Wednesday, 7 May 2008

The Davinci Code-fact or fiction?

xians often claim that the Da Vinco Code is factually inaccurate however it contains more truth than you might realise. Obviously it's a novel and so there is a lot of fiction in it but in terms of historical facts it's reliable. Xians seem to think that just because some of it is fiction there is no truth in it at all. I think that before commenting on the Da Vinci Code xians should visit Dan Brown's official website and read the following (offical sites are normally more relaible and if you look at the last quote on the list you'll see how stupid the claim is that historians don't think much of the Da Vinci Code):

"I should mention that priests, nuns, and clergy contact me all the time to thank me for writing the novel."

"Many historians now believe (as do I) that in gauging the historical accuracy of a given concept, we should first ask ourselves a far deeper question: How historically accurate is history itself?"

"Interestingly, if you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers. Some feel being baptized is sufficient. Others feel you must accept the Bible as absolute historical fact. Still others require a belief that all those who do not accept Christ as their personal savior are doomed to hell. Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may."

"The opposition generally comes from the strictest Christian thinkers who feel the idea of a "married Jesus" serves to undermine His divinity."

"Art historians agree that Da Vinci's paintings contain hidden levels of meaning that go well beneath the surface of the paint. Many scholars believe his work intentionally provides clues to a powerful secret"

"I first learned of the mysteries hidden in Da Vinci's paintings while I was studying art history at the University of Seville in Spain."

"I was fortunate enough to view the originals of some of Da Vinci's most famous works as well as discuss them with an art historian who helped me better understand the mystery behind their surprising anomalies."

"I was surprised how eager historians were to share their expertise with me. One academic told me her enthusiasm for The Da Vinci Code was based in part on her hope that "this ancient mystery would be unveiled to a wider audience."

33 comments:

Nick said...

Most of us have read the Da Vinci Code and seen the movie. (So many hours of boredom in that movie!) I find it amazing you never told us what truths are in the book. (Also, are you going to argue that Jesus was married now when on TWeb you were endorsing someone who argued that he was homosexual?)

Do tell the great truth in the Da Vinci Joke please.

Mike is Wright said...

No I never said that jebus was gay, I said there is evidence that he might have been. Nor am I (or Dan Brown or Pat Condell) saying Jesus was married. We're saying he could have been. Then again he could not have existed. My point is that the jebus who rose from the dead is the least likely option as there is no evidence for that.

Nick said...

Oh. So believe anything as long as it's not Christianity. Lovely system.

No evidence Jesus rose from the dead? I'd be glad to debate you on that topic. No need to fear a stupid Christian. Right?

Mike is Wright said...

I can't believe you are so stupid you think there's evidence for the resurrection. Dead people stay dead - that's basic biology.

Nick said...

Then you'd have no problem debating me since you're so sure.

By the way, since you apparently think the ancients were ignorant of the fact that dead people stay dead, could you please tell me when we moderns made this great discovery?

Mike is Wright said...

In the ancient world they didn't have things like tv news, newspapers, the internet etc and so it was easier for myths and legends to start up. I don't know when the discovery was made but in the ancient world they often thought dead people rise (i could name at least 10 pagan sun gods who were crucified and rose again a few days later)

Nick said...

Really? Pray tell what primary sources you've read on the ancient world?

Also, when was the discovery made that dead people stay dead?

Mike is Wright said...

I haven't personally look at the primary sources myself but then i haven't look at the primary sources for most of the history i believe. It's a well known fact that most pagan gods were raised from the dead etc

and you still get some people who believe in ghosts or elvis having risen from the dead. I think they're idiots just as i think you're an idiot.

Spacefoetus said...

Please tell me the names of the pagan gods that were risen from the dead.

And here- read this http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

It may take ya a while, but this is the Intelligent Zone and intelligent people don;t mind a bit of reading, do they?

Nick said...

Your well-known fact is hardly well-known at all. Unlike you, I have looked at the primary sources. You've just mouthed off on faith what your favorite ignorant atheist writers said about it.

Now please tell me when we made this great discovery that dead people stay dead. I want the year and the name of the person or persons who made it.

Mike is Wright said...

What about horus, attis, Krishna, Dionysus, Mithra, Myrra, Maya to name a few.
Unfortuntly that link you gave me is not only a xian apologetics site but has some connection with theologyweb and so can't be trusted at all.

You'll find that Leonard Hayflick discovered that dead people stay dead in 1940

Nick said...

Again, do you have any primary documents on those "gods" and any dates on when they died and rose again? I want the references. (By the way, since Christian sources are biased, don't give any non-Christian sources. Those are obviously biased and can't be trusted.)

You do know you have historical relativism if you go down that path. Right?

Nice try on Hayfick also. The closest I found is Leonard Hayflick and I seriously doubt he made such a discovery at 12 and got worldwide attention for it.

Sorry bub. Back then, they knew dead people stayed dead. In the Greek world, there was one consensus on resurrections. They don't happen.

Seriously. Go get an education dude before even attempting to call your area an intelligent zone.

Mike is Wright said...

If most historians think that most pagan gods rose from the dead then thats good enough for me.

Don't under estimate the ability of 12 year olds. You'll find that Leonard Hayflick worked on proving that dead people stay dead throughout his life and so it is hard to put a year on it. But as i said earlier, it's more a general trend over that less and less people have believed that dead people can rise.

Nick said...

Most historians. Right! You took a poll or something? Argument ad populum anyway. I have read the primary sources. You have ZIP! Give me the primary sources on these documents or just admit you don't have a clue.

As for the idea of dead people staying dead, that was already known. It's amazing that you moderns had to have it scientifically demonstrated.

Mike is Wright said...

ah, so you admit that dead people stay dead. Therefore jebus didn't rise from the dead. QED

Nick said...

Nope. I admit that dead people naturally stay dead. They stay dead if nothing else intervenes. Apples naturally fall to the ground if they break off from a tree unless someone catches them or some other happenstance like that. The laws of nature don't tell you what must happen. They tell you what happens if there is no outside interference. Go get a copy of "God in the Dock" and read C.S. Lewis's essay on "The Laws of Nature." It's only about 4 or 5 pages. (Although that might be too much for the intelligent zone.)

Mike is Wright said...

c.s lewis is famous for being illogical. And i have already proved in my most recent post that miracles are impossible.

Nick said...

Please show where C.S. Lewis is illogical. (In fact, tell me what the laws of logic are.)

Also, even if he is illogical on some points, it does not follow he is on every point. You are simply committing the genetic fallacy. Very "illogical."

I've challenged several people to a TheologyWeb debate on miracles since they're so sure they're impossible. You wanna take up that challenge?

Btw, I have read Hume's argument against miracles. You're no Hume and your argument is even worse. It is simply begging the question, another logical fallacy.

Mike is Wright said...

O.K, try this

Nick said...

Wow. The Rational Response squad?! No bias there! Hey dude. JPHolding and I were on an internet program one night where JPH was to speak and the rational response squad was to show up. They never did! Not a one of them. What's the matter? Were they too cowardly to come?

All I see from the RR is assertions that are simply laughable. Evolution explains morality? Please. An is does not explain an ought. Morality is not about what one does but what one ought to do.

Mike is Wright said...

and we evolved to know what we ought to do.

Nick said...

That's the problem. You don't have a place where this ought comes from. Ought implies a standard outside ourselves to which we are accountable. What is this standard?

Mike is Wright said...

our understanding of right and wrong is n accident of evolution.

Nick said...

Wow. So you trust accidents to give you valid information? Tell me, if my brain is the result of accidental matter coming together, why should I trust it to give me information on an accidental universe?

Mike is Wright said...

because what we think can be tested through scientific experiments

Nick said...

That information is interpreted by our brains also. If my brain is the result of an accident, why should I trust it in interpreting scientific matters?

Mike is Wright said...

because science is based on evidence

Nick said...

And how is that evidence interpreted? Through the senses. Do you have any evidence that the senses are valid? (By the way, in order to not beg the question, you must give some evidence outside the senses.)

Mike is Wright said...

I think you've been watching the film the matrix to much.

Nick said...

Nope. That's a valid argument. You can answer it or you can just say "I accept what my senses tell me by faith!"

Mike is Wright said...

no you are not using valid arguments. Maybe you should ask your sky daddy to help you understand basic logic.

Nick said...

Oh Mikey. Tell me the three basic laws of logic. It would help if you've read Aristotle like I have.

Note: Mikey wants to say I'm not using such an argument simply because he's a crying baby who couldn't think his way out of a paper bag.

Spacefoetus said...

Mikey, hes right, there no way to know our sense are accurate without using the other sense to prove them and thats circular reasoning. We can't have proof that our senses are right, so we accept that on blind faith.

Therefore all of science is based on blind faith.

Unless of course, there is or was a god who made the senses to funtion properly. Then we can assume that we are viewing reality.

So, God as a concept, like an imaginary number or a least a hypothesis is almost necessary to be 100% sure that we are viewing reality. Otherwise, we just see what luck allows us. And f this is the case the maybe there is a God and we just havnt evolved the necessary senses to see Him.