« Need help writing a review of TDVC movie? | Main | I saw TDVC and I almost lost my faith... »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b7c369e200d8348f223353ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who is historically illiterate?:

Comments

Cristina A. Montes

EPP keeps on gloating on how much money Dan Brown and Ron Howard are making. I've been monitoring this blog and the Ignatius Insight blog long enough to know that he has always been accusing Sandra Miesel and Carl Olson of cashing in on the popularity of TDVC.

Maybe I was wrong in speculating that EPP is Carl Olson himself under an assumed name. Maybe Dan Brown and Ron Howard promised to give him a percentage of the movie revenues in exchange for trolling at TDVC debunking blogs. :P

Also, the fact millions of TDVC tickets were sold does not mean that those who bought the tickets actually liked the movie after having seen it.

Publius

"Maybe I was wrong in speculating that EPP is Carl Olson himself under an assumed name."

You are wrong. I proved above, using impeccable anagramatic evidence and years of research, that he is, in fact, a self-flagellating monk and assassin doubtlessly working for Opus Dei and probably albino to boot. He's pretending to be a pro-DVC troll in order to discredit real DVC fans.

http://insightscoop.typepad.com/davincihoax/2006/05/who_is_historic.html#comment-17476866

Publius

OTOH, there's nothing to prevent Carl from being an Opus Dei assassin/monk (especially given that Opus Dei denies actually having monks, which means that all OD monks are secret). He might not be albino, but I never asserted that EPP *was* actually albino, only that it was possible or even probable. Besides, he may be hiding his albinism with hair die, contact lenses, and makeup.

L. price

Harmful Fiction

Picture this scenario: an author writes a fictional account of the life of George Bush. In the book, Bush has a mistress and several children while he is married to Laura. He uses the power of his office to cover it up. However, a clever detective is on to the secret and through the interpretation of several clues unravels the scandal. What would be the result if such a book were published? Perhaps it would sell, but the profits would be offset by the losses incurred when the author was sued for defamation. No one should be able to profit by smearing a person’s good name.

And yet, that is precisely what Dan Brown has done in The Da Vinci Code. The supposed relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene debunks Jesus for who he is, according to Brown: just another religious hypocrite with a dirty little secret. In fact, early Christians carefully conspired to hide the secret, he says. Whether he believes it’s true or simply made it up matters not; the essential point is that Jesus and his followers have duped us all for centuries.

The duping is all the more profound when one considers that it is an essential tenet of Christianity that truth in its purest form is available to all because Jesus himself is available as the living embodiment of truth (please see John 14:6). Christians, Jesus teaches, are not to hide under the table but to put everything out in the open for all to see—complete transparency. If Brown is right, Jesus and his followers have perpetrated the greatest scam in history for centuries.

But it is really only a scam in Brown’s mind. Brown is clever enough to know that scandal about Jesus and his followers in intriguing, especially when it is presented in a kind of John Gresham—can’t-put-the-book-down format. There is a lot of money to be made here and I’m sure Brown is lining his jackets with cash. But make no bones about it—the Da Vinci Code is premised on a lie about real people—Jesus and Mary Magdalene are not fictional characters—and constitutes an insidious form of libel and slander which Christians should see as a personal attack on the person of Christ and his followers.

Larry Price
Winona

L. price

Harmful Fiction

Picture this scenario: an author writes a fictional account of the life of George Bush. In the book, Bush has a mistress and several children while he is married to Laura. He uses the power of his office to cover it up. However, a clever detective is on to the secret and through the interpretation of several clues unravels the scandal. What would be the result if such a book were published? Perhaps it would sell, but the profits would be offset by the losses incurred when the author was sued for defamation. No one should be able to profit by smearing a person’s good name.

And yet, that is precisely what Dan Brown has done in The Da Vinci Code. The supposed relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene debunks Jesus for who he is, according to Brown: just another religious hypocrite with a dirty little secret. In fact, early Christians carefully conspired to hide the secret, he says. Whether he believes it’s true or simply made it up matters not; the essential point is that Jesus and his followers have duped us all for centuries.

The duping is all the more profound when one considers that it is an essential tenet of Christianity that truth in its purest form is available to all because Jesus himself is available as the living embodiment of truth (please see John 14:6). Christians, Jesus teaches, are not to hide under the table but to put everything out in the open for all to see—complete transparency. If Brown is right, Jesus and his followers have perpetrated the greatest scam in history for centuries.

But it is really only a scam in Brown’s mind. Brown is clever enough to know that scandal about Jesus and his followers in intriguing, especially when it is presented in a kind of John Gresham—can’t-put-the-book-down format. There is a lot of money to be made here and I’m sure Brown is lining his jackets with cash. But make no bones about it—the Da Vinci Code is premised on a lie about real people—Jesus and Mary Magdalene are not fictional characters—and constitutes an insidious form of libel and slander which Christians should see as a personal attack on the person of Christ and his followers.

L. Price

Cristina A. Montes

Publius: LOL! It's amazing!

It's possible to interpret anything to be a coded message about anything. My sisters and I joke about the "Harry Potter" series being a coded message that Adolf Hitler is the son of our country's national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal. :P

Project9

This discussion has gone a long way since i last posted.

MLC: Communism had influence, nobody is denying that so i don't see your point in trying to put that clear. What it never had is the influence the Catholic Church had in its peak days. You say that the Church "is bigger now than at any time in history", if that's the truth then the Church wouldn't have so many "extraordinary" ministries and ministers, wouldn't be worried about less people going to church (and less money flowing thru the donations plate). Tell me something, if the pope called all Christians and gave them the order to go on a crusade to "protect" the "Holy Land", how many people would follow such orders (besides the nutjobs protesting in the theaters right now) ?

And another question: Was the concept of sepparation of Church and State applied in the middle ages?

MLC

P9: I posted that 3 days ago there have been 29 other posts on this thread since then, the debate has moved on somewhat. Do try and keep up.

People are still being persecuted by communists, just look at China for one. Also, it's my belief that the radical feminist movement and the sexual revolution were instigated by people, such as Betty Frieden, who had a Marxist agenda to destroy the basic foundation of society: the family.

In many parts of the world, e.g. Africa, the Church is thriving and growing. And producing many vocations. The Church is present in most parts of the world today. In the Middle Ages it was confined to Europe. But That's beside the point; the Church will stand until the end of time, we have Christ's promise of that.

MLC

Did they have seperation of Church and State in the Middle Ages? Here in England we have St. Thomas Beckett, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was martyred for that very priniple when King Henry II tried to interfere in Church matters.

In the 16th Century we have Sts Thomas More and John Fisher who were executed because they refused to recognize Henry VIII as head of the church in England. So yes, it would seem that the idea of the seperation of Church and State was one that was generally reognized.

Publius

I suppose there was a separation of Church and State of a kind (at least in some countries), but certainly not in the common understanding of the term. The common understanding precludes, or at least is supposed to preclude, the state from interfering with any church or religious body (or the religion of any individual), not just the Catholic Church, and also precludes the direct influence of a church on the government (some say that it should preclude any influence whatsoever on the government no matter how indirect, but I'm certainly not one of them).

MLC

I'm all for the seperation of church and state when it means protecting the church from meddling by the state, for example, if the state tried to invoke it's diversity laws to force the Church to ordain women or perform same-sex marriages.

But, of course, what liberals mean by seperation of church and state is that no religious influence should affect government policy and even religious symbols should be banned from the public sphere. Hence we have the ridiculous spectacle of militant Atheists campaigning to have a cross removed from a war memorial.

Kathryn Grover

Hey "Dog-Man".

Trolling is often a considered a symptom of paranoia.

If you've got something useful to say, that's great, but really, all you are doing is preaching the glory of Dan Brown to an audience that is rolling on the floor in laughter at you.

Cristina A. Montes

Publius: more "proof" for your theory that EPP is an Opus Dei albino assassin pretending to be a pro-TDVC troll: "Perro" being the Spanish word for "dog"...you know..."God's rottweiler"...and St. Josemaria Escriva being Spanish... Maybe B16 himself hired EPP. :P

Project9

MLC i try to have a life, at least on weekends.

You cite one example and then go saying "see, there was a separation of Church and State back then", and that example involves more than their opposition to recognize Henry VIII as the head of the church, More and Fisher expressed opposition against Henry VIII's divorce and refused to support it, besides Fisher was one of the biggest supporters of queen Catherine and also her counsellor. Publius was the one who gave an honest an accurate answer.

Look MLC if you are not willing to accept that your Church has lost influence and power then it's time for you to make a serious analysis of the current state of your church ... start by asking your local pastor why there's the need for so many special ministries.

So some of you would like the Church to intervene in State matters, but you don't want the State to intervene in the Church matters ... then what? bring back the Index and get ready to put homosexuals and "witches" in jail? Simply put, what you're saying is that you should be able to impose your Church's views on the majority yet the majority's decision can't be applied to your Church.

MLC

P9: I also gave the example of Thomas Beckett. As to your suggesting that it was opposition to Henry's divorce that was the issue, that may have been context, but the over-riding issue was who had authority over the Church in England, the pope or the king. More and Fisher refused to sign the document declaring Henry as head of the Church, hence they were martyred.
It's not a question of 'power', it's about preaching the Gospel, and more people have the benefit of hearing the Gospel than at anytime in history.

MLC

As to your silly remarks about jailing homosexuals and 'witches', that's just typical Christophobic hysteria.
It is not about "the church intefering in state matters", it is about whether government policy should be undertaken witout reference to traditional Judaeo/Christian values.You talk of Christian 'nutjobs', what about the Atheist nutjobs who are trying to force their will on the majority who are not Atheist. Remember, the principle of seperation of church and state was intended to protect the church from the state not vice-versa.

MLC

And, frankly, if you can't be civil, don't bother to reply.

EKM

This is in response to a comment "MLC" made on May 19, 2006 regarding Thomas Jefferson:

At first, I thought your comment was absolutely ridiculous and warrented nothing but a chuckle. It has since occurred to me that you might actually be serious. I'm not sure who's brainwashing you, but you should actually study history and Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was not only NOT Opus Dei, but he was vehemently against the Catholic Church and could have been viewed as atheist. (There are many interpretations.) And while there are many links to Jefferson's personal life via Sally Hemmings and her children, Opus Dei information would certainly not have been among them. Additionally, Jefferson had nothing to do with the naming of the Hemmings' children - they were Hemmings' family names.

Seriously, get a grip, people.

IndindpuptNig

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

WENDELL_BRAVO666

one world government prophecy , government of the bible of jose rizal/jesus christ/ferdinand e. marcos / wendell_bravo666/fatherland/bathala /nature/king henry ii & queen eleonor , da vinci code ,lineage, egyptology , of katipunan , new heaven / new earth . the bible . k.k.k. history of christ in binan,laguna philippines . 20th century computer revolution ,in the fantacy icon of the modern world . the legendary secret society , katipunan , k.k.k.

The comments to this entry are closed.