da Vinci code

OK so i just read two of Dan Brown's books "Angels and Demons" and "The Da Vinci Code". They were both amazing, but I wonder what the hard core Catholics think of this book? Even Christians in general will probably be questioning their faith after reading these books. I mean the first book isnt all that bad, but does talk about the corruption in the Vatican and the shady past of the Catholic church, put The Da Vinci Code just blows the bible out of the water basically. To me it doesn't make a difference because I believe in God and take the bible as stories on how to live a moral life, but there are many people out there that take the bible literally down to the fact that woman was created out of man's rib. i think its wrong for the church to try to shelter its followers and hide the truth. What is wrong with something that challenges your faith. If you are strong in your faith it shouldnt matter how much evidence is put against you. it's like a parent who keeps it child sheltered its whole life then when the kid grows up he is bombarded by the "real world" and ends of rebelling against the parent. Anyways I don't wanna give any spoilers away to those that have not read the books yet. but what are yalls opinion on these books?

The da Vinci Code was played fast and loose with the facts to build an exciting work of fiction. See National Treasure and you'll see the same type of 'reaching' done in the book.

There is nothing wrong with challenging someones faith. However, to use the logic in that book is not the way to go about it. Using a few facts, embellishments and misdirection, I can prove the Titanic sank because there was insufficient ice cream on board. I'll just have to find the thread that I did this in when this discussion happened the last time :p

Just don't believe that this book represents the real world or actual facts. Its a work of fiction - a good one, but still a work of fiction.

aren't they just made up stories from the mind of Dan Brown? I mean, after reading these books you're content with saying it "blows the bible out of the water"?

First off, YogsVR4, pleeeease find that thread, that sounds funny as hell!!

Dirtydx, there is alot of facts in that book but there are also alot of embellishments as well. Right now, I'm reading Secrets of the Code. This book goes through the DaVinci Code and seperates what is fact and what is fiction. The author of Secrets of the Code researched over 100 books and put together a list of references for everything in DaVinci Code.

2Slow4U, I totally agree with you. As a Catholic, I was taught to take the bible literally, however, today it has come to light that much of the bible is symbolism and, as you put it, stories on living with morals. Personally, the book did not make me question my faith. Jesus was said to be the same as an other man, except in sin. If he could die, why couldn't he create new life.

aren't they just made up stories from the mind of Dan Brown? I mean, after reading these books you're content with saying it "blows the bible out of the water"?

Well I'm saying that IF they are true. I'm reading that Secrets of the Code Revealed to see what is true and what has been infered and wat is just fiction. but if the stories about the Holy Grail and how Constentine created the modern bible are true then yes I would say it blows the bible out of the water, not necessarily the faith of the people though. I like the way dan brown uses different characters to show all sides of the argument. I think its his way of being PC and saying "hey there are many sides to any argument so make up your own mind", but with the amount of controversy in this book, i dont think its going to save him any haha.

they were both very good books, and as long as people remember that they were JUST fictional books, there shouldn't be any real problems...

the people who take the bible literally aren't usually those with whom you would have a discussion about this book, if they bother to read it.

From what I gather from this post, the books in question are fiction and should not be taken as fact. If this is the case I do not understand why a person would at all let it challenge their faith. I am not at all versed with any of these books, so please do not get mad at me for anything about them. As well, I have never heard of the theory that Constentien created the Modern Bbile. I do not understand that at all. As for the bible, I think that it is quite literal and it should be taken as more than suggestions for your morals but a guideline as to how to live every day of your life.

From what I gather from this post, the books in question are fiction and should not be taken as fact. If this is the case I do not understand why a person would at all let it challenge their faith. I am not at all versed with any of these books, so please do not get mad at me for anything about them. As well, I have never heard of the theory that Constentien created the Modern Bbile. I do not understand that at all. As for the bible, I think that it is quite literal and it should be taken as more than suggestions for your morals but a guideline as to how to live every day of your life.


well i agree that the book is fiction, but there were many facts in there that I was unaware of. Like that the Pope admitted that Mary Magdelene was not a prostitute, but was probably confused with many of the other Mary's mentioned in the bible. And from the research I've read, most scholars agree that Mary Magdelene was a wealthy lady, a close follower of Jesus, probably the first apostle, and played an important part in spreading the word of Jesus. This alone isnt enough I think to challenge people's faith in Catholicism, but it does bring up questions of the church's treatment of women.

the Catholic church has always been had a patriarchal society... the reason it will challenge people's faith is because they don't know the HISTORY behind the church. i had 12 years of catholic school, and have even taken religion classes here in college and there were things Dan Brown suggested that i hadn't heard or thought of before. there are very few acedemic sources you can use to study religion, and thus there will always be contraversy like this.

and 2slow, the common acceptance is that Mary the mother of Jesus was the first apostle. but yes, there are too many Mary's in the Bible. lol

So basically....

This book is fiction, it should be taken as such and there is no reason that it can challenge the chrstian faith, correct?

if it can make people think, it can challenge faith. there is no set requirement for belief, if you want to believe something no one will stop you.

the books are comprised of a mixture of fact and fiction, some people might blow fact out of proportion, but a lot of the time the strangest stuff can be true.

but then again (for the sake of making you all think harder) the Bible is only a compilation of stories. there is fact and speculation, but there are also things in the Bible that are just stories. not to say that the books are on the same level, but there is similar content in the books that Dan Brown has written. (fact, speculation, stories) The Bible has historical based proofs backing up what it says, and is more of a guide for a religiously accepted "good" lifestyle (you just have to know how to read it, and it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone). A&D or The Da Vinci Code are just stories, designed to entertain. the fact that they use historically and religiously accepted truths just adds to how believeable the books are, and that's the key to good fictional writing: make the reader believe. Believe what? it doesn't matter, as long as the writing stimulates the reader's mind that they could follow the story as if it were happening. the books are both good and thought invoking because they have enough fact that somewhere in our mind we say "wow... what if this happened? it could happen..." anything COULD happen, but what HAS happened can't be altered.

I think that the bible is not just a bunch of stories msde up to be simple suggestions to how you live. I think it is THE guideline to life and the events are true, other than parables and such. Of course, there really is no way I can prove this, other than I know that there has been a great deal of archeological evidence, I just dont have any to back it up now. When I get a chance I will hopefully do some research.

there's also archeological evidence that proves we evolved from apes.

In regards to having evidence to "prove we evolved from apes"

I apologize in advance for what I know is going to be a long post...

Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Now, 130 years and billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of one "connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps."

Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Let's take a look at Archeopteryx, a fossil that some evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and bird.

Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.

(The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland's book, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching's book.)

1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's.

In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.

One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.

2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.

However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.

3. It had teeth.

Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.

4. It had a shallow breastbone.

Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.

Recent examination of Archeopteryx's feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today's flying birds.

5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.

This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.

This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.

This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.

This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, "It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."

And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.

In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"

Just think of it! Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils.

From what I gather from this post, the books in question are fiction and should not be taken as fact. If this is the case I do not understand why a person would at all let it challenge their faith. I am not at all versed with any of these books, so please do not get mad at me for anything about them. As well, I have never heard of the theory that Constentien created the Modern Bbile. I do not understand that at all. As for the bible, I think that it is quite literal and it should be taken as more than suggestions for your morals but a guideline as to how to live every day of your life.


Look its right there at the Vatican on the council of Niceas vote tallies. Constantine created the modern bible to make Rome more powerful. Constantine had recently murdered some of his family and wanted to regain popularity as well as make a religion for a political power move for Rome. Da Vinci code is a good book that tries hard but it just reaffirms people to a religion that doesnt seem to work anyway, and I don't really feel is good for people.

If you really want to research the bible then research Sumerian, Babylonian, and Egyptian cultures really in depth. I mean really in depth to the point where you see where they pulled all the ideas from the other regional civilizations that were in the area at the time. Did you know Sumerians had historical records dating their rulers back some 400,000 years and had knowledge of the stars and universe modern science cannot even fathom. They even claim their rulers came from outer space, remember that next time you read your bible because Sumer influence is all over the bible including noahs ark story, 7 day creation, garden of Eden (place is historically known as the place where animals and man lived in harmony to everyone in the area, Sumerians, Egyptians, Persians, everyone from the middle east has a story about that place but a different name, not just the Hebrews. Historically its called Dilmun and most people dont realize thats the same place where the Hebrews had the garden of Eden, you can even go there and see ruins from lost middle eastern cultures if you want)
When Herodotus visited Egypt in the B.C. times they also claimed their priests were descendants from the "gods" from outer space and claimed to have records dating back some 300,000 years. Love to hear what christian based science would say about that. Remember that next time you read your Bible and see Osris beleifs (or any other Egyptian, Sumerian, or Persian influence ) borrowed all over the Old Testament.

There is evidence of unexplained phenomenoh all over the world Nazca plains, tunnels in peru, Great Pyrimid of Giza, Stonehenge, all of which is personally more interesting then Bible history in my opinion anyway.

there's also archeological evidence that proves we evolved from apes.

And what evidence would that be? I've never seen or heard of any hard core evidence that proves 100% we evolved from apes.
Also, if we evolved from apes, why are apes still around?
If we evolved from apes, why aren't there half human half ape species running around out there?

I'll believe we evolved from apes the second the the monkeys from planet of the apes crash into the ocean in their spaceship.

And what evidence would that be? I've never seen or heard of any hard core evidence that proves 100% we evolved from apes.
Also, if we evolved from apes, why are apes still around?
If we evolved from apes, why aren't there half human half ape species running around out there?


There are many examples of more 'evolved' animals who do not replace their 'less' evolved bretheren.
Sharks have been around as a species (genus?) for about 500 million years, largely unchanged. They are primitive enough that they do not posses even some basic mechanisms that the ordinary fish have, like swim bladders for boyancy and gills for breathing without moving.

The earliest whales appeared 60 million years ago and are vastly more sophisticated than sharks, but have not replaced them.

Intellectually we are more sophisticated than apes, but since our human anscestors and those of apes could co-exist, they still do so, largely because we did not have to compete directly for food and resources, in the past.
As for descending from them, the fossil record and basic biology has produced an overwhelming amount of evidence that humans and primates share common anscestors.
Seriously, whats the alternative............. that some unseen all powerful and completely unproven being made us out of nothingness and placed us here? Unlike evlution, that concept is utterly without foundation, or any seblance of reality, supporting evidence or proof. Really, that's right up with believing that the Lord of the Rings actually took place, word for word.

OK so i just read two of Dan Brown's books "Angels and Demons" and "The Da Vinci Code". ..... Anyways I don't wanna give any spoilers away to those that have not read the books yet. but what are yalls opinion on these books?
I read The Da Vinci Code first and then read Angels and Demons. To be honest with you I haven't read a book that I could not put down in such a long time. I really enjoyed TDVC, but A&D was to me a much better book, the ongoing twists were great.

As for all they hype, since then I've bought other Da Vinci code books both in favor of it as well as decoding the statement set forth in the book. Over all if one is very religous, they would probably be bothered by the statements presented in the novel, those that are not, would probably say, aha I knew it, thinking its fact. But one has to remember its just a novel. The statements presented in the book have been told many times in the past and its up to the reader to believe it or not.

Still its a very good entertaining read. Can't wait for the movie version.

TS out

eek, sorry to start a new topic... but, i don't think it would make a very good movie. i know i'd be disappointed because of how much detail there was in the book. it's one of those books that should STAY books.

Da Vinci Code is a good book, but fictional. I enjoyed it very much. Facts and fiction well mixed, suspense all over. But it must be taken as a fictional work.
However, it can challenge people's belief in the Bible just because it makes people think.
About the movie: I'm allwas disappointed when I see the movie of the book... lost details, different people and places, etc. However, I will defenitly be watching this movie!