radiation are neither evidence for nor against intelligent design/creationism.

Former Member

Blagsta wrote:

There is far more evidence for the big bang - red shift and background radiation to name 2 things. What evidence is there for creationism?

And you were there to expereince this "background" radiation were you? Where is your evidence?

Former Member

And you were there to expereince this "background" radiation were you? Where is your evidence?

Where u there when God created the Earth and everything on it? Where is your evidence?

Former Member

marv wrote:

Where u there when God created the Earth and everything on it? Where is your evidence?

Did I say I was there when God created the Earth and everything on it? Where is your evidence?

Former Member

No but the question you asked Blagsta was one that he could not answer and I don’t understand the point of the post so I did one which is as just as ridiculous as yours...

The big bang theory is still just a scientific theory however a lot of intelligent people have spent their lifetimes trying to explain the great mystery of the universe and how it works because at the moment human knowledge of the subject is limited. It may turn out that the Big Bang theory is wrong and that something else started the universe however Googled it and found this some very complicated science by some clever people to explain the theory in big words

Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

Aladdin, don't you think that, just this once, you could actually have some respect for the beliefs and faiths of others? So you don't believe in God, or The Bible, or whatever. Fair enough. But why all the carping?

Because we are talking about disgustingly intolerant and bigoted people who take a literal meaning of the Bible and have used it throughout history to criticise, castigate, persecute and until not long ago kill those they deemed unworthy, heretic or sinners.

Because it is highly ironic that the people who are happy to base entire pillars of their doctrine on a single quote or two uttered thousands of years ago by some bloke who claimed to speak on behalf of a deity, and won't even tolerate anyone questioning a single word of the book they see as the infallible word of God, should criticise works of fiction that show their Church in bad light and warn of "books mass produced and full of fables that people might take seriously".

We've been through all this before: there's as much evidence that the Universe was made in seven days as there is that it came from a "big bang"- the big bang theory is dubious at best, certainly more so than any ideas of creationism. As for evolution, there is little or no proof that evolution ever occurred- there's certainly a glaring absence of "missing link" skeletal remains, even in Hull.

The anti-Christian carping on here really is tiresome.

As others have pointed out already there is infinitely more proof that the world was created on a big bang than it will ever be of being created on six days by a deity. But putting that aside, a few other things that, beyond the slightest trace of doubt, did NOT happen (and thus proving the Bible is not the complete and infallible word of God):

- The earth is NOT only a few thousand years old

- A man did NOT build an ark and preserved the animal species that exist today by getting a couple of each inside the boat while the entire world flooded for a month

- The thousands of languages that exist today did NOT originate instantaneously when God decided to sabotage a building site by giving the brickies different languages and confuse them beyond the continuation of their work

Therefore it would really help if people dropped once and for all the astonishingly absurd notion that every last word, tale and story that features in the Bible is the absolute truth. Because it ain’t.

Now, as I said a million times, if an adult chooses to worship any particular religion, I have no objection. But I do have objection of the heads of some organised religions pretending the book and beliefs associated with their religion are 100% true, down to the last character written, and use such dogma to bother others while actually having the cheek of denouncing other works as dangerous and full of fables that the masses could mistake for the truth.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

intolerant and bigoted people ... have used it

Says it all really. Nowt to do with what is actually contained in the Bible. But you don't seem able to get your head around that little fact, do you Al?

As others have pointed out already there is infinitely more proof that the world was created on a big bang

Where is this proof, and how does it prove creationism wrong?

- The earth is NOT only a few thousand years old

- A man did NOT build an ark and preserved the animal species that exist today by getting a couple of each inside the boat while the entire world flooded for a month

- The thousands of languages that exist today did NOT originate instantaneously when God decided to sabotage a building site by giving the brickies different languages and confuse them beyond the continuation of their work

thus proving the Bible is not the complete and infallible word of God

These are your beliefs, and are worth no more than somebody who believes those things to be true. Why is that a problem?

if an adult chooses to worship any particular religion, I have no objection.

Incongruent with:

But I do object [to] organised religions pretending the book and beliefs associated with their religion are 100% true

Former Member

Blagsta wrote:

Yes we have been through this before. There is far more evidence for the big bang - red shift and background radiation to name 2 things. What evidence is there for creationism?

Evidence for a young creation includes

• Galaxies winds themselves up too fast
• Comets disintegrate too quickly
• Not enough mud on the seafloor
• Not enough sodium in the sea
• The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast
• Many strata are too tightly bent
• Injected sandstone shortens geological 'ages'
• Fossil radioactivity shortens geological 'ages' to a few years
• Helium in the wrong places
• Not enough Stone Age skeletons
• Agriculture is too recent
• History is too short

and lets not forget that carbon-dating isn't accurate or even remotly reliable past 50000 years