The Anti-Christian conspiracy

Originally posted by jake1997
I do feel that the dvc and peoples willingness to be misled by it is a good sign of how far gone society is.

I don't see that soceity is any more far gone now than it has been in the past, other than runaway authoritarianism.

Is the DVC anti-Christian?

Discounting all of the characters within the plot, including Opus Dei as well as any others and looking only at the historical material used, how much of that do you feel is anti-Christian and why?

How many, among us, have actually read the book?

I have a copy and have come to my negative opinion of Dan Brown due to his method. On the historical material which he uses to weave his childish plot, there is much to be said. As I mentioned before (in my previous post), such historical evidences are grist for debate.

The flat characters in this book are meaningless, while the references to a certain actual painting, real people, real places and real events are truly of interest.

Which are you calling out in your dismissive evaluation?

.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Donegal
Do you think the Davinci code is adding to the antichristian propaganda and needs to be "dealt with" or do you think that people need to chill out and let stories be told. Also, if you would like to elaborate, tell us what facts you dispute within the book.

I don't care what fictional stories that are told, so long as they're representative of fiction. When an author claims fact from fiction or a reader claims fact from fiction, that's when they are treading on dangerous ground. I've seen some non-believers thump the DaVinci Code like a Bible and can't help but wonder if they realize what it is they're holding onto.


[edit on 16-11-2005 by saint4God]

I agree that people should see something that is a work of fiction as just that. However, when we begin to discuss the validity of any work that states any part of it as fact, we have the option of taking it at face value or diving deeper. I don't think I quite understand what you meant when you said, "I've seen some non-believers thump the DaVinci Code like a Bible and can't help but wonder if they realize what it is they're holding onto." Are you pointing out the validity of the Bible is more established than the DaVinci Codes historical "facts"?

I take both with a grain of salt. On one hand, being a "non-believer", I see Christianity fighting to dispute the truth within the Bible and I have to realize that true believers will always do that. People see what they want to see and the "truth" is obvious. Everyone is susceptible to this. I find myself trying to find the opposing truths which discount the bible and must remind myself sometimes that I am not here to destroy Christianity, but to understand it and other faiths. My point in all of this rambling is that I do not think that anyone can know the real truth because of our prejudices. Even if we sit here and say, "Here it is, right here in print!". It makes no difference. The winners write the books. The winners tell the "truth". All other previous truths are destroyed.

Even if I could not prove any of the facts within The DaVinci Code, and the only reason I am still using this book is because of all the uproar caused by it, I still think that it is a good think. Make people think about what they believe. Make them realize that their religion is not the one true religion. That does not mean lose faith. If it causes you to lose faith, then it wasn't right for you. But let it help you gain strength in your faith. Dig deeper and find those truths for yourself. The only absolute for me is that only one being knows the absolute, un-humanized truth. I can only seek to understand my own nature and hope that I help others along the way.

Originally posted by BFD
Saint, an interesting thing I've noticed about the ones that are becoming "Da Vinci Thumpers"...In talking to some of "them" I've noted in almost every conversation that "they" displayed (almost) a NEED to believe that what Dan Brown wrote about was fact...A need it seems that is founded in their own lack of faith that Jesus was who he said he was; and that he did what he came to do.
In other words, what I've seen is that the people that (before) had little or no belief in Jesus at all, read the DVC and (after) suddenly had ABSOLUTE faith that Jesus was real, albeit perhaps not as divine as previously taught.

What's interesting is that for some the DVC has been a bridge that has gapped the seemingly HUGE gap between "them" being human and Jesus being divine and brought a new sort of understanding of Jesus' life and mission and perhaps historical reality...although all of this personal revelation is at the sacrifice of Jesus' divinity in "their" minds!

What a dilemma.

My own thoughts on the subject are that I thought the DVC was a great piece of fiction based on a good amount of research into previously known cult beliefs that have survived the ages by staying a the core and sometimes hidden dimension of some "secret" societies.

I enjoyed it but it didn't shake my faith, I'm looking forward to the film, I'm sure I'll enjoy it too

You're absolutely correct. But what about us who thought he was only a great man and teacher of humanity versus the son of god born of a virgin? I thought that long before Dan Brown put pen to paper and began writing his work. I do not discount the existance of Jesus Christ. What I do dispute the fact that the church, with the help of Constantine, possibly manipulated the truth of his teachings into a religion that forced itself upon people through pain of death. The church absorbed other religions within itself to sugar-coat it and then began preaching that Christ stated he was the only way to God. Much of this, you can find, predates The DaVinci Code. Dan Brown just pushed the idea onto the general populace.

Originally posted by masqua
Dan Brown and The Davinci Code is a rather poor knock off from the ideas put forth by Micheal Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln who, together, studied and wrote about the blood line of Jesus, Mary Magdelane, what her actual relationship with Jesus was and her particular interest in a part of France. His novel, reading like a romance with lots of fictional sub-plots, action filled pages and ne'er-do-wells, IMO, cheapened the findings of these fine authors who actually did some research.

Those books are; the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and The Messianic Legacy. Anyone seriously interested in anything Dan Brown glibly suggested in his comic books should take the time to read these well received books instead.

before I get too far off the intended topic in this thread)

While Dan Brown did much to reduce the importance of such theological and historical material by presenting it within the framework of a fictional novel, he did, however create a renewed interest within the minds of millions. He would not be what I would call anti-Christian in that he does nothing to mock the original foundations upon which the church has been built (prior to Constantine and the Edict of Milan).






[edit on 16-11-2005 by masqua]

Exactly. I will have to pick a few of those titles up. I only vaguely recall hearing of the theory of Jesus' marriage to M.M.

Originally posted by jake1997
You guys answered the dvc questions right on the nose.

I do feel that the dvc and peoples willingness to be misled by it is a good sign of how far gone society is.

The only thing it shows is that christianity no longer fulfills peoples need for spiritual development. I am not "far gone" just because I choose not to believe the Bible.

Masqua, thanks for bringing up the "Holy Blood" and "Messianic" books, I neglected to mention them in my response...

I've read both of those books and truthfully found all of the information in them to be (almost) overwhelming! There was just SO MUCH information and SO MANY sources of the information that it read like an encyclopedia! I really found the authors research methods and tenacity to be amazing and truly commendable.

I do agree that Dan Brown didn't come up with anything original...but you must agree that had he not written DVC, many people would have never had their eyes opened to the "true" information contained within it...and for that fact by itself; I think that the DVC is a great book!

On "coming up with original content" - my dad always says that there's nothing new under the sun, and as a struggling writer I desperately want to believe that that statement IS NOT TRUE!...That being said, I have no problem giving Dan Brown (and many other authors) a pass when they take "old" information and turn it into something "new" - as long as it is palatable and at least interesting!

Originally posted by Donegal
Are you pointing out the validity of the Bible is more established than the DaVinci Codes historical "facts"?

Yes.

Originally posted by Donegal
I take both with a grain of salt.

Certainly your choice to do so.

Donegal, on believing Jesus was just a great man...

I too believe that Jesus was a great man, but maybe not JUST a great man?...and that is probably the point on which we (all of us) could discuss our differing beliefs until we're blue in the face...

On Constantine and "the powers that were" taking Jesus (the man) and propping him up as a savior to initiate some sort of cover-up...
Having graduated from a Bible college and growing up in a devoutly Christian family...In the interests of not allowing myself to be a "sheep" who follows blindly; I have actually done quite a bit of research on this subject and found that there are inklings of truth in it and from a historical standpoint there is sufficient evidence to build on that the Christian sect that eventually became Catholicism and many others; took they're varying beliefs and religious traditions from many, many older religion and belief systems...albeit MUCH older ones.

Where does that truth in all of this lay? I guess we'll have to continue to ask the hard questions like the authors of "Holy Blood" have before us and press on until we feel satisfied!

Originally posted by BFD
On "coming up with original content" - my dad always says that there's nothing new under the sun, and as a struggling writer I desperately want to believe that that statement IS NOT TRUE!...That being said, I have no problem giving Dan Brown (and many other authors) a pass when they take "old" information and turn it into something "new" - as long as it is palatable and at least interesting!

To the person asking what I know about DaVinci Code, I can say I've seen documentaries, fictional shows, writings, movies, etc. on the same claims that are in the book. I also regularly hold real-life discussions with those who've held it close to their heart. Honestly, I'm not interested in reading it since it sounds like the same old song (without foundation), as BFD pointed out here.

Here is why that book can be a powerful Anti-Christian tool. If for any reason, you can convince someone that Jesus did not die, then the debt of sin that we all have was not paid. He would not have purchased a place in heaven for those who believe that he is the resurrected and living infinite Son of God. Salvation is destroyed.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by saint4God]

What's interesting to me is that although some see DVC as an intensely Anti-Christian book; Dan Brown himself claims to be a Christian without batting an eyelash.

Now, I say this with all sincerity, I would LOVE to sit down and chat with Dan Brown and find out what he really believes...because if he DOES believe that Jesus was/is the messiah and that the belief that Jesus was/is the Son of God is necessary for a person to go to heaven; than Dan Brown has built a fortune on writing his own ticket to Hell

Originally posted by saint4God
Here is why that book can be a powerful Anti-Christian tool. If for any reason, you can convince someone that Jesus did not die, then the debt of sin that we all have was not paid.

This of course presumes "Christian" applies only to your sacrifice centric concept of Christianity.

There were numerous early Christian sects who rejected the concept of sacrifice for forgiveness of sin altogether, yet still followed "Christ". If it were shown that Jesus did not die, or even if it were shown that he never even lived in the first place, that would not destroy Christianity, it would only destroy your concept of it.

Having faith in the wisdom of Christ is sufficient for salvation in the minds of many.

Originally posted by BFD
Now, I say this with all sincerity, I would LOVE to sit down and chat with Dan Brown and find out what he really believes...because if he DOES believe that Jesus was/is the messiah and that the belief that Jesus was/is the Son of God is necessary for a person to go to heaven; than Dan Brown has built a fortune on writing his own ticket to Hell

Ooh! Ouch. That one ah...wow. I mean...

What else can I say?

Originally posted by spamandham
Having faith in the wisdom of Christ is sufficient for salvation in the minds of many.

But they don't believe he was resurrected and the words he gave after that? So you're saying they only believe in the "human" part and not the "God" part. I hope the problem in that is evident.

Originally posted by BFD
Donegal, on believing Jesus was just a great man...

I too believe that Jesus was a great man, but maybe not JUST a great man?...and that is probably the point on which we (all of us) could discuss our differing beliefs until we're blue in the face...

On Constantine and "the powers that were" taking Jesus (the man) and propping him up as a savior to initiate some sort of cover-up...
Having graduated from a Bible college and growing up in a devoutly Christian family...In the interests of not allowing myself to be a "sheep" who follows blindly; I have actually done quite a bit of research on this subject and found that there are inklings of truth in it and from a historical standpoint there is sufficient evidence to build on that the Christian sect that eventually became Catholicism and many others; took they're varying beliefs and religious traditions from many, many older religion and belief systems...albeit MUCH older ones.

Where does that truth in all of this lay? I guess we'll have to continue to ask the hard questions like the authors of "Holy Blood" have before us and press on until we feel satisfied!

I agree. Like I said, I don't have a lot of education on this subject, just what I have read here and there when I got a wild hair to. Too many interests. I do however try to find answers to my questions. I don't think that a trend we are seeing today has nothing to do with anti-christian ideals as it does with people trying to grab a "quick fix" of religion. And of course, people my age trumpeting around that they have ALL the answers and know better than everyone else. I think that latter is a real problem today.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Having faith in the wisdom of Christ is sufficient for salvation in the minds of many.

But they don't believe he was resurrected and the words he gave after that? So you're saying they only believe in the "human" part and not the "God" part. I hope the problem in that is evident.

What is the problem in that? I have heard that before. A good friend of mine followed the teachings of Christ and considers himself a Christian, but he believes what I believe. Christ was turned into something he was not...a god. The only proof you have that he was anything other than human is what it says in the Bible. To believe in that wholeheartedly, for me, would say that I believe that the men writing that did not interpret it and therefore wrote what they thought was right. Of course, the answer to that is,"It was written by God through men, so it must be true." That would take a level of faith that I do not possess and can not possess.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Having faith in the wisdom of Christ is sufficient for salvation in the minds of many.

But they don't believe he was resurrected and the words he gave after that? So you're saying they only believe in the "human" part and not the "God" part. I hope the problem in that is evident.

It is evident that it is a problem for you. It obviously isn't a problem for those who believe that way. The deity of Christ was a contention even in the early church, as was the sacrifice for sin, and the virgin birth.

The position of the Ebionites was that Jesus was born an ordinary man, and became the spiritually adopted son of god. Their emphasis was on his humanity.

The only reason modern Christianity emphasises sacrifice theology over the humanity of Jesus is because the followers of Paul found their way into politics and wiped everyone else out as heretics. Such an act was inconsistent with the teachings of the Paulines about Jesus of course (WWJD).

Which perspective then was truer to Christ, the one which was wiped out for political reasons, or the one that performed the wiping out? Was such an act more consistent with what Christianity teaches about god, or is it more consistent with what Christianity teaches about satan?

Originally posted by spamandham
The only reason modern Christianity emphasises sacrifice theology over the humanity of Jesus is because the followers of Paul found their way into politics and wiped everyone else out as heretics.

Actually no. It was gotten from what Christ said. Luke 24:45 "Then he(Jesus as it mentions before this verse) opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning with Jerusalem."

How someone can believe in Christ without believing in what Christ says is beyond all reason.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
The only reason modern Christianity emphasises sacrifice theology over the humanity of Jesus is because the followers of Paul found their way into politics and wiped everyone else out as heretics.

Actually no. It was gotten from what Christ said. Luke 24:45 "Then he(Jesus as it mentions before this verse) opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning with Jerusalem."

How someone can believe in Christ without believing in what Christ says is beyond all reason.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by saint4God]

Hmm... Could be an addition added to aid the winners. Could you come up with a date that this was first written and gathered in the bible. Maybe it predates our historical winners. Then again, maybe not.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
The only reason modern Christianity emphasises sacrifice theology over the humanity of Jesus is because the followers of Paul found their way into politics and wiped everyone else out as heretics.

Actually no. It was gotten from what Christ said. Luke 24:45 "Then he(Jesus as it mentions before this verse) opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning with Jerusalem."

How someone can believe in Christ without believing in what Christ says is beyond all reason.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by saint4God]

I tend to agree with you on this matter. You cannot separate the Christ from His teachings. I mean was there some imaginary friend all these Apostles had that taught them according to the Old Testement or was there a real live flesh and blood Jesus? I tend to think that too many misconceptions of scripture are directly responsible for the decline of experienced living. Most of the New Testement was an experience and written about later to tell of the happening of those affected. Persecution is happening mostly from Dirka Dirka Muhammad Jihad