The Da Vinci Code
05.14.06I started to write up this big fat post, about how The Da Vinci Code is complete fiction, and has no base for it’s claims whatsoever. Then I realized, “Why should I even bring attention to such rediculous claims?”. The book was entirely fiction. Not that I read it or anything. It’s hard to not hear about the movie, and its “greatness”, since the media is so damn hyped up about the thing. But I did read a information pamplet that was put out by Rose Publishing. Very informational as to what the book and movie suggest on Christianity.
Mostly suggested that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, that the Bible was created by man entirely, Constantine re-wrote the Bible to his likings, and destroyed all the originals. Most of it a bunch of farsical, unsupported ideas. The author, Dan Brown, can claim that everything in the book is “based on actual events”, but the only reason he wrote something so controversial is for the $$$.
So if any of you have questions about the book/movie and it’s claims on Christianity, feel free to ask about it.
Chad,
If you are going to write an editorial on a book/movie, it might be a good idea to have read or watched respectively. Folks might take it a bit more seriously.
Da Vinci Code was one hell of a good book, which is fiction. In the introduction, Dan Brown’s claim is that everything in the book is true, except the things that are not. Very tricky, but certianly different than saying everything in the book is true.
I like your blog, I just wouldn’t write a pointed editorial and admit within that post that you hadn’t read what you were talking about.
# May 15th, 2006 at 4:31 am.470 Nitro
I bought and read the book and immediatly regreted spending even .01 worth of my money and .000001 of my time on this poorly written book. Come on the only fun thing about the book was the symbolisms that he stole from a non-fiction book. Anyone can toss in imaginary facts to make things more interesting and get more bang for your advertising dollars.
Chad - don’t read the book. When a book makes this big of a splash with its lies then why would you need to read it to comment on its claims?
I gotta get back to my evolution comments…
# May 15th, 2006 at 5:52 amNitro,
Just about half of this site isn’t taken seriously… by me, or by other folks. And I do understand what you’re saying, but I think it applies more to critics that get paid money for their critque. Where as I’m just some backwoods honky.
About Dan Browns claims
I don’t know if you guys can see through this response or not. Tricky is right. By not telling you what is true and what isn’t, he’s only upping the “controversy” of the book. The more he says “find the truth for yourself” or “You can guess whats true and whats not”, the more books he sells.
Money is the motive behind this books’ creation. He knows it is going to strike a nerve with Christians, and with non-Christians, and he’s collecting every penny he can for it. Cept for, he didn’t collect my penny.
Next, alot of folks are taking his claims seriously about Christianity. Which is why I wrote the post. I don’t need to roll around in poison ivy to tell you that it’s not cool. (thus I didn’t read the book)
But I do appreciate your constructive critique of my writing etiquette.
# May 15th, 2006 at 7:07 am“Next, alot of folks are taking his claims seriously about Christianity.”
Anyone that stupid is not all that important to begin with.
# May 15th, 2006 at 9:53 amI didn’t take the book as a threat to my beliefs becuase I knew it was fiction. Unfortunately tho, lots of people treat fiction as fact…
# May 15th, 2006 at 9:59 amI read the book “Angels and Demons” It was a fun book to read, but I didn’t take any of it serious. Just for entertainment.
# May 15th, 2006 at 10:52 amI read Angels and Demons…very enjoyable read. Now, quite honestly…I am glad for Dan Brown. What a freaking genius. He wrote a book that is OK in the context of him being a good writer, but its the STORY that got everyone’s attention. We need more books like this and less John Grisham books that are almost the exact same story.
Yeah, I like John Grisham too..
# May 16th, 2006 at 10:00 amWell, if you are into heresy, Dan Brown is tha Bomb diggety, fo shizzle my nizzle. But this is America, if any greedy crackhead wants to make up a story about how the Holy Messiah is a liar and a lust-monger it’s all good in tha hood. If it makes money, then go for it.
Am I being too sarcastic?
# May 16th, 2006 at 10:20 amNot at all. Please be more sarcastic.
Heresy IS what I believe the book to be. And that is the main reason why I won’t spend money on it, read it, or even acknowledge it as “entertainment.”
# May 16th, 2006 at 11:27 amread ‘hitchikers guide to the galaxy’ and the ‘restaurant at the end of the universe’ if you really wanna loose some IQ points. i read them almost 20 yrs ago and have felt dumber ever since. the movie doesnt do the book justice btw.
on the lighter side, jenny mcCarthy’s ‘baby laughs’ your wife will definatley enjoy if she’s into crude humor about labor & delivery and baby’s first year. its written specifically for first time moms but even preggers with our second, i found it hilarious. I’m not a big fan of jenny mcCarthy but i was told this book was seriously funny so i picked it up, and i wasnt dissapointed. there’s another one called ‘belly laughs’ about pregnancy but i havent been able to find it yet.
# May 17th, 2006 at 1:06 amAs far as writing Dan can’t hold a candle to John Grisham. All Dan Brown had was a splash to make up for his poor writing. Anyone that knows anything about marketing can do that. If it was a quality read I would still hate the heresay in it. Last work of fiction that made this much splash was Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species”… I know… I couldn’t help myself…
# May 17th, 2006 at 5:28 amIf you guys want some serious action, read Ted Bell’s “Assassin” and “Pirate.” These books are awesome. He’s writes a lot like Tom Clancy, and he’s just as intelligent.
# May 17th, 2006 at 10:01 amCs- and everyone knows what a crock “Origin of Species” was!
# May 17th, 2006 at 10:19 amDarwin himself admitted he was wrong
# May 17th, 2006 at 12:17 pmI took a cheap shot I know…
me - SS was once Whatever… now it s time for me to go.. not you me but me me… ummm….
… see how confusing your name can get me 
# May 17th, 2006 at 1:02 pmi’ll have to read that JJ, thanks for the recommendation.
# May 17th, 2006 at 1:02 pm“Darwin himself admitted he was wrong.”
Darwin was a devout christian, conservative, unassuming and hardworking. That’s what makes it so surprising that he came up with such an interesting theory. The supposed death bed renunciation of his theories, reported by a Lady Elizabeth Hope and spread by the press, was contradicted by Darwin’s daughter Henrietta, who said, “I was present at his deathbed … He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier.”
But I suppose she must have been in on the anti-Christian conspiracy too, right?
The theory of evolution is entirely legitimate, supported by the available evidence, and makes sense, and that’s the bottom line.
# May 17th, 2006 at 1:26 pmhaha.
HaHa.
HAHAHA!!!
It’s just as legitimate as Christianity, since it’s based on faith, big boy.
me - you know…. CS is more than right. Your name has to go. Time for a new one. Even if its after your favorite G.I. Joe.
So from now on. If you continue us “me” as your handle… I will voluntarily change it to my favorite GI Joe… which happens to be…. Scarlett.
Haha. You’ve been warned.
# May 17th, 2006 at 1:39 pmChristianity is entirely legitimate.
haha.
HaHa.
HAHAHA!
# May 17th, 2006 at 4:31 pmSnake-eyes is definately the best GI Joe. No Contest. He would pimp smack Scarlett and then tell her to get into the kitchen and make him a sandwich.
# May 17th, 2006 at 4:45 pmSimon… you ARE simple
That’s what I said, when I said “since it’s based on faith”. I should call you ‘Sassy Pants Simon’
# May 17th, 2006 at 4:51 pmgood idea, i put it in “leetspeak”
Gotta hold it down for ma boyz.
# May 17th, 2006 at 5:45 pmDamn, it was so much fun! Ok, lets see, I dont think youd be too thrilled if I changed my name to “you,” not matter how much fun that would be also, someone give me a suggestion here, something better than scarlette!
maybe Ill just change the letters around and be “em,” not that sounds gay.
# May 18th, 2006 at 2:26 amHow bout Van Zant? I think Ill go with that from now on.
any objections?
# May 18th, 2006 at 3:16 amI like “the former me.” funny.
# May 18th, 2006 at 6:09 amSnake-Eyes was the man! Who didn’t want to be like him? Scarlett needs to stay in the kitchen becuase she definately nearly killed snake-eyes in the field. Atleast he got a cool uniform from the deal.
I would like to join chad in a deep whole hearted chuckle…
ha
haha
HAHAHA!!!
“Darwin was a devout christian, conservative, unassuming and hardworking.”
Give me a break Darwin wasn’t a christian… Jesus said you must believe on me like the scripture has said. Not just the historic Christ but the real one that by him were the worlds framed. By him were all things made. This is just a basic litmus test of a christian. How can you call Christ master then gut the very truth Christ laid down? OK OK… I’ll get off the soap box before Simon sprays it with water and i slip off. BTW I am now reading “The Case For A Creator” by Lee Strobel. I’ll post some thoughts about this book over at 3G.
I am a fire breathing lib, really, I am… I sweear… only one catch.. I vote conservative on everything and am dead set against abortion or gay rights. So do you really believe I am a lib? Didn’t think so.
The Former Me-
just for the recommendation of changing to “you” you a hereby given the name Zants Big Purple Van, with pink flowers, because dude, that was Gay. Only kidding.
# May 18th, 2006 at 6:32 amVan Zant is good… but Zants Big Purple Van, with pink flowers is better.
# May 18th, 2006 at 6:46 amActually Darwin was a devout christian. He put of publishing On the Orgins of Species for about 30 years do to its theological implications. He only had it published because someone else was publishing essentially the same thing.
# May 18th, 2006 at 10:44 amThink Ill go with Van Zant, I wasnt serious about “you” I was attemting to be funny… and apparently failing miserably
# May 19th, 2006 at 4:23 pmVan Zant it is.
it was funny… “you” would have drove me nuts 
# May 19th, 2006 at 4:29 pmThats why I used to be “me”
Chad took all my fun away
# May 19th, 2006 at 5:19 pmThere was a show on the history channel yesterday called behind the Da Vinci Code. It was entertaining…
# May 22nd, 2006 at 11:31 am$@$$Y you’re so 1337
# May 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 pmph34r |\/|y 1337 |-|@x0r $ki11z!!!!
# May 22nd, 2006 at 5:46 pm
$um1 $70P |-|i/\/\
# May 22nd, 2006 at 6:19 pm