|
|
 |
|
Getting On : Literature Reviews
The Da Vinci Code | from Marc - Tuesday, July 13, 2004
accessed 2635 times The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown: A good read. I apologize in advance if this book has already been discussed on this Site. I recommend this book as a good read and an interesting subject. My interest in this book piqued after learning that at least nine books have been written against it and the Catholic Church (and other churches, I believe) held seminars to refute the ideas presented; even though the book is technically a novel. I have also heard that TF has specifically forbidden the reading of this book (anyone hear anything about this?).
Has anyone here read this book as well? If so, what did you think? |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from moon beam
Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 13:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
Education minister 'must quit over cult'
PA News
Published: 21 January 2005
Education Secretary Ruth Kelly was today under pressure to resign because of her links to a controversial Catholic "cult".
Former Tory MP Tom Sackville said Ms Kelly's connections with Opus Dei put her judgement in question and made her unsuitable for high office.
Ms Kelly - promoted to the Cabinet after David Blunkett's resignation - has attended meetings of the hard-line organisation, but has not revealed if she is a member.
The secretive sect, whose name means "Work of God", is portrayed as a sinister cult in best-selling book The Da Vinci Code.
Its members are admitted by invitation only and have a duty to spread the word of God.
Mr Sackville now chairs the Family Action and Information Resource - a support group for families who have lost children to cults.
"Opus Dei is much more than a faith," he said.
"Opus Dei brainwashes, isolates and dominates the lives of its members to the point of removing their self-determination. That our children and young people, who urgently need protection from recruiters of such organisations, should be faced with one of their number in charge of the education system, is the last straw".
"I would not question Ms Kelly's good intentions or her firm Christian beliefs, but believe membership of a cult puts the judgment of any individual in doubt, and thus their suitability for public office."
Ms Kelly has insisted her links to the group are a private matter. But Mr Sackville, who lost his Bolton West seat to Ms Kelly in 1997, said she should resign.
A spokesman for the Department of Education said: "Ms Kelly clearly set out the position in her interview with the Daily Mirror."
http://www.tes.co.uk/2064092
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from Dani
Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 05:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Last year at Glastonbury a friend of mine who is Welsh wanted to go and see one of the speakers there. The persons name was Howard Marks. Apparently the guy had been educated in Oxford and had financed his way through uni by dealing to his class mates. I’m not sure of all the facts by apparently he exchanged a career with MI5 to pursuer a career in trafficking.
Anyway my point is that during his speech he brought up Mary Magdalene and how her blood was drunk from the Holy Grail. It was very strange to be in that environment and to see that there are still many people who do follow pagan beliefs.
The other time that I’ve met people who believed in the legends concerning the Holly Gail was in Lyon while we were supposed to be ‘person witnessing’. Apparently there is supposed to be a connection between the two places.
(reply to this comment)
| from Dani
Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 05:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
One of my all time favourite books is Wild Swans by Jung Chang. It follows the lives of three generations in China. What got me about this book was the suffering that this family is faced with in a communist society. The psychology and control tactics are very similar to situations that we were faced with while growing up.
Another excellent book is East of Eden by John Steinbeck.
(reply to this comment)
| from Cultinvator
Friday, July 16, 2004 - 02:37
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I liked the book, some parts of course were a bit less appealing towards the end, kind of lost the suspense when it got all allegorical, but in any case a good intro to pagan spirit. The male and female in things, finding the geometric balance in our cultural mores, and not letting ourselves be herded like sheep. The interesting thing about witches is that it's as easy to herd them as it is to herd cats.
I'm an agnostic, but I find a return to ritual and significance a good revival of making meaning out of one's life a thing not to be scorned, regardless of religion (which merely means reconecting) or what others prefer to call secular, taking out faith or premonition out of the equation, or maybe just preferring to not label it as such.
Art is a religion to me, and so is science... but my definition varies from that of the dictionary. Call me a fool, which is my god of choice, but bufoons get away with a certain grain of freedom in truth that others might not.
(reply to this comment)
| from Joe H
Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 09:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
I didn't need to read this book because the ideas in it are about 20 years old, and were published in a series of books called HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL; THE MESSIANIC LEGACY; and later, THE TOMB OF GOD. I also find it really irritating that the people who 6 years ago told me I was "King Turd of Shit Mountain" when I first tried to tell them some historical facts about Jesus are now shoving this book in my hands trying to enlighten ME.
Anyway, if you want cheap, pseudo-historical pop fiction, by all means run out to the bookstore or the library and get a copy of THE DA VINCI CODE. If you don't consider yourself an intellectual lightweight and want well-written, scholarly historical "investigation" that's so full of speculation it could be called fiction, then pick up the books I listed above. If you never thought Jesus was the Son of God to begin with, then pick up a book about investing or computer programming. Why waste your time with fiction?
PS HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL says who the Cathars really were. (I'll give you a hint: they weren't the gypsis, led by Abrahim or otherwise.)
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | |  From Cultinvator
Friday, July 16, 2004, 02:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Or download it free off kazaa like I did, not like holy blood, holy turd has it's own mythical characters in it.
Myth is a type of parallel reality in the pseudo historical circular effect of ideas reflected in history reflected back with new ideas... yes into history again. Anoying but they complement back and forth always changing slightly. IS this redundancy anoying... obvious but true.(reply to this comment) |
| | From porceleindoll
Wednesday, July 14, 2004, 16:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
You would have to admit though that reading the Davinci code could be a good start in going on to study those other books, esp. for someone who has not even really ever considered any of those ideas, or even known about the existence of them.
After I read the book I went to the Internet and researched some of the ideas, and the books you mentioned above are on my reading list when I have the money to get them. But I don't know that I'd ever really gotten into them if I hadn't first read the Davinci Code, or maybe I would have through some other means.
PS. So who were the Cathars truly?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Joe H
Friday, July 16, 2004, 16:51
 (Agree/Disagree?)
For everybody who missed out on high school, Sarafina's comment will give you a pretty good idea of what it was all about -- teasing the people who like to learn and expand their minds. She seems to have adopted the American hatred of knowledge and intellect quite nicely, which is impressive, considering that I left at a much younger age than she did and I still don't fit in here. Or maybe she was the kind of person who would have alerted the shepherds had she caught me reading an encyclopedia or a dictionary back in the day (had we ever lived together). To someone like her, I suppose a couple of hours a day spent on Google would seem like "way too much time." What a pity.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From exister
Wednesday, July 14, 2004, 14:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
Excellent point Joe. I suspect that this book only resonates with those who are still a little hung up on their prior religious paranoias.
If this book would enlighten me to the "shocking" realization that our current conception of Christ is bunk I would simply reply that this is not surprising considering that all conceptions of Christ, God and Divinity are bunk.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Cultinvator
Saturday, July 17, 2004, 01:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, don't read too much into it, what I mean is that some things like a dog, a cat, fire, a rock, well, those are not abstract. Other things like letters, say the letter A well it can be a tent to someone who doesn't know the alphabet. The alphabet is abstract it's a symbol that symbolizes something. Some could say that everything can be abstract, a bat doesn't see a rock the way we do, but if bats and humans could comunicate most likely some compromise would be met to what a rock means to them, it falls to all who see it fall under gravity. Symbols are things that are attached to those who condition themselves to attach those values to those fabricated concepts. Friendship is one of them, what is 'friendly' to me is probably repulsive to a lot of others. Some consensus can be met in popular groups, but it's a lot like what flavor is the right flavor, vanilla or chocolate. not a universal value, this one is based on culture, and bias.
It's easier to say what is not friendly that to say what is friendly, to most murder is not a friendly thing, but waking me up at 3 in the morning because you're in town, well to an American might seem like a rude thing to do, but in Russia, if you're in town, no matter what time it is it's rude not to stop by, and even this is a generalization.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From
Wednesday, July 14, 2004, 15:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
So now we've also taken to judging people's character by them having read a certain book? Maybe we should all start listing for you our personal preferences and then you could use your psyco-babble analysis of say, our eating preferences, to come up with our other paranoias and pro-cultish attitudes. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Marc
Wednesday, July 14, 2004, 14:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Joe, Joe. I really wouldn't want to spend an hour before bed reading a book on investing or computer programming. Call me an intellectual lightweight but some times I just wish for entertainment. This book was nothing more than that to me. I went to this book for truth _no_ more than I go to movies for their accurate portrayal of historical events.
I have read Holy Blood, Holy Grail; Hiram Key; The Second Messiah; The Woman With The Alabaster Jar; The Gnostic Gospels; as well as many other, non-related subject books (i.e. the classics, Robert Ludlum, Carl Sagan, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jared Diamond, Laurie Garrett, Richard Dawkins, etc.). I read these partly for entertainment (and I'm sorry if you don't consider it such) and partly to see ideas presented in "original" ways (if there ever really is something new under the sun :)
My point in posting had nothing to do with my conversion to the cult of Dan Brown; I simply wished to present an interesting and entertaining book to read (for those of us who are intellectual lightweights).(reply to this comment) |
| | From Marc
Wednesday, July 14, 2004, 14:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Joe, Joe. I really wouldn't want to spend an hour before bed reading a book on investing or computer programming. Call me an intellectual lightweight but some times I just wish for entertainment. This book was nothing more than that to me. I went to this book for truth _no_ more than I go to movies for their accurate portrayal of historical events.
I have read Holy Blood, Holy Grail; Hiram Key; The Second Messiah; The Woman With The Alabaster Jar; The Gnostic Gospels; as well as many other, non-related subject books (i.e. the classics, Robert Ludlum, Carl Sagan, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jared Diamond, Laurie Garrett, Richard Dawkins, etc.). I read these partly for entertainment (and I'm sorry if you don't consider it such) and partly to see ideas presented in "original" ways (if there ever really is something new under the sun :)
My point in posting had nothing to do with my conversion to the cult of Dan Brown; I simply wished to present an interesting and entertaining book to read (for those of us who are intellectual lightweights).(reply to this comment) |
| | from banal_commentator
Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 07:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Is this book really worthy of so much recognition? Its just a pop-fiction, thriller novel. The only demographic that I can see being so fascinated by this book would be the rebellious, catholic youth. Snicker snicker.
(reply to this comment)
| from Ruthie
Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 07:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
You know what is so annoying? Self-righteousness. I had enough of it in TF, and I hate it when people display it (especially on TV). A few months ago, I was watching a political show (I forget which one). Anyway, these two men were so mad about the Da Vinci Code. They were arguing about how it attacks Christianity and all that… I remember one of the last things they said was something like, “Dan Brown is basically being a missionary for HIS religion.” As if it were the worst thing he could ever do. I thought to myself, “What a joke! So it is only okay to be a ‘missionary’ if you are Christian. Otherwise it is like sinful or something.” It’s like, all of those so-called “missionaries” that converted people to Christianity were saints, but Dan Brown is horrible. Laughable…
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | from pharmaboy
Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 04:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
I enjoyed this book a lot, at the time I read it I was reading up on the history of Christianity, ceremonial magick and gnosticism. Dan Brown gets it right almost all the time, although written as a novel the historical facts presented are true. To compare some facts, try reading “The Hiram Key” by Knight and “the Da Vinci Code Uncoded”.
Sacred sex rituals/sex magick is an ancient practice, from the left-hand path Tantra yoga of the east to western Alchemy, the writings on the western tradition were highly veiled in symbolism to avoid persecution from the church.
(reply to this comment)
| from Ne Oublie
Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 04:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't believe this book has been commented on in MovingOn so far. But I've discussed it on other forums already. I read The DaVinci Code recently, am currently reading Deception Point, and plan to get Angels and Demons and Digital Fortress when I get the chance.
In all, I treat the book as a work of fiction. I don't doubt that there are people whose beliefs follow those described in the book, but I'm not about to suddenly become a believer! For one thing I've already been there... done that!
I also don't see that any of it is particularly significant, unless you are a believer to start out with. I mean, if you're not Christian, then what difference does it make if Jesus was or wasn't the only 'divine' one, or if Mary Magdalene was involved, or whatnot. Thus, while those beliefs may be seen as anti-Christian, their significance would be entirely lost on an audience that didn't have a Christian background.
I tend to be sceptical of symbologies for many of the same reasons that I'm secptical of conspiracy theories: they are first of all based on the assumption that every little detail is deliberately planned (which reality tells us is entirely impossible); and then they try to read a motivation into the tiniest of things, which as I see it is hard enough to do when someone is sitting in front of you, so how much harder would it be with someone you've never even met, and all you know about them is what's been written in history.
It's all just a bit too fantastic for me to accept at face value, so yea, I hesitate in taking the book too seriously.
I hadn't heard of the Catholic church's condemnation of the book - although it's hardly surprising. Specifically for an organisation that is based on belief, it's vital for them to control the amount of information that their believers receive, because beliefs can so easily be swayed whether the information is factual or not.
Similarly with TF, I hadn't heard anything about the book being expressly forbidden, although what with all the stuff going on in there, I think it would fall under their 'no worldly influence' clause.
(reply to this comment)
| From Cultinvator
Friday, July 16, 2004, 02:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't think the books main thesis was so much the exposing of christianity as a false religion, as much as bringing in the balance of the masculine and femenin to cultural as well as religious traditions who's effect cannot be denied, even to the greatest of atheists, who's god is the buffoons god of ungoding the gods. Either way, works for me. Balance is not a bad thing, what's tricky is when we get into specifics, that's where it gets lost in literal fights over accounts of which at this point will probably never be proven either way, and if they are? Really are we really going to stop thinking the way we want to?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ruthie
Wednesday, July 14, 2004, 07:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Question: Would you be more likely to regard The Bible as literally true more than The Da Vinci Code? Most people (Christians, at least) would be much more inclined to believe The Bible, and not this book, even if there is equal factual proof for both... Believing, literally, in The Bible is more a result of being taught from a Christian perspective since a young age.
Anyway, Brown claims that although the story is a work of fiction, his research is accurate ("descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals"). However, as you said, history can be distorted. And it has. By people who were interested in power and control. In my opinion, the Catholic Church, and not those who believe The Da Vinci Code, has displayed such a greed for power historically.
One thing that I learned from TF is that people shouldn’t just accept what is told to them “just because.” I do agree with you that it is hard to swallow a book (especially fiction), especially when it contradicts most of what we have been taught. But as I have learned more, I found myself believing less and less in The Bible, literally. I mean, God Himself did not write it, and people who have not have everyone’s best interests in mind have controlled it. Anyway, I just think that religion is something that people have to learn & pursue on their own. Each religion has positives, and negatives. I do not agree with Christianity so much before because of many reasons. Sexism and hypocrisy are two major reasons. So I would be more inclined to believe in a religion that does not demote women. But, again, that’s just my belief and everyone has a right to her/his own.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Wednesday, July 14, 2004, 08:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good question, Ruthie. But I would take that a step further and question the relevance of either The Bible or The Da Vinci Code - which is entirely as a matter of belief. I mean, what difference does it really make which account is true?
I am aware, of course of Dan Brown's research, he states it in the beginning of his book. I don't doubt the existence of those organisations, nor that there are people who hold those beliefs, but that hardly reaches the level of what I would consider 'fact'.
As for the Catholic church's greed for political and financial power, I would hardly classify it as worse than that of the Priory of Sion as described in the book (seeing as we're debating on the basis that there is historical value in it). In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Priory has a GREATER interest in keeping the information and relics secret than the church. This is because the Priory's power is drawn entirely from their ability to reveal the information, thus once they have done so their hand is already played, and they have lost their leverage. On the other hand, while the Catholic would doubtless suffer were such a revelation to be made, it would not be a fatal blow, and they would likely be able to regain much of their original power and wealth with time.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ruthie
Thursday, July 15, 2004, 09:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
As I said, both books support certain religions, so basically it is a matter of belief, as you said. It has been impossible to prove that The Bible was entirely true and factual. And, as much as I enjoy the ideas in The Da Vinci Code, it would probably be impossible to prove, for example, that Jesus fathered a child.
I also agree with you that, at the present moment, the Catholic Church does not have much to loose. However, this does not mean that their historical efforts to control people never happened and/or does not matter.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from porceleindoll
Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 02:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
I read both the Davinci Code and Angels and Demons (which specifically uses the Illuminati vs. the Catholic church for the story foundation--same character though, Robert Langdon).
First off I found them both fascinating for all the scientific facts woven into the story, and secondly, for the ideas presented such as DaVinci could have been part of a secret society, that his artwork holds a lot of symbolism denouncing Christ, the possible importance of Mary Magdelene to original Christianity (trying not to give too much book information here in case someone hasn't read it yet).
Of course, the whole Phi thing is fascinating as well.
But what struck me is that some of the ancient (and possibly true) beliefs presented in both books (which are now considered conspiracies or sacrilegious) are also present in Berg's writings.
For example, the sacred sex with the priestesses at the temples, sex being considered the point in which your soul and body pull apart and for that brief second (or few seconds) of orgasm you are "out of your body" and that is the moment you come in touch with the divine. Anyone remember Berg's "Priestesses of God (or Love?)" letter? It portrayed exactly in detail this ancient belief of sacred sex by the 'pagans'. In Angels and Demons (I think the Davinci Code as well) pyramids are greatly scattered through the book as important symbols of ancient secret societies, in particular the Illuminati. I find it interesting that Berg created his image of Heaven as a pyramid, and does anyone remember the letter "Pyramid Power"?
DaVinci code deals a lot with the role of the goddess in Christianity and in the world and in ancient and pagan religions, which again brought me back to the age of 6 when I first read the Black book (or was it the Red book) containing the letters about the "goddesses" and Berg's sexual 'spiritual' encounters with them.
DaVinci code also touches on the idea of Mary Magdelene having a sexual relationship with Jesus, and the implications of such a relationship. Berg got it in a 'vision' that Jesus was having sex with MM.
I greatly enjoyed the DaVinci Code (as well as Angels and Demons), but esp. in the DaVinci code there seemed to be a lot of things familiar to my past, which raises questions in me concerning Berg and his true origins.
Did he read and research this sort of stuff, then built his religious views partly on gnostic/Templar/Priory of Sion/Illuminati/secular Christanity beliefs? It seems he really mixed a lot of stuff together and then convinced our stoned out parents that he was 'God's Prophet' for today when in actuality, he was once again regurgitating what was already there.
Apart from that, I think we will never know the full truth of these ancient or thousands of years old beliefs and secrets. All one can do is speculate, and with any religion, it takes faith to believe what you believe, anything beyond your sight, anything that is a 'theory' vs a 'law' the falls under the requirement of faith to believe. Whether Dan Brown's research is completely accurate or not, I don't know. I like to believe him, I find the whole conspiracy vs. established religion fascinating, but there is evidence pointing in both directions, bringing it once again down to faith, unless proven as law.
Someone would have to provide solid evidence of past beliefs in order to make that belief a law. In otherwords, there is no real solid evidence that Jesus was actually a person, all we have is the 'word of the prophets' written on paper thousands of years ago, and who can prove that any of it is true? We have fragments of documents (where are the complete Sea Scrolls anyway), and of course things can be assumed through archeological finds, pottery, jewelry, stories written on stone and walls.
My point being, to believe in any religion or conspiracy requires faith unless there is undisputable proof that that (religion or conspiracy) is true.
And the other point being that there are very few (if any) original ideas or beliefs in Christianity. Many things seem to have been around for thousands of years before Christianity even came into existence. But this is a whole different topic, and one I'm not that well-versed in.
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]