"People LOOOOOOVE this "Da Vinci Code" because they can fly right through it but still get to feel they accomplished something" i think thats very very true,ive had arguements with some people where they treat everything in the book as fact,as if they discovered it themselves,it is at best conjecture.
Did you hear that the vatican has condemned the book, because too many people are taking it as fact rather than fiction?
and this guy also... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&e=2&u=/nm/20050315/en_nm/arts_vatican_davinci_dc
for once i agree with the vatican,its an interesting thing which happens a lot,when people get hold of a version of a story that isnt the official one usually they become convinced that it is the truth and that the official one is all lies.people dont take the same critical analytic stance,they dont question the authors bias.i really dont know why this is.
kenworth: Pardon? These are the same people that read of Mary having a child without question. The same who revile Jews yet masturbate to the most important one bleeding on their crucifix. And Revelation sticks out as a sore thumb in the whole banality, almost flauting its ablilities to swindle 2/3 of the world's population and still they don't question. So "the same critcial analytic stance" is funny.
also, this is fiction and unlike religious texts, no one claimed otherwise. So, critical analysis only applies if you're judging it as entertainment or how well written and structured it is. Scrutinizing the "facts" in this book is as pointless as scrutinizing the "facts" in a fairy tale.
"also, this is fiction and unlike religious texts, no one claimed otherwise" Acutally, Brown has claimed many times that his text is based on actual *fact*. The Bible claims authenticity. The Apocrypha is just as much a part of scripture as the Gospels, the difference is only that those books never made it. So both make the same claims. And any work based on either plays at being authentic as well.
Do you know where I can find any examples of that? I find it hard to believe. I could see him saying parts are based on actual conspiracy theories or actual claims made by one group or another but I'd be very surprised if he stated a belief that either the conspiracies or claims sprinkled throughout his book were fact.
buffy's: Link: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/d50aab.html 2nd clause from top But don't you feel that authors basing a whole book on conspiracy theory, once researching into it become believers? Here: http://www.writerswrite.com/journal/may98/brown.htm After reaserch and writing Digital Fortress, his discoveries astounded him into believing. When I reaserch for an essay, I do it to base what I write on fact. And nothing convinces like what comes off as fact. Pause. that last sentnece strangley annoys me, but I'm a loser tonight stuck at home so....meh.
I read the book, and while being an incredibly easy and quick read, i did not necessarily find it "bad". Of course, the writing itself is mediocre and may appear simplistic to those who come from intensive reading backgrounds, but honestly the majority dont. I am not sure what his goal with this book was, but if he intended to merely (merely, i dont know if i should use that) create a bestseller, he accomplished that well. The fact that there is an argument about the "facts" in the book already indicates that something must be there to provoke the argument in the first place. For me personally the fact that his book simply brings up these controversial issues makes it valuable. Problems arise however when people take everything he writes as pure undeniable fact, which it most certainly is not. This book should arouse curiosity about these issues and make people want to learn more, from that perspective i see it as useful.
first off, i liked the book. But i think a persons opinion of it has alot to do with how much they knew on the subject before they started reading it. The ideas in the book were new to me, so it was more suspenseful than it would be to someone who has been reading on the subject for a while. anyhow... that is more true than you would think.... IMO. the first harry potter (now you'll have to excuse the fact that ive only seen the movies, i have not read the books, though i plan too when time allows) "The sorcerer's stone" is about a rose colored stone that can create life, and is held secretly locked underground. TDVC readers, i really dont think i need to explain the connection here. and who created the stone? who was also mentioned as a possible leader of the Priory of Sion in TDVC? (for some of you TDVC pgs 352-353). its been a while since ive read this book and alot of other little bits that stuck out to me then, ive since forgotten. but the whole time reading, i kept thinking, "HEY! its HP!". Da Vinci Code Decoded seems to have a chapter on this. anyone read it? i dont care to waste the money. lol. anyone else notice this connection? ========================================================= below is a copy of TLS i added little arrows (obviously) the origional can be found here: http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/vinci/ how can you not see the knife/fish? lol Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
how can the person NOT see that the person next to jesus is a women. I just asked my GF to come over and without any knowlage at ALL i asked her was it a man or a women and she said without any hesitation that it was a women. As for the knife i STILL think it looks like a fish
Who holds a fish like that? Who? I mean, come on, eat with forks. It's Jesus Christ for Christs sake.
I just ran across a site that shows detail photos of the painting before, during and after restoration. Generally I disregard these types of conspiracy theories but, after looking at these detail pics, I am absolutely convinced. The only way leonardo could have made "john" look more like a woman would be to have painted "him" in a bikini. Jesus is very androgynous as well but theres nothing ambiguous about john, that is a woman. you can see the restored close-up of jesus here and the restored close-up of john here.
Puh-lease. Artist's characters were extremely 'ambiguous' back in the 16th century... especially Leonardo... fuck even the 'Mona Lisa' looks a little bit like a man. He's just young... ever seen Donatello's statue of David? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There's a simple explanation for all of this. Donatello was gay, as was Leonardo, and add Michelangelo to the list as well. All gay. 3 out of the four Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the jury is still in on Raphael). Doing statues of David was an easy excuse to get your hands on a young, fresh male model and sculpt his penis in monumental form.
Many great authors and artists were gay. Its not just the taking up the ass that counts, more like all those repressed homosexual urges combined with the available outlet. Michelangelo had it pretty bad... he painted so many cocks on the walls of the Sistine Chapel that the Vatican had to paint them over during the counter-reformation. When you go to the sistine chapel, try to imagine it with everybody's big cock out and none of the angels wearing any drawers. Christ included. That's the way it was originally. Its all quite true. I think Christ is raising his hand cuz he sees a nice ripe ass ready to spank all the way back into hell. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You like taking it up the ass, Ego?
Tchaikovsky maybe, but certainly not Michelangelo and nudes were common depictions in classic, Renaissance art. The histories make vague references to a male friend named Tomasso, and that’s all. The fact that he never married or procreated is what gives him the vagueness of homosexuality- many think I’m gay. Read Stone's “A Lust for Life”- he had it bad for a woman (too lazy to look name up, long ago) Ag: Lance Bass? He still with you? Now that's wuv. Nightfall: And this is why this booky book has made such an impression on the people. They’re just like you- their sole claim to reading has been comic strips, nutrition facts, and Harry Potter. Come the day that Oprah recommends a fascinating book, and these people are entranced by a theory as old as Christianity. But ah- then again, the faith of your avergage Chritian is a simple patchwork of cute quips and quotes gathered up on Sunday, regurgitated by a regurgitator for regurgitrants. No bloody wonder!