Another unbeliever. Abomination:yup: :yup:
Ah, the familiar “But it’s just fiction” argument. If you want to know why people are concerned, just look at this post:
There wouldn’t be a market for the myriads of anti-DaVinci Code books if there weren’t people out there that do take it seriously. Some, like my good friend’s grandmother, bought everything the book was saying, started reading books like “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”, and, basically, had their faith completely shaken. Others, like the poster above (no offense elts1956 ;)), may not have bought into the more fantastical elements of the book, but nonetheless, began to think “outside of the box”, thus sowing the seeds of doubt.
Most of us would love nothing better to leave Brown’s books by the historical way-side and move on with our lives. But we would be remiss not to respond when there are people out there that are buying into it all.
Because if he had been it would have been recorded in the Gospels. If he had had children we would know their names and their descendants. You see, many people were looking for a political Messiah–it’s easily seen in the Gospel accounts. If Jesus had been that sort of Messiah he would have married, had children, and been forgotten as just another political fanatic.
Jesus came to create a new type of family–one not based on family ties, such as the tribes of Israel, or husband and wife, but on faith in God and living in the grace of God by being transformed in Christ. And as God incarnate, he had no need of an earthly wife. Besides, God had already “taken a wife” when he asked Mary to be the Mother of his Son. That is what the expression “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” means when applied to her.
Dan Brown isn’t merely “thinking outside the box” he’s ignoring history, sound theology, and reason in order to make his claims. Not very good way to convince those who know better, only those who don’t.
As to the Vatican denying Ron Howard access to Catholic churches, I say good for them! Mr. Brown’s hatred for the Church is clearly evident. His books are mere propaganda, not literature. It would be silly indeed for the Catholic Church to encourage such propaganda by allowing a film based on such propaganda to be filmed within its churches.
As a published writer, I know for a fact that even in fiction, people are influenced. I’ve heard it straight from them. If I bring up a little known fact (yes, in order to carry along the story, facts are sprinkled in) or strange idea, the usual reaction is “Is it true? Did that really happen?”
It would be nice if people were 100% unaffected by fiction, but this has never been the case. Look at advertising. Will chicks really dig you if you drive a [fill in the blank]? Yet big money is paid to people to convince you to buy something or do something (go to the Casino - it’s great). I think there is a reason you don’t see a guy in a T-shirt appear on a TV ad: “See dis here? It’s good. Buy one.”
When fictional movies dress up their characters with an aura of reality, it does make people wonder. Does the government really have a giant storage facility somewhere that holds the Ark of the Covenant and other things too dangerous to use? It seems plausible.
The Oliver Stone movie JFK, actually mobilized people and resulted in the release of additional documents related to the assassination.
I don’t believe anyone who says, “Don’t worry about it. It’s just fiction.”
I know…I really wanted to meet one, and Mr. Spock too. Come to think of it I’d really like to have a lightsaber as well.
I don’t mean don’t worry about it. I more meant recognize it for what it is. Fiction can be really powerful, but we also need to encourage people to remeber to look at it critically as fiction.
I also said I fully support the Vatican saying we don’t agree with your movie you can’t film in our churches. That was the correct move. I would hope that my Lutheran Congregation would make the same call.
I for one, love a good thriller, fantasy and all and that includes Dan Brown’s books. Do I buy into it? Absolutely not. But in “thinking outside the box”, I became aware of how much we don’t know about history that hasn’t been written down. Our history of the daily life of Christ and the Apostles remains greatly a mystery. Sure we can read History books about the times of Christ and get a general idea of how each person lived, but this is not the whole and complete story.
What is there to doubt? We don’t know everything, just what we have been told. Anathema!!!
I have complete faith in the Catholic Church in matters of Faith and Morals. But does this belief include how Christ lived His daily life? He didn’t teach twenty four hours a day, I am “almost” sure. So hmmmmmmmm how did Christ being fully divine and fully human live from day to day?
It seems that religions, including the Catholic Church, sometimes “box in” individual thinking. So until the Church ordains that Christ remained chaste throughout His life, I will leave the possibilities open. To me it isn’t such a big deal. But then the Church throughout most of its history has never admitted it made a mistake in those matters of tradition small “t”. St. Paul was celebate, saying “it is better to marry than to burn”, so where does that leave marriage? Right, it is a Sacrament, but not on the same higher level of the Priesthood. Sometimes, I just don’t agree with everything the Church says. Note the difference between says and teaches.
How could anyone have their faith shaken by reading Brown’s books? If Christ were married, wouldn’t He still be God? Wouldn’t he still have risen from the dead? Wouldn’t the Catholic Church still exist? Maybe I am missing the point in Brown’s books, but I don’t think he has said anything to contradict what the church teaches in matters of faith and morals??? All I saw was intimations that even Cardinals in the Church aren’t perfect, that there are some groups that go overboard in self punishment, and that possibly our vision of what we want to be true regarding Christ’s personal life begs some questioning. This is something we will never know about with certainty.
I can see where unknowledgeable people would have different interpretations of the books Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood Holy Grail and these could be dangerous to some. Holy Blood Holy Grail has been disproved as being absolutely flawed in research. So yes, I can see the Church’s point. And they should rightly so show the errors of these books in a “very vocal” way. Education is the best defense.
If you can tell me differently and show me where I am in error, please feel free to do so.
I appreciate your post and the non-confrontational tone. The DaVinci Code is one of those topics that seems to encourage bickering, so it’s nice to avoid that!
I think it is possible for some people (perhaps even most people) to read the Da Vinci Code and not have it shake their faith. I don’t think there has been any mass exodus from the Church over it. But I have heard of some people that were greatly affected, and I believe it throws up another obstacle in evangelizing those who read it who weren’t particularly religious to begin with. I’m glad to see you acknowledge the right to educate people on the errors in the book. As God can write straight with crooked lines, we can use the Da Vinci Code as a teaching moment. Even though the hoopla around the book and movie have died down, the millions of people who have read the book will still carry it with them for a long time to come. So it’s still good to be educated about it.
As far as the Church not admitting mistakes, I encourage you to check out the book When a Pope Asks Forgiveness. John Paul II wasn’t shy about owning up to past mistakes in the Church.
As far as Jesus being married, you are correct that it would not change the fact that He is God or that He died and rose from the dead. However, I think that the lack of evidence is telling. Of course, we don’t know everything that Jesus said and did. The Gospels themselves tell us this (John 20:30; 21:25). But if Jesus was married, that would be quite a glaring omission for it not to be mentioned anywhere (whether in the New Testament or in the extrabiblical sources of that time period).
Between those sources (the New Testament and the work of other historians at the time), I think it’s safe to say that we know more about the life of Jesus with more certainty than any other ancient historical figure. The Gospels give us a very good picture of what Jesus’ life was like, and what he did and taught, even if it is not a life-long play-by-play. If he had been married, where is the evidence?
I think the main problem with the Jesus being married hypothesis isn’t so much what it says about Jesus, but what it says about the Church. If Jesus was married, then either the Church knows about it and is covering it up, or else the Church does not know and thus is not a very reliable source of information about Jesus (being that they are ignorant over such a central part of Jesus’ life). Either way, the credibility of the Church as a reliable (and infallible) teacher is called into question.
I don’t expect the Church hierarchy to be perfect or to never make mistakes, but to be wrong on whether or not Jesus was married would be a pretty significant mistake. If they can be wrong on that, what else could they be wrong on? (His miracles, His resurrection, His divinity, the Sacraments, moral teaching, etc…)
Hello, thanks for YOUR non-confrontational answer. I HATE confrontations!!!
I thoroughly agree with the logic of your last paragraph as well as the rest of your post. However, sometimes this little insiduious voice pops up and I think incredible things. Like, how in the early church, being a part of a patriarchal society, did the leaders of the church show equality to women? I am sure you have seen spin offs of the Da Vinci Code on the History channel giving life to the speculation that M.M. may indeed have been Christ’s wife, or if not in that role, at least one of the prominent leaders of the Early Church. That Peter, Andrew and some of the others poo pooed her and shunted her aside because of jealousy, pride??? Boy, one really has to give complete faith to the Holy Spirit’s protection of the Church to get through all that doesn’t one? But all this is pure speculation and I am speculating too much I guess. But it is a romantic thought, maybe I am just too much a romantic to be able to believe cogently and consistently with the left side of my brain. Go figure. But it’s fun to think about.
I don’t mind the decision of the vatican ,
it’s their choice , ok , fine ,
[quote="http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1447]“In any event, Howard will now have to drop a few dimes to find some other churches to rip off.”
Strong talks , almost (as I see/read) …
an accusation …
It seems not to be …
Anyway , that’s all I’ve got to add to this thread
Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), june 28, 2008
Anyway , that’s all I’ve got to add to this thread (right now)
I couldn’t edit my post anymore
Salute & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:
– Laurent LUG (.@…), june 28, 2008