The DaVinci Code :Good Or Bad ?

[Jane_the_Bane]

I think that "The Da Vinci Code" is bad, but not so much because of its religious implications (which are quite interesting, even though much of it is utter garbage), but because the novel in itself is almost as bad as a "Penny Dreadful": Stereotypes and Dei-Ex-Machina everywhere, cardboard villains, unsurprising plot twists and a romance that's just in there because the hero needs a love interest.

 

[LadyDJ]

Since I don't do controversy and that aside, I've read both the DaVinci Code as well as Angels and Demons and enjoyed them for the novels they are and as I understand it another book with the Langdon character is planned, I will most likely read it as well...just for an entertaining story.

 

[koppee1]

edited out.

 

[KnightOfChrist]

I suppose it all depends on the wants of the person. If you want to be strictly conservative, and say no picture of anything should ever be made, and anyone with a picture of their dead grandfather on their bedside table is going to Hell, that's up to you.

Obviously, Catholics do not "worship" their Saints, or Mary... the golden "idol" of Moses was a symbolic animal of greed that the people were exalting as their God. God related this when He commanded 'no graven image,' which almost went hand-in-hand with 'no God before Me.' Do you truly believe that, just because they are from another denomination, they are somehow heathens? That they are blind enough to be worshipping these venerated images? They are simply taking the thought of someone or other being in Heaven one step further. I see no harm in this. You don't have to agree with it, but you shouldn't go preaching that therein they might "see the light."

All denominations have something to be argued with, no single one is right. Perhaps if all of them could come to some great "compromise:" or better, strip away the less-important practices to maintain a base of what Jesus felt, and come together... wouldn't that be the best place for Christianity?

On your Popes comment... of course the Pope is not infallible. I do not think he to be any Holier than anyone of faith. Another choice Catholics just choose to make, and I'd like to hear one of their reasons before announcing that it's wrong. Any Catholics want to explain the Holiness of the Pope?

Purgatory, I always thought, was a separate realm where people "purged" themselves of their sins until they were worthy of entering Heaven. Whether or not living people can 'pay' to make the stay in purgatory longer? I guess I would have to disagree. Purgatory itself is not entirely impossible, but again, I'd like to see an unbiased Catholic argue for it.

As for Mary, one might assume that because she was chosen directly by God to birth Jesus, she was favored in his grace--perhaps this opinion simply grew amongst early Catholic churches until it became tradition.

As for confessions, I believe Jesus meant anyone in a Holy position such as the apostles. If a priest has dedicated himself to the Church, and is true to his nature, then he can forgive sins--he can hear them and weigh them... why not? However, if he is not 'truly' in the position to forgive sin, then sin is not forgiven. An Unholy priest cannot forgive sin. But Catholics ought to know this.

Now, wasn't this post about the DaVinci code? Partially about Catholicism, I suppose, but I've done just as bad as you about directing my entire post to it.

I could say a lot more, but honestly, Catholics are doing no great harm, if they are doing any (for who's to say? Obviously they believe fully their actions and have reason for them; we cannot call them blind), and that goes for any accepted denomination of Christianity, though the thought of denominations alone is discomforting. I would much prefer unity.

 

[brotherChristian]

I read The Da Vinci Code voraciously. Angels and Demons, too. It's just the kind of pulp fiction that's easy to read, doesn't require any deep thought; kind of like made-for-tv-movies. It's a great diversion to read a quick book that's got action, intrigue and all that good stuff for entertainment. But that's all it is, entertainment. If Dan Brown was such the scholarly religious conspiracy historian he is being touted as, wouldn't he have a professorship or fellowship somewhere, or be writing some serious books with references and bibliographies and the word ibid and circa all over the footnotes? Some research went into the development of his books' mythology; the Catholic Church as an entity did do many of the things he says they did (just like every other organized religious/government/social organization has done questionable things). But as a writer of fiction he has too much artistic license to be taken as anything but a spinner of yarns.
Oh, I'm sorry, am I in the wrong thread here? I thought it was about The DaVinci Code.

 

[Filia Mariae]

Koppee-

All your arguments have been responded to in OBOB and I will link to that thread so that others have the benefit of not being left with these misrepresentations and falsehoods:

http://www.christianforums.com/t125608

Thank you for asking your questions in OBOB where they can be adequately answered.

 

[Filia Mariae]

 

[Ceris]

Warning: OFF TOPIC.

This is not, I repeat not, the Catholic bashing thread.

 

[michabo]

This is not, I repeat not, the Catholic bashing thread.

Nuts. So where is the Catholic bashing thread?

 

[katherinethegreat]

kopee1 you are wise. do not waste your time with these people. they will never undertand what we see in the bible and the Catholic Chruch. and yes kennyse i have a big probelm with catholics and what they preach. although i am a baptized catholic, i have serious prolems with their ideas and other things that they refute. all i am trying to say is that this thing that brown is writing about is not something he has pulled out of no where. there are many scholars who also beleive this. and maybe i do belive more towards the agnostics since what the catholic chruch is now professing. this idea that it is wrong for gay to marry the person they love but it is okay that our priests destroy children lives with their abuse. os yes i do have a problem with the catholic chruch and kopee hit them all on the mark

 

[brotherChristian]

 

[koppee1]

sorry bout that, that post was posted in the catholics forum where I can get some answers. So I'll just edit this one out before we get out of topic

 

[koppee1]

kopee1 you are wise. do not waste your time with these people. they will never undertand what we see in the bible and the Catholic Chruch. and yes kennyse i have a big probelm with catholics and what they preach. although i am a baptized catholic, i have serious prolems with their ideas and other things that they refute. all i am trying to say is that this thing that brown is writing about is not something he has pulled out of no where. there are many scholars who also beleive this. and maybe i do belive more towards the agnostics since what the catholic chruch is now professing. this idea that it is wrong for gay to marry the person they love but it is okay that our priests destroy children lives with their abuse. os yes i do have a problem with the catholic chruch and kopee hit them all on the mark

I know what you mean. The purpose of that post was if someone could refute those arguements firmly, then maybe, just maybe, i could go about thinking the roman catholic church is indeed preaching the true gospel. But it seems, the arguements there were answered but I could go back and start a debate about it. And I'm not really in the mood for that. I only wanted an answer that will settle everything. Unfortunately, I got verses used out of context although there were some verses that got me thinking. But none of the verses given in relation to Mary were convincing (for me). As for not knowing what catholics believe, I was a catholic most of my life and even went to a Jesuit private school. So I was taught the catholic doctrines most of my life. And yes, I also did find teachings and doctrines that I had problems with which is why i left the catholic church. But one thing though, most of the catholics here in the philippines probably do not know what they believe in. They really do worship the images here. They pray to the statues, they kiss them, they hug them, cry to them...they even fight over one another to be able to touch the cloth on the statue probably for healing or whatever. And so far, all the catholics here (including my grandmother who is a very devout catholic all her life and goes to church 3x a week), simply tell me "I'll ask my priest" when presented with these arguements. At least in the catholic forum (especially the mod), they know what they believe in, and actually fight for it. It at least shows their true devotion to God (not to the church i hope).

 

[Filia Mariae]

kopee1 you are wise. do not waste your time with these people. they will never undertand what we see in the bible and the Catholic Chruch. and yes kennyse i have a big probelm with catholics and what they preach. although i am a baptized catholic, i have serious prolems with their ideas and other things that they refute. all i am trying to say is that this thing that brown is writing about is not something he has pulled out of no where. there are many scholars who also beleive this. and maybe i do belive more towards the agnostics since what the catholic chruch is now professing. this idea that it is wrong for gay to marry the person they love but it is okay that our priests destroy children lives with their abuse. os yes i do have a problem with the catholic chruch and kopee hit them all on the mark

Katherine,

I find it sad that you are so seriously mislead that you believe that Catholics believe it is acceptable to hurt children. The Holy Father has quite clearly stated that there is no place in the priesthood for those who would hurt children.

The media has done a spectacular job in convincing the public that child abuse is a Catholic problem. The fact remains however, that the media lies. This website clearly demonstrates that child abuse is a serious problem in Protestant groups: www.reformation.com

If you have such a deep hatred of the Church, why do you identify yourself as a Catholic?

 

[Filia Mariae]

I know what you mean. The purpose of that post was if someone could refute those arguements firmly, then maybe, just maybe, i could go about thinking the roman catholic church is indeed preaching the true gospel. But it seems, the arguements there were answered but I could go back and start a debate about it. And I'm not really in the mood for that. I only wanted an answer that will settle everything. Unfortunately, I got verses used out of context although there were some verses that got me thinking. But none of the verses given in relation to Mary were convincing (for me). As for not knowing what catholics believe, I was a catholic most of my life and even went to a Jesuit private school. So I was taught the catholic doctrines most of my life. And yes, I also did find teachings and doctrines that I had problems with which is why i left the catholic church. But one thing though, most of the catholics here in the philippines probably do not know what they believe in. They really do worship the images here. They pray to the statues, they kiss them, they hug them, cry to them...they even fight over one another to be able to touch the cloth on the statue probably for healing or whatever. And so far, all the catholics here (including my grandmother who is a very devout catholic all her life and goes to church 3x a week), simply tell me "I'll ask my priest" when presented with these arguements. At least in the catholic forum (especially the mod), they know what they believe in, and actually fight for it. It at least shows their true devotion to God (not to the church i hope).

Knowing quite a few Philipinos myself, I strongly disagree with your characterization of them as a bunch of pagan statue worshippers. To humor you though, let's pretend you're right. Since this behavior is absolutely condemned by the Catholic Church, why are you blaming it on Catholicism?

In addition, every one of your misrepresentations of Catholicism was solidly refuted. You didn't bother to ask questions to clarify anything that didn't make sense to you, so I have to assume you simply don't have a response to the refutations you received.

Since you believe Catholics do not know the Gospel, how do you think people heard it for the first 1500 years of Christianity?

 

[koppee1]

I believe the catholic church changed a lot from the older times you mentioned. Back in those days, the hotly disputed topics were not made "truth" by the catholic church. Which is why the protestants arose and separated themselves from the catholic church...to protest the mistakes of the church.

as for the catholic church condeming these worshipin of images, they do not. When I told you they were doing all these things to the images, did I say they were doing it in private? They do these things inside churches, in parades in the streets with thousands attending....have we heard even a single priest say, "hey guys, stop that...that isn't right"....nope. nada. not a thing. If anything they even encourage it.

as for each of my misconceptions being refuted, they weren't really. I was barraged with tons of verses taken of out context. A clear example would be the verses on purgatory. It's true some of those verses makes you think...but almost all of them are not even talking about someone who died. Most of those verses are talking about justice and courts, and prisons. And somehow the catholic church uses those to support their idea of purgatory.

Do you know how I got my ex girfriend to leave the catholic church? No matter what I told her, no matter how much i explained things to her, she simply wouldn't budge. I got a book with the Pope's endorsement " a must read"....it was a book of the cathecisms and teachings of the roman catholic church....only one verse in that book changed her.....it was a verse used to defend and proclaim Mary as sinless. I was telling her to see if she could find a single verse that proclaims Mary as sinless. And I was shocked as I saw in that book it said "Mary was 'blameless...etc. etc.'" and a verse pointing to where it was quoted. I can't remember the verse anymore as the book is still with her....but if you actually look in the Bible and check out the verse. It was clearly taken out of context. The verse was talking about how God's plan was for ALL of us to be blameless and...etc. etc. And yet this book showing the teachings of the catholic church, endorsed by the pope, clearly takes the verse out of context. When I saw that, I simply told her, I could be blameless too. And used my name with the verse. She cried after that and realized the truth in everythign I told her previously. She said she couldn't believe the catholic church would teach things that aren't found in the bible. She cried because she felt she was decieved for all these years. Like I explained to the moderator, I was not looking for a debate. People have debated these topics for as long as we can remember and will probably continue to do so. I wanted someone to refute those statements clearly and with proof. Since they didn't do so, I am not going to go back there and debate about it.

 

[SeRapH&CheRi]

MOD HAT ON:
Earlier in this thread I posted a reminder to stay on topic. I see that we have once again strayed off the OP. This is my second reminder to stay on topic. This thread was not started to discuss the merits and weaknesses of Catholicism or Protestantism. If you want to debate this, then there are other appropriate forums for this. I do not want to close this thread, but if this thread continues to be hi-jacked, I will be forced to do so. Also, please keep the forum rules in mind while you are posting. Thank you for your time and continue posting. MOD HAT OFF

SeRapH&CheRi
Christian Forums Senior Moderator

 

[Piano Player]

I read the book, and enjoyed it very much. I took the book for what it was: fiction. As a fiction writer, the author has freedom with historical evidence that true historians do not. He takes known historical facts, and fills in the gaps with logical speculation. He even incorporates a number of known historical heresys. The book surprises, shocks, and made me think. All I can ask from any fiction book. I didn't find the book to be as much anti catholic as anti organized dogmatic religion.

 

[Filia Mariae]

as for the catholic church condeming these worshipin of images, they do not. When I told you they were doing all these things to the images, did I say they were doing it in private? They do these things inside churches, in parades in the streets with thousands attending....have we heard even a single priest say, "hey guys, stop that...that isn't right"....nope. nada. not a thing. If anything they even encourage it.

I'm not going to continue to argue with you, since you clearly do not listen to anything I say, but I am going to respond to the above statement since it is a flat out lie.

This is an exact quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God." 47

and

2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." 70 The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is. 71​

 

[koppee1]

http://www.christianbbs.com/showthread.php?p=2552743#post2552743