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...
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.