Get out your hankeys v2.0: Top Cardinal Blasts 'Da Vinci Code' as 'Cheap Lies'

[Giancarlo]

How do you know, drose? You never read it..

And no imran.. I said don't take the book as gold.. just consider some points in it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I said don't take the book as gold.. just consider some points in it.

You are proving my point. Are not 'some points' part of the underlying story? Do you not consider them as fact?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I said don't take the book as gold.. just consider some points in it.

You are proving my point. Are not 'some points' part of the underlying story? Do you not consider them as fact?

I'm sure not everything in the book is completely factual. Some parts may be fictional. But i'm saying points in the book that were highlighted should be considered and looked at more closely.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But i'm saying points in the book that were highlighted should be considered and looked at more closely.

Even though they book is entirely fictional and the new facts that the author has put down in the book have no references or substantiation in historical record? Why should we look at it if there is nothing other than his word?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But i'm saying points in the book that were highlighted should be considered and looked at more closely.

Even though they book is entirely fictional and the new facts that the author has put down in the book have no references or substantiation in historical record? Why should we look at it if there is nothing other than his word?

The book isn't entirely fictional. But you know what? I'm tired of your strawmans. I'm withdrawing from this thread.

I think religion should be attacked in any form possible.

[ravagon]

Nuts. I got the book a while ago thinking it'd be about some sort of ancient Leonardo Da Vinci discovery that tied into a modern day Illuminati plot or something.

Now I find out it's just about some sort of religious nonsense?
Gah!

[Imran Siddiqui]

The book isn't entirely fictional.

Of course it is (if you believe the Bible story of Jesus is fictional as well... if not, then anything other than that is). Where is your proof that it is not? Saying it has as much proof as the Bible story isn't going to have much sway with me.

I think religion should be attacked in any form possible.

Especially with unsubstantiated rumors, right?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Especially with unsubstantiated rumors, right?

Attacking it with reason and justified cause is proper, since religion is an error of humanity.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
How do you know, drose? You never read it..

Stop pwning yourself. People are starting to talk...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

bertone seems to be making a strong run at the papalcy.

[Giancarlo]

"I haven't read the Da Vinci Code" - DRose.

Nice try really.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Here are some grave errors Brown has made in writing his book, which he says has elements of historical truth even though it is fictional:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Da_Vinci_Code

Spoiler:

Because of the novel's claim to contain elements of historical truth within its fictional framework, many have viewed The Da Vinci Code as a genuine exposé of orthodox Christianity's past. As a result, the book has attracted a generally negative response from the Christian, Jewish and Italian community, as well as from historians dismayed by the way Dan Brown has in their view distorted—and in some cases fabricated—history. Criticisms cover:

* The claim that prior to AD 325, Christ was considered no more than a "mortal prophet" by his followers, and that it was only as a consequence of Emperor Constantine's politicking and a close vote at the First Council of Nicaea that Christianity came to view him as divine: This has been debunked with extensive reference by various authors to the Bible and Church Fathers, sources that pre-date the First Council of Nicea. (See this example (http://www.envoymagazine.com/PlanetE...-Full.htm#Full), or Olson and Meisel (2004), who refer to The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325–1870 (1964) by Philip Hughes.) At the Council, the central question was if Christ and God were one, or whether instead Christ was the first created being, inferior to the Father, but still superior to all other creatures (see Arianism).
* The claim that Mary Magdalene was of the tribe of Benjamin: This is unsupported by any historical evidence. The fact that Magdala was located in northern Israel, whereas the tribe of Benjamin resided in the south, weighs against it.
* The idea that the purported marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene would create a "potent political union": According to the Gospels, Jesus clearly stated that his kingdom "is not of this world"; if, on the other hand, Jesus was merely a "mortal prophet" seeking to establish only a political kingdom, he failed.
* The assertion that "the sacred feminine" has been suppressed by Christianity: In Roman Catholicism, for example, Mary (of Nazareth), the mother of Jesus, is specially venerated as the "Mother of God," the "Queen of Heaven," the spiritual mother of all mankind, and is believed to be free of sin. (It is hypothesized that Mary's Virginal nature does not accord with Brown's ideals.)
* The allegation that five million women were burned by the Church as witches: Olson and Miesel (2004), referring to information at www.gendercide.org (http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html), state that the most reliable current estimates—including those not executed at the Church's recommendation, not killed by burning, and not female—range from 30,000 to 50,000.
* The assertion that the original Olympics were held in honour of Aphrodite: they were celebrated for Zeus Olympias.
* The theory that Gothic architecture was designed by the Templars to record the secret of the sacred feminine: historians note that Templars were not involved with cathedrals of the time, which were generally commissioned by European bishops.
* The depiction of the Templars as builders, guild-founders and secret-bearers: Templar historians point to abundant evidence that Templars did not themselves engage in building projects or found guilds for masons, and that they were largely illiterate men unlikely to know "sacred geometry," purportedly handed down from the pyramids' builders.
* The portrayal of the Priory of Sion as an ancient organization: While the Priory is a genuine organisation claiming to have been the Templars' driving force, most historians suspect it originated in the aftermath of World War II, on the grounds that it registered with the French government in 1956, and only became widely-known in 1962 (see Pierre Plantard). However, according to official sources of the Priory, it is founded in 1090.
* The suggestion that all churches used by the Templars were built round, and that roundness was considered an insult by the Church: Some churches used by the Templars were not round, and those that were round were so in tribute to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
* The contention that the Mona Lisa was painted as a self-portrait: Art historians are almost unanimous in holding the painting to be of a real woman, Madonna Lisa, wife of Francesco di Bartolomeo del Giocondo. Still, some alternative researchers concluded using "morphing" techniques that the resemblance is striking (Lillian Swartz of the Bell Labs and Digby Quested of the Maudsley Hospital in London).
* The depiction of Opus Dei as a monastic order. In fact it is a personal prelature with primarily lay membership. There are no monks in Opus Dei, (although members of Opus Dei do practice mortification of the flesh).
* Mary Magdalene is said to have been labelled a whore; in fact, there is no Biblical correlation between the whore that Christ saves from being stoned to death and Magdalene whatsoever. This common misunderstanding is initiated by Pope Gregory I, who proclamed this based on a false analysis of Luke 7 and 8. He "integrated" three different women into one. (See Pericope Adulterae.)
* The suggestion that the Tetragrammaton is an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name of Eve, Havah. It is generally believed that the four Hebrew letters that forms the Tetragrammaton (Yud, Hay, Vav, Hay) represent the tenses of the Hebrew word for to be -- Quoting Exodus 3:14-15, "And God said to Moses, "I am who I am [...]". Actually, the phrase in Hebrew is "eh-yeh asher eh-yeh", which in English translation would really be, "I will be who (or what or that) I will be." Therefore, The Verb emphasizes God's absolute being.
* The planet Venus is depicted as visible in the east shortly after sunset. This is an astronomical impossibility.
* The book repeats various debunked claims about the golden ratio.
* Brown characterizes the cycle of Venus as tracing a pentagle along the zodiac every four years, and from here claims this as the basis for four-year Olympic period. The fact is, Venus completes five cycles in *eight* years, a fact well known to the ancient Greeks and Mayans. This eight-year cycle is one of the factors in predicting the transit of Venus.

http://analyzer.depaul.edu/paperplate/Transit%20of%20Venus/JayRyan.htm

Many have held the novel's historical defects to be so serious and numerous as to warrant separate works debunking it; several books such, as Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel's The Da Vinci Hoax, have been written in an attempt to expose what critics perceive as Brown's many errors.

[Giancarlo]

I never said the book was flawless.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Attacking it with reason and justified cause is proper, since religion is an error of humanity.

Making up historical 'facts', which are not substantiated by historians, is not attacking anything with reason.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
"I haven't read the Da Vinci Code" - DRose.

Nice try really.

Erm, that screen shot is from inside the book. OMFG!!!! TEH INVISIBLE PAGE1!!11!1 AND YOU MISSED IT!!!11!!!1