Fiction is fiction. If it offends you, don't watch it.

Read: Baigent,Leigh & Lincoln's Holy Blood,Holy Grail, before you make further silly comments about this topic. What you have mistakenly done is to buy into the Catholic Church's dis-information campaign on this subject. The Church claims to be debunking the Jesus bloodline theory, which could be their motivation. It is more likely that the Church is trying to protect Opus Dei. In any event, the Merovingian's did exist and Godfroi, Dagoberts grandson, created and led the 1st crusade. Godfroi was heir to the throne of the Jewish Kingdom of Septimania and went to the Holy Land to re-establish Christ's claim to the Jewish Throne in Jerusalem. When the Pope got wind of what the Merovingian bloodline was up to, he had the Knights Templar formed to go to Jerusalem and make things right. On this topic Mark, you need far more information then you have. Peace

Well obviously he's not going to watch it Georgia, he's just opening the floor to discussion.

Personally I didn't know any of the stuff you just mentioned was a part of the Da Vinci Code. I thought it was just a conspiracy thriller style book/movie about hidden messages in Da Vinci's works.

Now to just get that ball rolling let me say it for Maf and the others.

*Cough*

Isn't it just as crazy to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin than to believe this series could be true? Anything about religion or "belief" requires a bit of "craziness."

*Coughs*

Now it's out there so feel free to add to the discussion. (Hey I can throw wood on the fire now and again. :p )

Give this book its due, it definitely raises some pretty serious questions about Christianity. I mean, what if Jesus Christ had a child, and then his blood carried on, into maybe both my veins and yours! I truly believe Jesus' blood flows through my veins, and I think that it also helps me understand him better. Thankfully this issue will get the attention it deserves, and we can investigate the claims, proving me to be the descendant of the Son of God.

Keefer,

I shall pray for you on that one...

Georgia,

That leaves aside the question of why so many people believe it...I know its fiction, you know its fiction; but a lot of people are taking it as true, or at least mostly true...

You beat me to it, Gozer.

"It is a frightening time that a rather silly concept such as Code should become such a phenomena - and that people should believe it. Someone who believes Code is likely to fall for any con job that comes along - and with millions of copies in print, we have to assume that the population of suckers in the United States is quite high."

Mark, substitute "Bible" for "Code" in that above quote, and I think it holds the same amount of truth.

maf,

Not exactly - even if you are an atheist then the Bible is vastly more true than Code because the Bible actually has some basis in reality (eg, it is accepted that a man named Jesus lived and preached in 1st century Palestine), while Code is a fabrication from start to finish...one Catholic wag has said that there is truth in Code: London is in England, Paris is in France, and Da Vinci painted some pictures...other than that, it is entirely made up. Additionally, it is slanderous against various Christian and Catholic groups and individuals, past and present.

I was baptized and confirmed in the Lutheran Church. My faith means alot to me. It gets me through each day. I read the DaVinci Code. It is a book of fiction. Nothing more nothing less. I have also read Marxist theory, the Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kamp. None of those books or manuscripts make me any less a back sliding Christian and none of them have changed my mind about the greatness of being an American. One nice thing about being old, having common sense, and life experience is that you can cut through the bullshit and propangda and usually get a good laugh out of conspiracy theories.
Keefer: I lost my father last month. He was 92 and a WW2 vet. I miss him.

I was baptized and confirmed in the Lutheran Church. My faith means alot to me. It gets me through each day. I read the DaVinci Code. It is a book of fiction. Nothing more nothing less. I have also read Marxist theory, the Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kamp. None of those books or manuscripts make me any less a back sliding Christian and none of them have changed my mind about the greatness of being an American. One nice thing about being old, having common sense, and life experience is that you can cut through the bullshit and propangda and usually get a good laugh out of conspiracy theories.
Keefer: I lost my father last month. He was 92 and a WW2 vet. I miss him.

I don't know about your interpritations of the bible, but in Revelations, it says something about Jesus running around with a sword sticking out of his mouth and him slicing sinners up with it. That seems kind of nonrealistic to me.

Are you also offended by Dante's Divine Comedy? He slandered some previous popes by putting them in Hell. He puts a lot of historical figures in hell, actually.

Now, I personally believe that the Da Vinci Code is fiction because I don't believe alot of the commonly held christian doctrine anyways, but it is actually playing on a debate that has been going on for a couple thousand years. It really found a niche in the late 20th century's new obsession with gnosticism.

So, why, if this debate has been going on for so long, is the Catholic Church spazzing out about it now?

It's popular, and it could cause people to question the church's grip on their flock.

Then again, the whole situation is null and void for people like me who just don't care...

No wonder the news media seems so in love with this thing. It attacks Christianity. The main stream media seems to hate true Christians more than they hate anything else.

The problem that the Catholic Church has is that it is a hierarchical institution despensing the Word of a man(Christ) who was teaching how gnosis worked for the individual. The Church is corrupt and any investigation into it's past performance, like the setting up of the Templars as provocateurs will be hard for them to explain. It is also difficult for the Church to justify allowing Philippe, of France, to arrest and then kill them all on friday October 13, 1307. Are you ready Opus Dei? Peace

I'm glad I could help Maf. :)

Seriously though I'm with Georgia and uffy on this one. Why bother with it? I mean if you're offended good, get you and your friends not watch(which you're doing BTW Good for you!) and explain why. Nothing wrong with that.

My only problem with doing so is that you're just attracting attention to it. Heck, I've played many violent video games and read certain books only because folks told me I shouldn't. There's that "voyer" factor to it that saying it's bad makes some folks want to see it more.

Basically all I'm saying is that sometimes pointing out the issues makes folks want to do the negative thing more. *Shrugs*

RE: "One nice thing about being old, having common sense, and life experience is that you can cut through the [BS] and propaganda and usually get a good laugh out of conspiracy theories."

Unfortunately far too many people today have lost their common sense and cannot distinguish fact from fiction. Millions will read the book and/or see the movie and will believe it is all true!

How many Arabs and Muslims have seen the Turkish movie “Valley of the Wolves: Iraq” and believe it is true?

How many people already believe the Holocaust never happened?

How many people believe America never went to the moon?

I'm with you Mark.

I don't need to read the book or see the movie to know I do not want to contribute my money or time to it.

AAR

Based on Mark's comments, I now plan on seeing it. Sounds like a four Hail Mary movie. Or two chalices up.

I have the same feeling about Monty Python and Holy Grail. I don’t recall any mention in scripture of a holy hand grenade!

"Unfortunately far too many people today have lost their common sense and cannot distinguish fact from fiction. Millions will read the book and/or see the movie and will believe it is all true!

How many Arabs and Muslims have seen the Turkish movie “Valley of the Wolves: Iraq” and believe it is true?" - AAR

And how many Christians have read the Bible and believe it is all true? How many Muslims have read the Koran and thought the same thing?

Both those groups accept its "truth" based on 100% faith & nothing more. And yet they trump their supposed "moral superiority" and state than any other religion is a farce.

And yet Davinci Code is a mere movie/book that is admittedly fiction, and assumes no moral superiority over anything.

You tell me which is more dangerous.

I totally agree with this. It's scary the number of rational people who believe this crap. "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" didn't get this klind of discussion, but Brown rehashes it and it's suddenly the new truth, as if truth ever changes.

There's tons of rebuttals out there. I must have turned up half a dozen or more today on Amazon. I'm either going to read the book OR see the movie; haven't decided yet. I need to keep my fingers on the pulse of popular trends. That's the same reason I saw the first harry Potter movie. I needed to understand what people were screaming about.

"I need to keep my fingers on the pulse of popular trends." You are about two years too late.

The reason why the Church is "spazzing out" to quote an earlier commenter is because the general public did not read HBHG or other works that advanced these theories. DVC is the first time many people are being exposed to the idea that, for example, Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. The problem with Brown's portrayal of historical events in this novel is that he not only presents them as fact, but creates a world in the novel where this is what "he vast majority of educated Christians" believe.

Yet even a cursory study of the claims made in DVC (and, by extension, HBHG) shows that these assertions of "fact" are anything but. To use only one example, the central argument of HBHG, which Brown used as a primary resource (the book even appears in Teabing's bookshelf in DVC), is based upon the existence of a secret society called the Priory of Sion, which has subsequently been proven to be a complete hoax. (Wikipedia has a good roundup of info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion) So much in Brown's book hinges upon a society that did not exist as he defined it. Yet the first page of the book lists PoS as "FACT."

If someone came up to you and said "I'm going to write a book about your life in which your family is portrayed as a band of criminals and deviants, I'll use real names and treat the information about your family as if it were the product of careful historical research, but don't worry because it's only fiction," how would you respond? Might someone accuse you of "spazzing out?"

For the record, I don't plan on seeing the movie but have read the book.

It's so courageous of Howard to undertake such a controversial project.

I just hope that Falwell's Moral Majority and Robertson's 700 Club--as well as Roman Catholics--don't take to the streets and riot and call for his blasphemous head.

I guess Ritchie Cunningham's next bold move would be to take a shot at producing a movie about Mohammad, and not as rendered by creative speculation, but as reported by historians AND tradition.

It would be very educational, as it would inform the American people and the world the nature of the other religion that poses, at the very least, an equal threat to civilization as traditional Christianity, no?

He could show him as the fierce warrior that he was, and falling into what sounds like an epileptic fits (that are described as demonic possession in the New Testament, incidentally) before writing out "received vision" in the Koran; and his being married to a child (by our standards), and had children by her that would respectively procreate into the feuding houses of Sunni and Shia.

What's wrong with that?

Georgia Frawg said:

"I don't know about your interpritations of the bible, but in Revelations, it says something about Jesus running around with a sword sticking out of his mouth and him slicing sinners up with it. That seems kind of nonrealistic to me."

It's called a "metaphor," Georgia.

The "sword" in his mouth is The Word, a proverbial "pen" that is mightier than the literal sword St. Peter used to cut off the ear of a Temple guard that was arresting Jesus, compelling Jesus to say, "Sheathe thy sword, those who live by the sword, die by the sword."

You missed the point when you communicated your impression that it was meant to be understood as a literal sword of physical violence to "slice up sinners" (as if He was Zarqwawi).

He was the polar opposite. WORDS, an appeal to reason, is His Way (which is now the Western Way), not the physical butchery perpetrated on "the deaf" by other cultures/religions (I think you know which one I'm talking about).

Finally, the Da Vinci Code has been debunked-- by Biblical scholars-- years ago, on many points, one of them being the contention that Christ's divinity was not widely accepted until Constantine and the Councils of Nicaea.

True, there were competing schools of thought at the council, but there are competing "Christian" schools of thought today that likewise insist that Jesus was not what The New Testament as is today says He is, namely the Son of God.

But the authorities of the day (i.e. the direct, spiritual descendants of Peter's Jerusalem and Roman churches) won out and officially notarized what, in fact, had been believed from the first generation of Christians (mid-first century A.D.): that Jesus was the prophecied Messiah.

Furthermore, all this Gnosticism which began all this modern-day nonsense was dealt with and REJECTED not just by the archbishops at the Council of Nicaea, but again in the first century A.D., between 60-70 or so (give or take a decade).

Paul himself called them "Antichrists."

Any close reading of the New Testament (on its surface and between the lines) does not indicate a "cover up" on the subject of Jesus' sexuality.

His number one disciple--Peter, the founder of the Roman Catholic Church!-- was married and had children, something bachelor St. Paul somewhat peevishly points out in an epistle roundly agreed by scholars to have been written by his own hand.

St. Paul spoke his mind freely. Surely, in all his promotions of marriage, he would have referenced Jesus' "marriage" as a Prime Example!

He would've known.

And so would the married Peter, who often butt-heads with the confirmed bachelor Paul on Church Doctrine and would have publicized Jesus' marriage to his own benefit!

Oh, I forgot: The misogynist Church must have redacted the passages that said so!

But we have a Catholic Church whose priests are celibate. Surely they don't reflect their founder--the married St. Peter with his keys to heaven.

So what inspired the priest's policy of celibacy?

Maybe inside knowledge of Jesus Himself?

The moronic irony of all this is that the Gnostic passage which the "Jesus Wuvs Mary" "OO! Look at this!" crowd fixates on goes something like this: "Jesus liked Mary so much he would kiss her on the (blank)."

"Oo! The lips? Her breasts? Her...?"

Hell no. The liberal Biblical deconstructionists are really grasping at straws if they have to use Gnostic texts to "prove" that Jesus indulged his sexual desire:

Gnosticism was anti-flesh, to a far greater degree than any celibate--and struggling-- Catholic priest is accused of being.

In fact, Paul called the Gnostics "antichrists" because of their heretical belief that Jesus never came in the flesh at all, but that His manifestation in the flesh was but an illusion, so contemptuous were they of the material flesh!

And yet, the liberals try to use their texts as "Evidence A" that Jesus was sexual?

Anyway, it's just all part of the liberal undermining of the traditional Christian Faith as based in The Bible, which is just too prudishly uptight (whatever) for the sex-obsessed Left and therefore the disciplined Jesus has to be made sexual in the endeavor to undermine mores and overturn taboos.

A decade or two ago--I think I recall it coinciding with AIDS awareness-- it was fashionable among the liberal intelligentsia to float the idea that Jesus and "His beloved disciple" John had some Brokeback Mountain thing going on.

That didn't sell too well, so now they mainstreamed it to: "Well he was sexual...but this time He was married! To a woman!" :)

Of course, at the root of all this is the Left's attempt to kill two birds with one stone in the undermining of Christianity and in the loosening of sexual mores ("Come on! Even Jesus couldn't keep his pants on!")--two birds in the crosshairs of godless and "sexually liberated" Marxism.

It's true. Those were steps in the strategy to overthrow the bourgoisie.

Georgia,

Ah, but you clearly do care - you have a definitive hostility at least to the Catholic Church and possibly to all Christianity. You like this book and wish success for the movie because you think that anything which is a blow against traditional Christian belief is a good thing.

How do I know this? Simple:

It's popular, and it could cause people to question the church's grip on their flock.

No one who (a) knows Christianity and (b) is non-hostile to it would refer to the Church having a "grip" on the adherents of Christianity.

John,

Mostly, I think, what they don't like is a God who actually asks them to do something...they want the love and happiness, but they wanted it granted freely and endlessly regardless of how they live...Christianity, by pointing out that God has some rules, upsets them, and so they attack it.

I think the real problem is that some people tend to think that when they see movies, even if it's fiction or «inspired by» true events, they will take it as being the definate truth.

Mark-

I don't have a hostility toward Christians. The Pope is probably a great person, for all I know, and, actually, my girlfriend is one of the most conservative christains I know.

Grip was probably not the best word to use, but the catholic church benefits from what they perceive (and is commonly perceived) to be biblical truth. If it turned out that Mary was supposed to start the church instead of whichever apostle wound up doing it (I don't know, and don't want to look it up), that could have disasterous implications for the church. I also don't really see how the concept of Jesus having sex is so horrible. I am pretty sure that sex inside of marriage universally not a sin... so that wouldn't really threaten Jesus' divinity in any way... he would still be the "perfect man."

The way that you get someone to see a movie is to say that they shouldn't see it. The argument behind the church's boycott is that people who aren't particularly strong in their faith may start to question it after seeing the movie or reading the book. I don't really see the logic behind this. When someone questions their faith, if they stick to it, their faith is all the stronger.

The best way to handle this situation. Don't necessarily encourage people to see it, but facilitate discussion (like you are doing) and convince the people who question that your way, that your biblical truth is the right one.

Frankly, I believe the message behind the story is more important than the story itsself.

And one last thing...

I don't care whether the Catholic church condones or hates this movie. It just annoys me that when confronted, their first reaction is to boycott the movie rather than facilitate debate about its contents.

I would like to note the positive effect that DVC has had on Christianity. Churches across the country are launching campaigns to address the issues that DVC has brought up. How many people would be going to a Church discussions if it did not involve a movie? Apathy is rampant in America and it takes a well placed movie (Passion of the Christ, DVC) to galvanize people into acting on their faith. Tom Hanks has said that he feels DVC has done great things for the Church simply because of the effect it has had on its members who are coming out of the woodwork to reaffirm their own sincerely held beliefs and to discredit a movie that causes them to question these beliefs. Isn't this a positive effect? As a Christian, I would be much more concerned that people would be exhibiting apathy towards this movie. The fact that Christians across the country are up in arms demonstrates that Christianity is alive and well in the United States and that the 'war on religion', if there is such a thing, is doomed to fail.

Amazing!

I find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church and, apparently, Christians in general find a novel and a movie (that hasn't even been released) to be so dangerous that it requires "dissing" in every available outlet.

I guess that being comfortable within their own belief system is just not enough anymore -- it's important to keep the marginal believers from straying.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you! Be afraid, Mark, be very afraid!

Count me in with the crowd who believes this book and movie are bogus. One thing I will say here. At least both sides are debating here, and making up their own minds.
Compare that to the Muslims, who when confronted with what they consider blasphemy, they vote with their swords, bombs, guns, and fires set to consulates/embassies.
And I watched "Submission" last night...now there is an EVIL for all the world to see. It's what got Theo Van Gogh murdered.

This is not new.

The novel *The Last Temptation of Christ,* by Nikos Kazantzakis, was published in 1951. It was very controversial (Kazantsakis himself was excommunicated from the Greek Orthodox Church) as it presented a Jesus who--although tecnicallynsin-free--was subject to every form of temptation that humans face (e.g. fear, doubt, depression, reluctance, and lust).

Martin Scorsese directed a film in 1988 based on the book (Willem Dafoe played Jesusd).

Complaints from the religious community began even before the end of production.

Major religious leaders in the U.S. condemned the film as blasphemous (and even pornographic).

There were boycotts and small groups outside select theaters holding signs.

That was in the era of the "Piss Christ" exhibits and other aggrsessive attacks on Christianity by the Left.

On October 22, 1988, a French Catholic fundamentalist group launched molotov cocktails inside the Parisian saint Michel movie theater to protest against the film projection. The cocktails injured thirteen people.

The complaints, boycott, and the isolated incident in France are referred to now as "protests" and are linked with the scale and natuure of the Islamic mass demonstrations and riots about the cartoons caricaturing a violent Muhammad/Islam.

For it's part, the graphic, live-action movie depicted Jesus having sex with Magdalene (as his wife).

Kazantsakis (and Scorcese) felt they could get away with that because it was all part of a dream Jesus had on the cross, so it "never *really* happened," and it wasn't "gratuitous," but was meant to emphasize the creature comforts Jesus was tempted by in one last desperate attempt by satan to have Jesus forsake his Duty as the Redeemer.

Jesus ultimately rejected the temptation (which, again, attacked him in a dream), but AFTER he enjoyed the good life and the creature comforts for a lifetime in the virtual reality of the dream, so in a sense it did seem gratuitous and a cheap--and cowardly--way to indulge in a sacrilegious fantasy, because it cheapened Jesus' Sacrifice of his own earthly desires and comfort by giving him a lifetime of it in a dream--i.e. it wasn't presented to him as something he could choose to have but triumphantly reject for the Higher Calling, but something already chosen and indulged in vicariously through dream, and so the sacrificial difficulty of his final rejection of it was diluted by the satiation of it, a "been there, done that" kind of thing).

Judas Iscariot is also portrayed as Jesus' most devoted disciple, a now fashionable-notion with the recent translation of the Gnostic Gospel of Judas.

So none of this is new, but seems like a cultural counter-movement from the Left against the conservative Revival that not too long ago had the movie *The Passion* breaking box office records and restoring a conservative interpretation of Christ.

(I don't mean to assert that there are vast, Left-Right wing organized, cultural conspiracies that battle it out with respective ebb and flows--with the Left currently ascendant--but there you have it).

I guess it makes more sence to base your life on a 1700 year old book of fiction than on a current one.

Mark -
Every generation gets one of these things.
20 years ago it was von Daniken and Chariots of the Gods. Now it's the Da Vinci Code.
This too shall pass.

Mr. Noonan said:

"John,

Mostly, I think, what they don't like is a God who actually asks them to do something...they want the love and happiness, but they wanted it granted freely and endlessly regardless of how they live...Christianity, by pointing out that God has some rules, upsets them, and so they attack it."

Agreed, on an individual, apolitical level.

But, when surveying philosophical/political social undercurrents and movements on an historical scale, there are tidal forces at work that engender the ideologies in today's Culture War.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Noonan, for the long-windedness of this, but I want to elaborate on what I meant when I wrote:

"Anyway, it's just all part of the liberal undermining of the traditional Christian Faith as based in The Bible...and therefore the disciplined Jesus has to be made sexual in the endeavor to undermine mores and overturn taboos.

[...]

Of course, at the root of all this is the Left's attempt to kill two birds with one stone in the undermining of Christianity and in the loosening of sexual mores...two birds in the crosshairs of godless and "sexually liberated" Marxism.

It's true. Those were steps in the strategy to overthrow the (conservative) bourgoisie."

Here are some interesting roots of modern day liberalism to consider:

In the giddiness that followed the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was widely believed that proletarian revolution would spread into Europe and, ultimately, North America-- but the two attempts at workers' government in the West (in Munich and Budapest) failed after a few months.

The Communist International (Comintern) therefore initiated several operations to find out why.

One such operation was headed by Georg Lukacs. He was trained in Germany and already a prominent literary theorist, and became a Communist during World War I.

When he joined "The People's Party," he wrote: "Who will save us from Western civilization?"

He had been one of the Commissars of Culture during the short-lived Soviet experiment in Budapest in 1919, and historians link the brevity of its life to Lukacs' orders mandating sex education in the schools, easy access to contraception, and the loosening of divorce laws—all of which repelled Hungary's Roman Catholic population.

He fled to the Soviet Union after the counter-revolution and, in 1922, was secreted into Germany where he chaired a meeting of Communist-oriented sociologists and intellectuals, in a "war room" of sorts.

The meeting established the Institute for Social Research.

Over the next decade, ISR worked out what was to become the Comintern's most successful psychological warfare operation against the capitalist West.

(1) The underming and destruction of Christianity:

Lukacs identified that any political movement capable of bringing Bolshevism to the West would have to be (in his words), "demonic."

It would have to "possess the religious power which is capable of filling the entire soul; a power that characterized primitive Christianity."

Yes indeed, Mr. Noonan: A political movement seeking to destroy Christianity by mimicking the early traits that made it succeed.

A wolf in sheep's clothing.

However, Lukacs suggested, such a "messianic" political movement could only succeed when the individual believes that his or her actions are determined by "not a personal destiny, but the destiny of the community" in a world "that has been abandoned by God."

Mark this: Bolshevism worked in Russia because that nation was dominated by a peculiar GNOSTIC form of Christianty typified by the writings of Fyodor Dostoyevsky (an Orthodox Christian whose compassion and concern for the poor nevertheless overrode the greater--and Western-- philosophical Christian message of the Individual and seems to have embraced egalitarianism).

"The model for the new man is Alyosha Karamazov," said Lukacs, referring to *The Brothers Karamazov* character who willingly gave over his personal identity to a holy man, and thus ceased to be "unique, pure, and therefore abstract."

The forsaking of the soul's uniqueness also solved the problem of "the diabolic forces lurking in all violence" which must be unleashed in order to create a revolution.

By the mindless mob.

In that context, Lukacs referred to the Grand Inquisitor section of the BK novel, noting that the Inquisitor-- interrogating Jesus-- has resolved the problem (for evil communism) of good and evil: once man has understood his alienation from God, then any act in the service of the "destiny of the community" is justified; such an act can be "neither crime nor madness.... For crime and madness are objectifications of transcendental homelessness."

(Empty lefty "psychobabble," or dangerous, brain-washing drugs? Of course, it is Christianity that was accused of being "the opiate for the masses" by Marx--but remember the admission that the very traits they condemn are srategically appropriated to empower their own ideology)

According to an eyewitness, during pow-wows of the Hungarian Soviet elite in 1919 to draw up lists for the firing squad, Lukacs would often quote the Grand Inquisitor: "And we who, for their happiness, have taken their sins upon ourselves, we stand before you and say, 'Judge us if you can and if you dare.' "

The difference between the West and Russia, Lukacs discerned, was a Judeo-Christian cultural matrix which emphasized the uniqueness and sacredness of the individual-- which capitalism caters to, and which Lukacs hated.

At its crux, dominant Western ideology maintains that the individual, through the exercise of his or her reason, could discern the Divine Will in an unmediated relationship.

What was worse, from Lukacs' POV: this reasonable relationship necessarily implied that the individual could and should change the physical universe in pursuit of the Good; that Man should have dominion over Nature, as stated in the Biblical injunction in Genesis.

And as long as the individual had the belief—-or even the hope of it—-that his or her divine spark of reason could solve the problems of society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation which Lukacs recognized as the necessary prerequisite for socialist revolution.

The goals of the Frankfurt School was to then first, undermine the Judeo-Christian legacy through an "abolition of culture," and, second, to determine new cultural forms which would increase the alienation of the population, thus creating a "new barbarism" (which would entail an Orwellian transmogrification of traditional word values).

Those ideological strains of the Frankfurt School, Mr. Noonan, have not only survived, but were revived and could be identified in the counter-cultural movement of the 1960's, and its "free love" eroticism.

(2) The hippie "Make Love, Not War" chant of the 1960's hippie counterculture--The Beatles' "All You Need Is Love," the mantra "Peace & Love," etc. (but note the hatefulness of that crowd towards the Right)-- has its roots in the Frankfurt school, but the counterculture's eroticism meant much more than "free love" and a violent attack on the nuclear family (the nuclear family being an obstacle to the socialist State's coveted control of "The Children").

It also meant the legitimization of philosophical *eros.*

People were trained to see themselves as objects, determined by their "natures."

The importance of the individual as a person gifted with the divine spark of creativity, and capable of acting upon all human civilization (the Judeo-Christian Western Way), was overwritten with the idea that the person is important because he or she is black, or a woman, or feels homosexual impulses.

Hence, the righteous civil rights movement was warped into a "black power" movement, and the transformation of the legitimate issue of civil rights for women into feminism.

Discussion of women's civil rights turned into just another "liberation cult," with bra-burnings and such.

It is obvious in feminist Kate Millet's *Sexual Politics* (1970) and Germaine Greer's *The Female Eunuch* (1971) that they are direct, ideological heirs of the Frankfurt School.

Today, *voila,* the fruits: We had a POTUS who saw fit to engage on Perjury, Subornation of Perjury, and Obstruction of Justice to cover up "just a b*****b" and the majority of the American people standing behind him, the disturbing trend of adult female teachers seducing their underage students, adult males kidnapping, raping, and murdering female children, the supremacy of the sex act in and of itself overriding--and aborting--the natural product of it (i.e. gestating human beings), and an international best-seller now made into a movie that essentially elevates the supremacy of sex to such a level that not even Jesus Christ could resist it-- because, after all, he was just a man. :)

Thank you for your hospitality.

Umm, Joey, the Bible is more than 1700 years old, put thanks for playing anyways.

I've read the Da Vinci code. I can see why the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail (which I also read), sued for copyright infringement. It's just a rehash of stuff that's been around for quite some time.

Won't see the movie as the book wasn't compelling at all to me. My faith hasn't been "rocked" by this book, nor with the recent upsurge in interest for gnostic writings such as the gospel of Judas. Any serious student of the Bible knows all about the gnostics and their motives.

The Bible has been backed up by non-religious historians as well as by scientific fields of study such as archaeology. Where are all of these documents backing up the Da Vinci Code's assertations? Oh, that's right. They're "secret" documents. Gotcha.

As to the poster who made the comment about the picture of Christ given in Revelation with swords coming out of his mouth. You come off as very ignorant. There are MANY different styles of writing out there. Ever read a poem that paints a picture of something using fantastical images? Ever read something where a person or event is described using other imagery to make a point? Sheesh. Educate yourself for goodness sakes. At the least don't open your mouth and reveal how foolish you truly are.

Georgia,

Didn't bother going to the link to Catholic Answers, did ya? If you had, you'd see that the Catholic Church answers every assertion made in the book...there is no real point in seeing the movie because it will just be repeating the lies and slanders of the book, though a lot more slickly and with great cinematography.

As for the Church urging people not to see it - you've only got so much mind, and the more garbage you lard it up with the less room there is for more useful information. My mind is a veritible refuse tip for the popular garbage of the past forty years...there are a thousand books, songs, movies and television shows that I wish now I'd never seen...wish that I had never put that garbage into my brain to clutter it up and make getting to the truth harder.

Code is just another in a long line of bits of trash which are, on balance, more harmful than helpful...as there is zero historic truth in the work, all you've got is a fiction story...and as the fictional Christ in this story is denied His divinity, it is a book anti-Christian in nature (I understand the book asserts the really stupid and ignorant lie that Constantine decreed Christ's divinty at the Council of Nicea) - much more useful for people would have been for them to read a book about the Council of Nicea, than to read a book which is just a string of anti-Christian lies designed with the purpose of making a fool rich.

The insecurity on this site of Christians is astounding.

"The Bible has been backed up by non-religious historians as well as by scientific fields of study such as archaeology. Where are all of these documents backing up the Da Vinci Code's assertations? Oh, that's right. They're "secret" documents. Gotcha." - Steve

First of all, I'd *love* to see these "documents" you're talking about in regards to the Bible. You mean there's archaeological proof that Jesus was the result of a virgin birth? Secondly, this is a book of ... FICTION ... does HBO have documents backing up the story of Tony Soprano?

"If you had, you'd see that the Catholic Church answers every assertion made in the book...there is no real point in seeing the movie because it will just be repeating the lies and slanders of the book, though a lot more slickly and with great cinematography."

Mark, tell me - how can you debunk a work of fiction? How can fiction be considered a lie, or slander?

Get a grip, people. You believe one fairy tale (the Bible), other people believe different fairy tales - my favorite is Peter Pan.

"Mark, tell me - how can you debunk a work of fiction? How can fiction be considered a lie, or slander?"

Because it is a work of fiction that asserts several blatantly wrong claims as historical facts. If someone wrote a work of contemporary fiction in which the main characters discovered proof that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a pedophile--and that discovery was presented as a historical fact--it would still be a vicious slander and an outright lie.

The problem with DVC is not its fictional elements (the main characters, the plotlines, etc.) but with elements that it proclaims to be nonfiction (Mary Magdalene as Holy Grail, etc.) Nonfictional elements in an otherwise fictional work can still be slanderous and flat out wrong.

And for all that, the book wasn't that good even on its own merits. The plot "twists" are blindingly obvious and the action is tepid at best. Pick up a Robert Ludlum novel if you want a REAL thriller.

What would you want to happen Mark? Do you think the book should be banned? That never works. Where would we stop- Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings (no one believes there really are Hobbits), Brave New World.
You just have to hope people are smart enough to see fiction as fiction. Maybe thought provoking. What if Jesus had descendents in the world today. What would they think of our world. WWJJD (What would Jesus Junior Do). It's just a world of ideas and is what makes this quick flash on the planet interesting.

maf,

Ah, but the author puts a series of statements at the front of the book which he claims are fact, around which he has woven a fictional story...the facts he claims to be true are those which not only deny the divinity of Christ, but also lend credence to the alleged "Priory of Sion", something invented by a French con artist about half a century ago.

Because the author is asserting a series of lies to be true, the book has to be de-bunked.

Ash,

Oh, of course not...but it is a subject of discussion and I thought I'd throw my two cents in...you know, blog it.

Steve, everyone knows the New Testiment was not official untill after Nicea in 325 (hince the 1700 year old date)! I was raised a Catholic and find the more I study the history of Christianity the more contradictions I find. Let's just start in the beginning, was Jesus born in a manger or was he born at home in Bethlaham? Did he travel there for a census or was that his parents home? Did they return to Nazerth after the census or did they flee to Egypt and then move to Nazerth later on finding Heards brother was still in charge. More questions than answers in the New Testiment? How come all the "official" evidance we have for a historical Jesus is 5 people who knew a guy who knew a guy named Jesus. Dosen't make since.

Went to Catholic Answers found it funny that they quote the New Testiment to prove the New Testiment version of history is correct. Wouldn't that be like quoting the Code to prove the Code is correct?
The other funny thing is that none of the Myths that Dan Brown writes about are of his creation. All he did was connect a bunch of prexisting myths about the holy grail.
joey

Joey,

I suggest you read it again...it makes a lot of sense when you've actually read the New Testament, rather than apparantly collecting a series of alleged inconsistencies produced by a third source.

To debunk a movie or book because of the fiction within is dumb.If you bought the book in the fiction section,then when you read the fiction,don't be offended.Many people have brought up the fact that while we know its false,many see the anti-christian attitudes as truth.The real truth is, people in America are dumb.Just plain stupid.And if they are so dumb that they can't find the fiction in a fiction novel,then so be it.But don't stoop to that level.I am a born again Christian.But I read the novel,"The Da Vinci Code", and I plan on seeing the movie.Because I know its for entertainment purposes.I am not angry at Tom Hanks for starring in it.He's an actor.He's doing his job,whether you like it or not.I am a Combat Medic.In Iraq,I did my job.In combat,there is death.Does that make me bad?

Just because you are a Christian doesn't mean you can't watch the Da Vinci code, so long as you don't believe everything you see.

Maf53:

"Both those groups accept its "truth" based on 100% faith & nothing more. And yet they trump their supposed "moral superiority" and state than any other religion is a farce."

To believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour requires faith. However its not based on '100% faith and nothing more'.

For some of the evidence that supports Christ as described in the Bible: http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm

Or buy New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell from Amazon.

Mark Noonan,
What 3rd source are you talking about. I quote Luke & Mark. News-Flash the bible is self contradicting. Read and compare!

Joey asked:

"How come all the 'official' evidance we have for a historical Jesus is 5 people who knew a guy who knew a guy named Jesus. Dosen't make since."

Matthew and John are "officially" identified as two of the original 12 disciples of Jesus.

i am a born again christian, daughter to a retired pastor.

i will read the book and see the movie, because i like to know what all the fuss is about.

just like im a die hard republican and bush supporter, i still read what the extreme liberals and dems have to say. i like to be informed of both, well, all sides.

i dont believe that reading the book and seeing the movie will affect my faith at all. probably make it stronger if anything.

i dont think its any more harmful then some of the stuff that catholics practice and believe that have NOTHING to do with scripture. some of their beliefs are just as fictional and made up as this book is. i see much hypocracy.

i also like to read fictional books on serial killers and nutjobs, because i like to get into the minds of wacked out people.

so, im also curious as to the mind of the author of this book.

in fact, i will add. Christians practice a "religious" holiday that was made up to mask a pagan holiday.

the holiday Christmas, though the idea is great and fun, etc, is JUST as fictional as the book/movie being discussed here.

i really hate hypocracy amongst "believers".

AFWIFE,

Umm, the birth of Jesus is a historical FACT. You can disagree about who he was, but not the fact that he actually existed.

Also, we don't know the exact "date" of his birth, although most scholars tend to think it was in August. WHEN we celebrate it is irrelevant, except to people such as yourself who apparently latch on to ANYTHING in order to discredit Chrisitians.

I LOVE the hypocrisy of "non-believers."

First of all, I'd *love* to see these "documents" you're talking about in regards to the Bible. You mean there's archaeological proof that Jesus was the result of a virgin birth?-Maf53

Archaeology has been used to debunk critics of the Bible time and time again. The Bible talks about people, places and events that have been criticized for years until, oh my goodness, we find out the Bible was actually correct.

Now, given it's track-record in not only posting factual events but also in predicting future events, I'm willing to bet on it over you any day of the week.

Do we have "proof" of the virgin birth? Nope, other than what is written in a book that's proven itself correct over and over again and has stood the test of time. But, we'll just gloss over that so you'll feel better, okay?

I actually read the book a while back. I had no idea what it was about and so I was quite surprised at the claims being made throughout the book regarding Christianity. I found the book, from a fictional standpoint, to be quite intriguing but from an historical standpoint to be quite absurd. I guess I am knowledgeable enough and strong enough in my (Catholic) faith to realize that a good novelist does not provide the definitive view on history or my faith in particular. Lots of spy novels like to make outrageous claims about historical events too, but they generally don't attack people's faiths. In fact, I feel that throughout my entire life we have had people try to historically and scientifically prove (or disprove) the existance of God, of Jesus of the different events in the bible. I may have my own perspective on this, but I do know this... faith is not about scientific proof... it is about knowing something deep down inside.

Also, I thought I'd mention that Catholicism has been under fire for centuries with people constantly trying to discredit it... even our supposedly allies in the Protestant churches seem to stick a knife in our back at every chance. I find it amazing since we are all Christians. But the born-agains and the evangelicals insist upon criticizing us like they do all other religions. I think the biggest threat to Christianity is not books and movies like TDVC, but it is the division and acrimony between the different denominations of Christianity and particularly certain judgemental evangelicals whose hypocracy knows no bounds.

Bye,

That is why I always refrain from attacking any of my fellow Christians, and I try hard to ignore protestant attacks on my Catholicism...I was listening to a show on the subject a while back ago and it summed up my views right now: as long as Christ is proclaimed - and even if the proclamation is a little wrong from my point of view - then those making the proclamation are my brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ, and I will not engage in argument with them. All religion is under attack these days, and I shan't help the seculariists in their battle.

AFWife,

Do you wish to retract?

I read the book and enjoyed it. Plan on going to see the movie, maybe even re-read the book just before so I can remember how the book did it.

I don't see so much wrong with the book and consider people that are thin skinned that get upset about it, are kinda like muslims who get upset over cartoons.

I also went to see Michael Moore's career topping highlight, Fahrenheit 9/11 with my wife who is partially a democrat still. Entertaining to see the audience get all worked up in a lather over nothing. Some were so excited, I thought they were about to breed or something.

Long ago, my brother and I would go to wrestling matchs and cheer for the bad guys, to see what type of reaction we'd get. You may die in some of those situations, but it sure beats going along with the mistaken belief that what you see is real.

A movie is a movie, a wrestling match is a on stage performance. Both are to made for the purposes of making money. If it were not profitable, nobody would do it. -- Simple --