Egypt won't see DaVinci Code

Why waste my time...

Well, you've spent a heck of a lot of time on several threads explaining how something you have not even read is a piece of crap. You have no idea whether it's well written or not, but simply based on what others have told you, you are the reviewer extraordinaire.

If you want to have another opinion, that's fine.

Well, at least mine comes from having read his books.

But only the SATIRE and HUMOR on DAN BROWN and his book and the movie has brought out talking about feces. If you can find a couple of hundred of posts that prove otherwise and do not talk about DAN BROWN and HIS BROWN WORK, then I welcome the rebuttal...

I can easily rebut anyone claiming it is poorly written, from hundreds of reviewers who actually read books. It may contain ideas that conflict with Church history, but as I've said before, if one's faith is a house of cards, then don't read it.

As for the literal aspect of the gospel writings, those have stood the test of time.

Does that include abortion?

Seems those who like to throw stones at the church are very selective of what they believe about science and what they don't believe.

Do you know what Dan Brown believes? After all, it is the book we are discussing.

For the Roman Catholic Church or Christianity to be founded on ugly lies is ridiculous...

I won't argue that, other than to say that the first couple of hundred years of various Christian sects with many different beliefs proved a rocky and chaotic start.

Such a coverup could never have withstood the test of time.

Have you ever read an unbiased history of the popes? The mere fact that today there are hundreds of Christian religions with substantially differing views and beliefs may prove that in fact it didn't.

You're just piling it higher and deeper (Ph.D.)

Still can't stay away from those fecal analogies, huh?

> I read a lot of mysteries and thrillers

Yes. I bet you do.
But if someone eats a lot
at, say, McDonalds,

are they qualified
to judge what is and isn't
good food? Don't think so . . .

Its more than garbage - its Junk History.

Its the kind of trash that Ericj Van Daneken wrote in Chariots of the Gods - about spacemen coming to earth to show people how to build pyramids.

If somebody wants to see History Fiction and they are astute enough and historically edcuated enough to realize what kind of trash this is, fine, let them see it. But then, if they were that bright, they wouldn't be wasting their time on such Junk History.

are they qualified to judge what is and isn't good food? Don't think so . . .

And your qualifications to judge a good book are....?

Christianity is hardly threatened by this book.

Not Christianity, but Catholicism is.

>And your qualifications to judge a good book are....?

[laughs] Well, for starters,
I can see that regardless
of how well it sells,

"The Da Vinci Code"
is a badly written book.
(Like my link explained.)

[laughs] Well, for starters, I can see that regardless of how well it sells, "The Da Vinci Code" is a badly written book. (Like my link explained.)

Now, you don't suppose Mark Steyn has an agenda do you? It's funny how those around this forum who "hate" the Davinci Code are good for two things: Not reading it, and hauling out Mark Steyne to prove it's bad writing. Would you like to begin comparing reviews of the book from people who actually read it?

TOPHER posted:

As for the literal aspect of the gospel writings, those have stood the test of time.

MACVSOG68 Responded:

Does that include abortion?

The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles does address abortion. As for Jesus talking about abortion, it was a mute point 2,000 years ago. It was a mute point because ANY GOOD JEWISH RABBI KNEW 2000 years ago that ABORTION was murder... So if Jesus were to discuss that, He might also iterate that THAT THOU SHALT NOT KILL - which there would have been no point.

He may have dealt with it indirectly with the case of the woman caught in the act of Adultery. She was going to be stoned to death, and He intervened. Maybe she was pregnant, and Jesus wanted that child to live.

There are other cases in the early Church that point that even the PAGANS, the Romans, valued the life of the UNBORN CHILD. In the case of Perpetua and Felicity, one was pregnant, and could not be executed until after she gave birth. So Felicity was spared until after she gave birth, and she was martyred later than Perpetua.

Even the PAGAN Romans knew that the unborn child must not be hurt. However, they believed that if the child, once born, had birth defects, they would take it out into the woods so that it would be devoured by wild animals. However, they refrained from killing the children themselves.

The Didache is a fairly recent academic discovery. The first complete set was found around 1880.

The original is believed to be written around 70AD -- about the time of the writing of the early Gospels.

If you go back to Rachel mourning that she had no children or many other figures in the Old Testament, the life of the child was cherished by the Jewish family.

Exodus 2:22 may be controversial today, but at the time, it was clear - injure a pregnant woman and she loses her life or that of the baby, then you must also suffer death -- for costing the life of the child or the woman. And it was only if people were fighting - not trying to directly injure the woman, that this was true.

I imagine if one tried to kill a pregnant woman, and though she and her baby was unharmed, the Jews in the Old Testament might have chosen to stone such a person to death.

That was the penalty, for example, for a homosexual act.

The person caught involved in such an act was stoned.

I had someone who was raised Jewish who is an expert on Hebrew and Greek explain that passage and about abortion in the Old Testament.

It just was not done.

The Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles brought up this issue -- because they were dealing with non-Jewish people with non-Jewish beliefs.

Jesus did not leave ancient Israel, and therefore did not have to explain this to the Chosen people. Nor did He have to explain that Homosexuality was forbidden by Jewish Law.

A Jewish cemetary will only the following to be buried there: human remains, the remains of an unborn child, and sacred books of the religious faith.

If it was not considered a human life, then the unborn would not be allowed to be buried in a Jewish cemetary.

Therefore, the commandment of Thou Shall Not Kill is all that is needed to say to a truly Orthodox Jewish person, in terms of abortion.

The Roman Catholic Church has not changed over 2,000 years. It forbade abortion with the Didache, as certainly Peter was one of the Twelve Apostles and considered the first Pope.

It was not until 500 years later that the Didache was discarded as not being inspired teaching, but the principles of homosexuality being wrong and abortion were still a part of the Churches than as it is now.

In terms of any Christian Churches breaking with the 2000 year old tradition, in the 1920's or 1930's, many Protestant Churches started to allow birth control. Before that time, birth control was considered against their church teachings.

The Roman Catholic Church has never wavered on abortion, homosexuality or birth control, though there have been dissident bishops in the Church.

So the teaching about abortion pre-dates Moses and really goes back to Rachel mourning that she is barren.

Not having children was considered a curse to the Jewish people in the Old Testament. Having many, many children was considered a great blessing from God.

My source on this Dr. Paul Schenck, as well as others.

Abortion was wrong for the Jews in the time of Jesus. Since the Jewish population of the world was decimated by Adolf Hitler, some of the traditions may have been broken by the Holocaust. But basically, a good conservative Jew knows that abortion and homosexuality are wrong, though you can find liberal Rabbis and liberal Jews that might say abortion is okay today. It was not 2000 years ago, that is a given.

Some Protestant Churches have wavered on the points of Abortion and Homosexuality. The Roman Catholic Church, with over one billion members does not...

The Roman Catholic Church has never wavered on abortion, homosexuality or birth control, though there have been dissident bishops in the Church.

Would it surprise you to know that St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Jerome, Pope Innocent III, Pope Gregory IX, and others considered abortion murder only after "animation"? And that for about 1200 years, most of the Church accepted the concept that until the act of "ensoulment" took place, which was defined by Augustine as after the body is formed, and later amended to animation, or when a woman feels the fetus move, no murder could exist. Not all popes during that time were in agreement, but until Pius IX issued a letter setting the record straight....that the fetus is a human from the time of conception, it was simply not Church dogma. Interestingly, I don't believe the Greek Orthodox ever bought into that. I believe they always considered abortion as murder at any stage.

I am going to wait for the sequel: Harry DaVinci Potter Codes and the Holy Grail of Fire.

It has a Quidditch game where Jesus is a Seeker and Judas is a 30 pieces of silver snitch.

Didn't mean to insult you...I meant to say that we shouldn't expect non-fiction.

Funny, I've not seen any condemnation of State of Fear which, to the left, has similar connotations.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

Funny, I've not seen any condemnation of State of Fear which, to the left, has similar connotations. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

I meant here on FR. I have read only good things here, and yes have seen numerous condemnations of it from the liberal community.

No problem.

I can believe St Jerome and some of the Popes. It is quite a surprise about St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

And basically, my adversion to The Da Vinci Code boils down to the following: Jesus said to go out and preach the Good News. From what I know about The Da Vinci Code, I know it is bad news.

Now I really love the SG1 and Atlantis Stargate TV series (and movie), and this program deals with a lot of different cultural issues, but these all take place on other worlds very similar to earth, but different.

I accept that this is Science Fiction, and I accept the premise of having a Worm Hole that allows for instant travel to another planet light years away.

So I can travel to my galaxy far, far away, and know it is fiction, but that it helps me to understand why I believe what I believe and the difference between right and wrong.

The Da Vinci Code occurs here on earth based on supposed truths. But it blurs what it right and wrong, and who your heroes are supposed to be.

I felt that I was given a great injustice by being brought up with the notion that John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and other Hollywood types were my heroes or Hollywood written stories of such people as Sargent York or Lawrence of Arabia or others.

In retrospect, I wish my heroes would have been Jesus, the apostle Peter and many Saints and Angels.

They would have been great role models.

I find true stories of the lives of the saints to be much more fascinating than anything Hollywood can offer.

I do have one exception - the book and movie Keys to the Kingdom. The book is quite different than the movie, but both have the same theme. True Christian charity might be found in atheists. And people who call themselves Christians might not have charity -- whether they be Roman Catholic, Protestant, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, or whatever.

And there is another great exception - Lilies of the Field. This also portrays some very wonderful and admirable virtues of people and how we can help and work with one another. What a great Sidney Poitier movie that truly earned him an oscar that he richly deserved!!!

It all gets down to the two greatest commandments as Jesus said they were: (1) Love (have charity for) God with your whole heart, mind and soul; and (2) Love (have charity for)your neighbor as yourself.

Now Hollywoods interpretation of those previous two lines is that Jesus was really talking about having sex with God and not love. And also about having sex with your neighbor.

That is what Hollywood portrays the Da Vinci Code as: it is soooooo important to show that Jesus had sex with people.

Not that Jesus allowed Himself to be sacrificed for our sins. Not that he came to spread Good News everywhere about immortal life and the invitation to live in heaven forever.

Nor does the Da Vinci Code offer the premise that Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, and brought hope and mercy to this world, as well as many other miracles.

There is no 1 Corinthinians 13 to be found in the Da Vinci Code.

The simple message of Jesus is that God is love (charity, not sex) and that before Moses, He said I am.

So all you have to do is convince me that Tom Hanks walks on water, or that there is a message of Great Charity for everyone in The Da Vinci Code or that Dan Brown knows how to heal ailing souls, and bring peace and love into peoples' hearts and minds.

Show some sort of positive thing to be gained by the Da Vinci Code, then I will consider it not a total waste of time.

I would much rather read stories like Saint Gabriel Possenti. Now he only took on 12 armed men who were raping and looting a village, and he defeated them single-handedly. Show me a story comparable to the Patron Saint of Marksmen and I will be interested.

He defeated the 12 men single handedly without killing one of them. And he prevented a village from being totally raped, plundered and destroyed (burnt down).

Such stories are worth my time: Saint Gabriel Possenti risked his life to save others and prevented harm to this world. And, even better, it is a true story.

His punch line was that he cut a lizard in half in a split second, and showed the bandits what might happen to them.

Or one of the many stories of Saint Padre Pio.

It gets down to me that there are enough true stories that people don't know about that why should I bother with reading some fiction.

Basically the name Lucifer comes from Light bearer (I believe). So Lucifer saw the light and that is how he brought evil to the world. To me, the Da Vinci Code is just another enlightenment for people - Lenin had his enlightment, as did Adolf Hitler. And these were men who achieved much in the world during their time. They were great accomplishments, but evil ones.

But how did Lenin and Hitler bring love (charity) to the world? They did not. They brought some different ideas with them. And people followed them. This brought great harm to the world.

Jesus said 2000 years ago that you will know a tree by its fruit: only a good tree bears good fruit, and a bad tree will produce bad fruit.

I have been burned by Hollywood entertainment in the past, so I no longer open my mind to their ideas for fear of being poisoned...

If there is a a theme of true charity for one another or some other great and good fruit from The Da Vinci Code, then I will consider it.

Mel Gibson showed some aspects of Jesus in the Passion that made it worthwhile to see.

Tell me of a truly redeeming aspect of The Da Vinci Code and I will consider it.

But I value the opinion of another Kansas native - Charles J. Chaput. In 2004, he shut out the newmedia (CNN, NY TIMES, MSNBC), and walked away smelling like roses, and badly burned the media. His opinion is important to me, and his is that the Da Vinci Code book is boring...

So why isn't The Da Vinci Code not boring, and what is its merits (fruits)???

What are the great merits (fruits) to be found in The Da Vinci Code???

A simple question that should have a simple answer.

For example, the great fruit of The Lilies of the Field is that it showed how one man (Homer Smith) could bring great charity to a community and a great gift (a church/chapel) that people could celebrate important days in their lives -- weddings, baptisms, funerals...

It is clear what the fictious character Homer Smith brought to the movie Lilies of the Field and it showed what a great flower Homer Smith was...

So again I ask, what is the great fruit of reading the book The Da Vinci Code.

Is is great enlightenment as Lucifer found, and brings us no charity, or does it have some wonderful that I do not understand is here to be found...

If you are so truly high on The Da Vinci Code, then you have a simple and exact answer.

Otherwise, life in this world is short, and God has tasks for me to do that I perform badly and am truly unworthy of the graces I have been given. I should not waste God's time, as there are many souls in peril these days...

Good post. I will answer a few of your points and questions.

The Da Vinci Code occurs here on earth based on supposed truths. But it blurs what it right and wrong, and who your heroes are supposed to be.

It does essentially what Michael Crichton does in State of Fear. Crichton uses as a background well known environmental organizations to build a fictitious attack by the environmentalists to show how fragile our environment is and to gain power. But, Like DaVinci Code, is fiction. Brown claims to be a Christian, so I'm not sure why he would want to blur right and wrong. While he portrays Jesus different than Church history does, he never shows Him in a negative light. He didn't invent those alternate theories. They've been around for about 1900 years. Opus Dei, Knights Templar, Priory of Sion, etc all were real. From that point he merely puts it all together into a fictional story.

I felt that I was given a great injustice by being brought up with the notion that John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and other Hollywood types were my heroes or Hollywood written stories of such people as Sargent York or Lawrence of Arabia or others.
In retrospect, I wish my heroes would have been Jesus, the apostle Peter and many Saints and Angels.

I think you can have both. John Wayne was of course a great American, and certainly someone to look up to, because the values he reflected on the big screen were for the most part, the same values he held personally.

They would have been great role models.

Don't deny that at all. Having been raised Catholic, I was taught only what the Church wanted me to learn, which of course excluded much of the Church's history. It was not all the making of role models. The Church's leaders frequently succumbed to the lust for power. And as we all know, power can be abused and misused. The Church should not be afraid of all of its history, not just that part that supports today's Canon Law.

That is what Hollywood portrays the Da Vinci Code as: it is soooooo important to show that Jesus had sex with people.

I didn't get that at all from the book. Yes sex was a part of the ceremonies portrayed, but I think Brown was trying to say that the Church's treatment of sex and women over the last 2000 years were not consistent with history. And that part is probably true, if not embellished for his book.

Nor does the Da Vinci Code offer the premise that Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, and brought hope and mercy to this world, as well as many other miracles.

As I said before, Brown does portray Jesus as a great man, just not as devine. He simply takes the alternate theory (again, that he did not create) and does create a mystery story out of it.

Show some sort of positive thing to be gained by the Da Vinci Code, then I will consider it not a total waste of time.

It's called entertainment. If I come on a good writer who can put together a good mystery story, then that is what I am looking for. I didn't read Brown's books for any kind of moral reinforcement. You get that from books such as you mention below, but I doubt you get much of that from SG-1 which you say you like.

His punch line was that he cut a lizard in half in a split second, and showed the bandits what might happen to them.

And you're absolutely sure that's true?

But I value the opinion of another Kansas native - Charles J. Chaput. In 2004, he shut out the newmedia (CNN, NY TIMES, MSNBC), and walked away smelling like roses, and badly burned the media. His opinion is important to me, and his is that the Da Vinci Code book is boring...

And you don't for a second think that Chaput, a Catholic priest has no agenda? Think for yourself. If the only bad reviews are coming from people who do not want the book to succeed, you could be wrong. Of course Chaput is going to say it's boring.

As for what the book brings to a reader, go to Dan Brown's web site and read the numerous reviews of it. I get out of it exactly what you get out of science fiction...entertainment.

Anybody else listen to The Jesus Christ Show last Sunday?

It was amazing the way Jesus blew the DaVinci Code to smithereens !!!

http://www.kfi640.com/pages/streaming.html at 8 to 11 AMCT

topher posted:

His punch line was that he cut a lizard in half in a split second, and showed the bandits what might happen to them.

MACVSOG68 responded with:

And you're absolutely sure that's true?

If I told you that one man (who was a conscious objector) and was almost allowed to leave the US Army for those beliefs, captured 300 Germans basically singlehandedly, and almost WAS FORCED to kill a number of German machine gunners, you might consider that a lie.

The facts about Gabriel Possenti are not as significant as are those about a corporal from Tennessee whose name was Alvin York.

His squad was caught in an ambush, and all the leaders but him were either dead or wounded.

His next actions were that he wanted DESPARATELY to save lives. He was a God fearing man, though he was once a hell raiser.

So he used his faith in God and his talents as a backwoodsman, and successfully led what was left of his squad back to Allied lines, along with 300 prisoners.

On his dying bed, Alvin York still regretted that he killed one of the Germans -- the German would not surrender.

The Gabriel Possenti story is just an Alvin York story on a much smaller scale.

Twelve of Garibaldi's band were roaming the mountains in Italy, and started to raid and plunder a village. They all had pistols.

Gabriel, a young monk sent the village because of poor health, asked his superior if he could try to help the people.

The superior gave his permission but did not know what Gabriel could do.

Each of the plunderers had a pistol. Gabriel was an excellent marksman and horseman growing up -- very similar to the story of Alvin York.

He came upon one of the band of men, and took his pistol -- the man was busy carrying off a young girl, so it was easy to snatch his pistol. Then he snatched another one from another man.

This warranted the attention of the leader of the band of twelve men, as well as all of them.

He leader asked the young monk what he intended to do with the two pistols -- thinking he did not know how to use them.

It was at this opportune moment, a lizard was crossing the road. The lizard hesitated, and Gabriel let loose one shot which cut the lizard in two.

It must have been some shot, as Gabriel took the other pistol and pointed to the men, and asked if any of them would care to see if he could the same with them as he did with the lizard.

He had no takers, and Gabriel ordered the men to drop their weapons, put out the fires they started and leave.

Now this is from Ann Ball's Modern Saints.

Now you believe the true story of Alvin York, where a conscious objector won the Medal of Honor, our nation's highest honor, and compare it to a smaller tale of Gabriel Possenti.

One difference between the two stories is that Gabriel did not have to kill anyone, but I am sure he was willing to do anything to protect people.

As for Alvin York, he may have saved more lives than just those who survived in his squad. He also saved the lives of 300 German prisoners. Now each of those prisoners, if not captured by Alvin York, might have killed or maimed a person. So maybe the total lives saved was more than 300 lives.

And the story of Alvin York was probably something that might have convince Germany to surrender, as this was not many months before the end of the war, and I am sure this story circulated on both sides of the Front - the German and the Allied side.

But for me, the greatest satisfaction of both stories is that they are stories of men of great faith in God who also had extraordinary abilities.

Ultimately the UNSEEN may been a factor in both stories -- unseen angels and the hand of God guiding the right person at the right time.

These two stories are more an example of what Jesus said: "With God, nothing is impossible."

So I won't force you to believe the story of Gabriel, but I believe it to be true, just as I believe the story of Alvin York to be true.

Both are stories of what a man can do if he has God's help.

You don't have to walk on water to impress me...

topher wrote:

His punch line was that he cut a lizard in half in a split second, and showed the bandits what might happen to them.

MACVSOG68 responded:

And you're absolutely sure that's true?

A good web link is (middle of the page):

http://uccatholic.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_uccatholic_archive.html

from the section: Patron Saint of handguns

The St. Gabriel Possenti Society exists to promote the public recognition of St. Gabriel Possenti, including his Vatican designation as Patron Saint of Handgunners.
St. Gabriel Possenti is a Passionist saint (Saint Gabriel of the Sorrowful Virgin). Apparently, in 1860, a band of soldiers from the army of Garibaldi entered the mountain village of Isola, Italy. They began to burn and pillage the town, terrorizing its inhabitants.
Possenti, with his seminary rector's permission, walked into the center of town, unarmed, to face the terrorists. One of the soldiers was dragging off a young woman he intended to rape when he saw Possenti and made a snickering remark about such a young monk being all alone.
Possenti quickly grabbed the soldier's revolver from his belt and ordered the marauder to release the woman. The startled soldier complied, as Possenti grabbed the revolver of another soldier who came by. Hearing the commotion, the rest of the soldiers came running in Possenti's direction, determined to overcome the rebellious monk.
At that moment a small lizard ran across the road between Possenti and the soldiers. When the lizard briefly paused, Possenti took careful aim and struck the lizard with one shot. Turning his two handguns on the approaching soldiers, Possenti commanded them to drop their weapons. Having seen his handiwork with a pistol, the soldiers complied. Possenti ordered them to put out the fires they had set, and upon finishing, marched the whole lot out of town, ordering them never to return. The grateful townspeople escorted Possenti in triumphant procession back to the seminary, thereafter referring to him as "the Savior of Isola".

I do believe the story of Alvin York. It is well documented, a bit embellished by the movie, but nonetheless a great story.