Comments on: Movie Review: The Da Vinci Code http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:42:42 +0000 By: lpetrich http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3355 lpetrich Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:32:28 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3355 I'd also like to note Earl Doherty's review in <a href="http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/BkrvMagdalene.htm" rel="nofollow">A Magdalene Triptych</a>. After pointing out some of its factual errors and questionable claims, he says: <blockquote>This is unfortunate, because there is much in The Da Vinci Code which legitimately questions established Christian tradition and uncovers new ways of looking at the story of Jesus. But anything which breaks open the musty vault of the Church's long monopoly on that story and lets fresh air into the public mind has to be a good thing. (Some of this fresh air has been circulating for over a century in the halls of New Testament academia, but prior to the recent Jesus Seminar was deliberately kept from the pulpit and the public eye.) But the reader might have benefited from having a better basis for distinguishing between fiction and fact, rather than being invited to swallow a farrago of fantasy which is every bit as egregious as the Gospel story. </blockquote> But as you say, Ebonmuse, it seems like something that competes with theologians on their own territory, and it's not surprising that they wail "No fair! No fair! No fair!" Also, Dan Brown's defenders have a ready-made version of "it's literal when I like it, allegorical when I don't". DB has claimed that his book is fictional with important factual content. So his supporters can claim that any parts that they find less-than-supportable are some of the fictional parts. I'd also like to note Earl Doherty's review in A Magdalene Triptych. After pointing out some of its factual errors and questionable claims, he says:

This is unfortunate, because there is much in The Da Vinci Code which legitimately questions established Christian tradition and uncovers new ways of looking at the story of Jesus. But anything which breaks open the musty vault of the Church's long monopoly on that story and lets fresh air into the public mind has to be a good thing. (Some of this fresh air has been circulating for over a century in the halls of New Testament academia, but prior to the recent Jesus Seminar was deliberately kept from the pulpit and the public eye.) But the reader might have benefited from having a better basis for distinguishing between fiction and fact, rather than being invited to swallow a farrago of fantasy which is every bit as egregious as the Gospel story.

But as you say, Ebonmuse, it seems like something that competes with theologians on their own territory, and it's not surprising that they wail "No fair! No fair! No fair!"

Also, Dan Brown's defenders have a ready-made version of "it's literal when I like it, allegorical when I don't". DB has claimed that his book is fictional with important factual content. So his supporters can claim that any parts that they find less-than-supportable are some of the fictional parts.

]]> By: Jon Howard http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3223 Jon Howard Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:45:30 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3223 Really good point about the irrational, competing narrative offered by the book and film. From my own experience of fundamentalist Christianity and New Age waffle, the proof of the pudding is never to be found under the microscope or via the input of an informed scholar, but only in its emotionally loaded sales-pitch and attendant spiritual packaging. To that end, anything that corrodes Christianity is welcome and warmly appreciated! However, the danger is that in some dumbed-down future I may be met with ‘Magdenalist’s’ at my door, interrupting my dark and nefarious activities to persuade me to take their literature, or have some idiot fight to offer my grandchildren the right to be taught Magdelenism at their school…alongside Intelligent Design Theory and their daily prayers to the Cosmic Satsuma. The only answer is to kick all this nonsense to the kerb. Darwinian science and cosmology would be a far better ‘code’ to have had the Vatican suppress. Imagine the alternative story: Jesus was actually a naturalist atheist who said that god was a lie, and yet was mistaken for a prophet and a manifestation of deity in human form. Now roll the movie ;) Really good point about the irrational, competing narrative offered by the book and film. From my own experience of fundamentalist Christianity and New Age waffle, the proof of the pudding is never to be found under the microscope or via the input of an informed scholar, but only in its emotionally loaded sales-pitch and attendant spiritual packaging. To that end, anything that corrodes Christianity is welcome and warmly appreciated! However, the danger is that in some dumbed-down future I may be met with ‘Magdenalist’s’ at my door, interrupting my dark and nefarious activities to persuade me to take their literature, or have some idiot fight to offer my grandchildren the right to be taught Magdelenism at their school…alongside Intelligent Design Theory and their daily prayers to the Cosmic Satsuma.

The only answer is to kick all this nonsense to the kerb. Darwinian science and cosmology would be a far better ‘code’ to have had the Vatican suppress. Imagine the alternative story: Jesus was actually a naturalist atheist who said that god was a lie, and yet was mistaken for a prophet and a manifestation of deity in human form. Now roll the movie ;)

]]> By: Philip Thomas http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3192 Philip Thomas Sat, 17 Jun 2006 10:47:11 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3192 I look forward to it! I look forward to it!

]]> By: tobe38 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3189 tobe38 Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:08:23 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3189 Hi Philip, I think by it's very nature Fundamentalist Christianity will provoke stronger arguments because it's an easier target. I read your response to God is Love on your website and you do raise some interesting points I hadn't considered, but ultimately I felt Adams's arguments held strong. However, we're straying somewhat from the original topic here, so if you'll give me a day or two (I'm working today!) I'll try to post a more detailed defence on your own site. Hi Philip,

I think by it's very nature Fundamentalist Christianity will provoke stronger arguments because it's an easier target.

I read your response to God is Love on your website and you do raise some interesting points I hadn't considered, but ultimately I felt Adams's arguments held strong.

However, we're straying somewhat from the original topic here, so if you'll give me a day or two (I'm working today!) I'll try to post a more detailed defence on your own site.

]]> By: Philip Thomas http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3186 Philip Thomas Sat, 17 Jun 2006 08:37:12 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3186 Thankyou tobe38. I have read "God is Love", and replied to it http://mithala.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=989 Basically I feel the argument there is much much weaker than Adam's arguments against 'fundamentalist' Christianity. Of course, I would feel that! Thankyou tobe38. I have read "God is Love", and replied to it http://mithala.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=989

Basically I feel the argument there is much much weaker than Adam's arguments against 'fundamentalist' Christianity. Of course, I would feel that!

]]> By: tobe38 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3164 tobe38 Fri, 16 Jun 2006 23:25:55 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3164 Philip, I'll certainly agree that it's a varying scale, not just one or the other. Sorry if I was oversimplifying. Perhaps I could clarify by saying that a Christ who only lived and died in heaven would be incompatible for any Christians believing the Bible to be the innerant word of God. Apologies for being too lazy to really give my own view on liberal theism, but it's only fitting that on Adam's site I refer you to one of his essays: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/godislove.html I would say I'm pretty much in line with this view on the Fundamentalist/Liberalism scale. Philip, I'll certainly agree that it's a varying scale, not just one or the other. Sorry if I was oversimplifying. Perhaps I could clarify by saying that a Christ who only lived and died in heaven would be incompatible for any Christians believing the Bible to be the innerant word of God.

Apologies for being too lazy to really give my own view on liberal theism, but it's only fitting that on Adam's site I refer you to one of his essays: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/godislove.html

I would say I'm pretty much in line with this view on the Fundamentalist/Liberalism scale.

]]> By: Philip Thomas http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3160 Philip Thomas Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:16:51 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3160 I don't think you can divide the Christian community into "fundamentalist" and "liberal" quite like that. Many Christians are conservatives withouth believing the bible to be inerrant. Some liberal Christians believe in doctrines which don't suit them, because that is what they think is true. Life is complicated, even for us simple-minded theists... I don't think you can divide the Christian community into "fundamentalist" and "liberal" quite like that. Many Christians are conservatives withouth believing the bible to be inerrant. Some liberal Christians believe in doctrines which don't suit them, because that is what they think is true. Life is complicated, even for us simple-minded theists...

]]> By: tobe38 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3158 tobe38 Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:00:13 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3158 Shawn, I would definiteley say that a Christ who only lived and died in heaven would be incompatible with fundamentalist Christianity, simply because it would contradict the Bible which is allegedly the inerrant word of God. Nothing is incompatible with liberal Christianity, they just cherry-pick the bits that suit them then fill in the gaps themselves. Shawn, I would definiteley say that a Christ who only lived and died in heaven would be incompatible with fundamentalist Christianity, simply because it would contradict the Bible which is allegedly the inerrant word of God.

Nothing is incompatible with liberal Christianity, they just cherry-pick the bits that suit them then fill in the gaps themselves.

]]> By: Philip Thomas http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3147 Philip Thomas Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:24:51 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3147 Fair point. Christianity as currently believed by most Christians, then. (I think we could get majority agreement on Jesus existing, if on nothing else). Fair point. Christianity as currently believed by most Christians, then. (I think we could get majority agreement on Jesus existing, if on nothing else).

]]> By: Shawn Smith http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3140 Shawn Smith Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:17:17 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/the-da-vinci-code.html#comment-3140 Philip Thomas, <blockquote>... the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is a necessary truth for Christianity to be true ...</blockquote> Are you saying that a Platonic model of a more perfect "spiritual" Jesus, sacrificing himself only in heaven, is incompatible with Christianity? I am curious. Philip Thomas,

... the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is a necessary truth for Christianity to be true ...

Are you saying that a Platonic model of a more perfect "spiritual" Jesus, sacrificing himself only in heaven, is incompatible with Christianity? I am curious.

]]>