Authentic Faith vs. Conspiracy Theories

John Mallon, contributing editor of Inside the Vatican magazine, has written a fine essay about the Coded Craziness, the nature of faith, and our culture's obsession with conspiracy theories. He writes:

But what really got me thinking was the nice old-fashioned expression the editor used about “those weak in faith.” It got me thinking about the nature of faith. I could imagine readers of this book, including Catholics, falling into an infinite loop of doubt, asking, “But how do you know?” when someone tries to explain that the book is false regarding Catholicism. For example, the novel asserts that Jesus was not God, but fell in love and married Mary Magdalene and had a child with her, and from the very beginning the Church has sought to cover this up. Why? Critics of the Church would argue because it is a threat to the “male hierarchy’s” “power base” and that the Church has a “negative” view of women and sexuality.

No need to imagine that some readers (both Christian and otherwise) have fallen into doubt and confusion because of the novel. It has happened and is happening. In addition, millions of readers are having their understanding of the Catholic Church and Christianity tainted, even warped, by the claims made within TDVC. Here is just one of many possible example, an e-mail sent to me by a fan of the Coded Craziness:

Dan’s books are an excellent read. My wife loves him. Read Angels and Demons first.

Have I read the Gospels of Thomas and Mary... Yup! At least translations of the fragments found.

Joseph Campbell introduced Thomas to us PBS types some 20 years ago and referred to the Nag Hamadi [sic] library.

Drink from my lips and you will be as me....

Now that works for me.  Epinoae: direct knowledge! That tracks with Jesus’ Buddhist training in India. And the Vedic teachings that I have read.

Then years of Elaine Pagels’ wonderful books.

Her “Beyond Belief” introduced me to the Gospel of Mary. Now this makes sense! Jesus true second... a balanced yin/yang...opposite, yet the same... the two again becoming the One.

But that little hoser, Peter, was having none of that. Equality with a women??  Not this narrow minded patriarch. Like most men of the House of David, he probably preferred goats. In a hissy fit, he declared that only what he knew was true. And, of course, he didn’t know anything because Jesus didn’t give him anything. OOOOOh, he was miffed!

But the followers of Mary grew happily until Iernaeus decided that one size must fit all and ( in memory of the toasted Polycrap) declared believers of views other than his as heretics = ‘able to choose’. Say what?? One little pinhead decides for us all?  the killing in the name of Jesus begin!

Then, several years later, Constantine, ever the political realist, saw in this a simple way to  control people. Divide them into the blessed and the cursed. Give the blessed, through the supervisor, a license to kill the cursed ( ohh, the sweetness of killing in the name of God!!). Works off much animus, that. Veeery clever. Then those who killed feel bad, as they should. The supervisor sez ‘ya done good! now bow down to God....and his rep here on Earth, me....and the emperor too who allows you to kill them free thinkers!’

Nicea froze this insanity for 1600 years with several, politically inspired tracts of quite dubious provinance.

Dan Brown is just a very happy coincidence. He said what many of us believe the orthodox church is all about power and nothing about God. Why would he debate with you?  Your noise sells more of his books!

So we are exploring the true Jesus without the incumberance of parisite-priests trying to keep their bellies fed. Light and sweet! We’re just the meteor at the end of the age of  ‘the church’. ...

Remember, Dan is a storeyteller capitalizing on a growing movement to bring Mary (the sacred feminine) back home again. He didn’t start it. Attacking him just shows your denial of what is really going on: ‘the Rock’ crumbling into sand as the Goddess commands. Evolution.  I love it.

Comments

[PhilVaz]

CrazyPerson: "Why would he debate with you? Your noise sells more of his books!"

Why won't Dan Brown debate Carl Olson, preferably on CNN Larry King Live? Because Dan Brown does not want his own head handed to him on a silver platter.

A good runner up for best debate would be maybe tag team Picknett / Prince vs. Charles Nicholl / Elizabeth Lev.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/LeonardoLastSupper.htm

Phil P

[xavier]

Phil:
Or have Sandra skewer him for his laughably ignorant knowledge of medieval legends.

xavier

[MLC]

Xavier, Dan Brown debating Sandra would be a joy to behold. I might end up feeling sorry for the poor guy. LOL.

[MLC]

Xavier, Dan Brown debating Sandra would be a joy to behold. I might end up feeling sorry for the poor guy. LOL.

[MLC]

Sorry for the double post. Not quite sure what happened there.

[Project9]

You people seem to be missing one little fact in your "debunking myths" frenzy: if there's someone who is really sure that the DVC is fiction that would be Dan Brown ... so what would be the point of the debate?

Religious Person: Dan you're a liar, the curator of the Louvre is not named Sauniere.

Dan Brown: I know, the book is a novel.

Religious Person: If i wrote a book about your family ...

Dan Brown: It'd still be a novel.

[Carl Olson]

Typical of Catholic-bashers everywhere, Project9 continues to ignore the many statements by Dan Brown emphasizing his "research" and his "facts."

As one example out of many possible, consider what occurred on "Good Morning America" in November 2003. Charles Gibson asked Dan Brown (after Brown had gone and on about his "research" and trips to Europe, etc.): "If you were writing it [the novel] as a non-fiction book, how would it have been different?"

Brown: "I don't think it would have. I began the research for TDVC as a skeptic. I entirely expected, as I researched the book, to disprove this theory, and after numerous trips to Europe, and about two years of research, I really became a believer."

A "believer." Yep, sounds like a simple, straight-forward case of a novelist writing pure entertainment, free of any agenda or intent to influence how people view Christianity, the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ, and much more.

[Project9]

I've been called quite a few things ... but a "Catholic Basher" ? Come on Carl Olson, let's raise the maturity levels a bit a drop the name calling.

You want to think that Dan Brown is pushing forward a worldwide conspiracy to overthrow the Catholic Church and put in its place a female worship, porn loving cult? Fine, you're entitled to your opinions. But you'll need much more than Brown's sales pitches if you want to prove anything ... but now that i think about it, why do you need proofs when you got faith? right?

[Carl Olson]

** You want to think that Dan Brown is pushing forward a worldwide conspiracy to overthrow the Catholic Church and put in its place a female worship, porn loving cult **

I don't know where the "worldwide conspiracy" and "porn loving cult" parts came from (I've never used such silly terms), but here is what Dan Brown has said, first on his website:

"Two thousand years ago, we lived in a world of Gods and Goddesses. Today, we live in a world solely of Gods. Women in most cultures have been stripped of their spiritual power. The novel touches on questions of how and why this shift occurred…and on what lessons we might learn from it regarding our future."

And then in July 17, 2003, interview with CNN, Brown emphasized this point more than once, stating, "In the early days . . . we lived in a world of gods and goddesses. . . . Every Mars had an Athena. The god of war had the goddess of beauty; in the Egyptian tradition, Osiris and Isis. ... And now we live in a world solely of gods. The female counterpart has been erased." He continues: "It’s interesting to note that the word ‘god’ conjures power and awe, while the word ‘goddess’ sounds imaginary." Then, revealing his understanding of how his novel might affect "traditional" Christians, he remarks, "There are some people in the church for whom this book is a little bit shocking. But the reaction from the vast majority of clergy and Christian scholars has been positive." He adds: "Nuns, in particular, are exceptionally excited about the strong feminist message of the book."

[Project9]

Quoting Dan Brown's sales pitches won't bring you closer to your goal.

[Sandeep]

Its okay if you write a stupid novel on a human being... but here Dan has twisted the life of Jesus our Lord and tried to mock his name, which is very bad according to me. Jesus came to this earth as a human being... was hanged on the cross... he died for our sins... and rose up again on the third day... Even though we know all that he has done for us, insted of worshiping him and giving him respect, there are people who try to defile his name.