Religions > Atheism > Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
24 Nov 2004 11:30:34 AM |
| Object: |
Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
CRACKING THE ANTI-CATHOLIC CODE
Part One of a Special Planet Envoy Critique of The Da Vinci Code
By Carl E. Olson, with Sandra Miesel
http://www.envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/Review-DaVinci-Part1.htm
Introduction
The following special Planet Envoy is the first part of a critique and
examination of the best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code. In this
opening edition, we examine the success of The Da Vinci Code, the
apparent agenda of its author, Dan Brown, the major flaws of the
novel, and the Gnostic background and neo-Gnostic beliefs the book
relies upon so heavily. Future editions of this critique will discuss
Mary Magdalene, Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, Brown's
Christology, the search for the Grail, the Knights of Templar, the
Priory of Sion, witchcraft and the Middle Ages, and Leonardo da Vinci
and his artwork.
The Da Vinci Code Phenomenon
In April 2003, Doubleday published The Da Vinci Code, the fourth novel
of Dan Brown. A combination of murder mystery, thriller, conspiracy
tale, romance novel, religious expose, and historical revisionism, the
novel had instant success. Glowing reviews from leading newspapers and
magazines, combined with the buzz from Brown's previous novel, Angels
& Demons, helped The Da Vinci Code debut at #1 on the New York Times
bestseller list. As of mid-October, 2003, The Da Vinci Code has been
on the New York Times bestseller list for over twenty-eight weeks, and
has been in the top two or three spots for most of that time. There
are now nearly three million copies of the book in print and it is
being translated into thirty languages.
Described by New York Times as a "riddle-filled, code-breaking,
exhilaratingly brainy thriller," The Da Vinci Code garnered effusive,
even ebullient, praise from numerous reviewers. The Library Journal
raved, "This masterpiece should be mandatory reading"; the Chicago
Tribune marveled that the book contained "several doctorates' worth of
fascinating history and learned speculation"; Salon magazine described
the novel as "an ingenious mixture of paranoid thriller, art history
lesson, chase story, religious symbology lecture and anti-clerical
screed." Numerous critics noted how "smart," "intelligent," and
well-researched the novel appeared to be ("His research is impeccable"
stated New York Daily News), a point that surely pleased the author,
who insisted in interviews and on his website that his thriller is
thoroughly researched and factual in all respects. In addition, the
novel features an opening page titled "Fact," which states: "All
descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals
in this novel are accurate."
Readers who have enthusiastically embraced the book point to
historical, artistic, religious, and theological details within it as
central reasons for their fascination with the best-seller. A reader
on amazon.com states that The Da Vinci Code is "one of the best books
I have ever read--makes you see the world a little differently after
reading it!" Another gushes, "You will be amazed at the revelations
that come forth in this book." Another elaborates:
"The Da Vinci Code has to be one of the most remarkable books I've
read. It is a wonderful--and very effective--mix of history, mystery,
action, puzzles and suspense. The pace is so powerful, the book just
wouldn't let go! The story line is almost to brilliant to conceive,
the sheer genius and fascinating craftsmanship that Dan Brown uses in
his book are breath-taking. The idea behind the story may seem
controversial, but once you think about it, it really does become
quite real and even natural."
Another reader provides a more muted and relativistically-minded
assessment:
"The historical events and people explored in the book are real. But
no one knows the Truth...nor will we ever, probably. I think that some
things are meant to be a mystery. With all the world's diverse
religions and each individual's belief in what is Divine--the Truth
would have to destroy the beliefs, hopes and lives of many of the
world's population. So, perhaps, in the divine scheme of things, there
are many more Truths than one. Don't take the book too seriously."
Despite the skepticism of some readers, The Da Vinci Code proved to be
so popular, so quickly, that within weeks of being published, Columbia
Pictures bought the film rights to the book (and to Angels & Demons as
well). Noted director Ron Howard is reportedly on board and Columbia
plans to bring the book to cinematic life sometime in 2005.
Dan Brown's Agenda and the Purpose of The Da Vinci Code
Over the summer, the Envoy office began to receive a number of e-mails
and inquiries about The Da Vinci Code. They all expressed concern that
the book contains a number of overt attacks on the Catholic Church,
plus dubious assertions about topics including Mary Magdalene, the
Council of Nicaea, the New Testament canon, church architecture, and
the murder of witches during medieval times. Reading the novel
confirmed that the concerns of Catholics and other Christians were
warranted; Brown's thriller is less than thrilling when it comes to
providing an accurate and fair portrayal of the Catholic Church,
Christian theology, and Church history.
In her glowing New York Times review of the novel, Janet Maslin
writes: "As in his Angels and Demons, this author is drawn to the
place where empirical evidence and religious faith collide. And he
creates a bracing exploration of this realm, one that is by no means
sacrilegious, though it sharply challenges Vatican policy." ("Spinning
a Thriller From the Louvre" by Janet Maslin. New York Times. March 17,
2003). Maslin apparently doesn't know what "sacrilegious" means. The
Da Vinci Code is overtly sacrilegious (that is, it profanes sacred
beliefs), claiming that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had
children, Mary Magdalene--not Peter--was the head apostle, the
Catholic Church has kept these "facts" hidden through force and
terror, and that Jesus was not truly divine, but merely a good man
"deified" by the Emperor Constantine in 325 A.D. In addition, the
novel is obsessed with radical feminist notions of the "sacred
feminine" and ancient goddess worship, all served up in a syrupy,
breathless fashion reminiscent of romance novels.
The major theme of Brown's novel is the pressing need to recover the
"sacred feminine" and a revitalized worship of a goddess or goddesses.
Brown states, in responding on his website to the question about his
novel being "empowering to women," that,
"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."
In an interview with CNN (July 17, 2003), 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."
It should be noted that when Brown, in interviews or in his novel,
refers to "the Church," or Christianity, he means the Catholic Church.
The Da Vinci Code betrays little awareness that there are non-Catholic
Christians such as the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants; there is one
brief, negative mention of the Church of England (see page 346).
Otherwise, all references are to the Catholic Church, often referred
to as "the Vatican," a term for which Brown seems to have a special
affinity. However, he is not a Catholic, nor does he appear to be a
former Catholic. Asked, on his site, if he is a Christian, he replies
with confident post-modern indifferentism:
"I am, although perhaps not in the most traditional sense of the word.
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 immutable 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. By attempting to rigidly
classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to
the point where we entirely miss the obvious--that is, that we are all
trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our
own paths of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many
religions. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For me, the
spiritual quest will be a life-long work in progress."
This is echoed in a remark made by The Da Vinci Code's main character,
Harvard "symbologist" Robert Langdon, "Every faith is based on
fabrication. That is the definition of faith--acceptance of that which
we imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove. Every religion
describes God through metaphor, allegory, and exaggeration, from the
early Egyptians through modern Sunday school. Metaphors are a way to
help our mind process the unprocessible. The problems arise when we
begin to believe literally in our own metaphors. ... Those who truly
understand their faiths understand the stories are metaphorical" (p.
341-2).
Ironically, The Da Vinci Code hinges upon Langdon having a
profound--and apparently non-metaphorical--faith experience at the
novel's conclusion, an experience bound up in the "sacred feminine"
and Mary Magdalene. Also interesting is how Brown continually
questions any sort of authority, especially that of the Catholic
Church, but has such confidence in his personal research into a large
number of complex areas of study--even areas where his lack of
knowledge is obvious to the discerning reader. This is ironic in light
of Brown's overt relativism and his suspicious view of history; in
true deconstructionist style, he openly questions whether we can even
know the truth about the past:
"Since the beginning of recorded time, history has been written by the
"winners" (those societies and belief systems that conquered and
survived). Despite an obvious bias in this accounting method, we still
measure the 'historical accuracy' of a given concept by examining how
well it concurs with our existing historical record. 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?" (Dan Brown's personal
website)
Brown undoubtedly hopes The Da Vinci Code will be more than just a
best-seller; he apparently wants it to radically change perceptions of
history, religion, and Western civilization. Asked if the novel might
be considered controversial, Brown again asserts his desire to promote
the "sacred feminine" and to challenge the commonly accepted
understandings of Western culture and Christianity:
"As I mentioned earlier, the secret I reveal is one that has been
whispered for centuries. It is not my own. Admittedly, this may be the
first time the secret has been unveiled within the format of a popular
thriller, but the information is anything but new. My sincere hope is
that The Da Vinci Code, in addition to entertaining people, will serve
as an open door for readers to begin their own explorations." (Dan
Brown's personal website)
As noted, this agenda has not been lost on readers, and many of them
revel in the subversive agenda that Brown undertakes in his thriller.
One mesmerized reader summarizes this fascination quite well:
"With his impeccable research, Mr. Brown introduces us to aspects and
interpretations of Western history and Christianity that I, for one,
had never known existed . . . or even thought about. I found myself,
unwillingly, leaving the novel, and time and time again, going online
to research Brown's research--only to find a new world of historic
possibilities opening up for me." (amazon.com review).
As we will see, the "possibilities" opened up to readers are both
dubious and dangerous, and are rooted in ideas that are not only
contrary to Catholic doctrine, but also contrary to historical
evidence, sound scholarship, and common sense.
What's the Matter With the Code?
The immense success of The Da Vinci Code and its strong language about
the Catholic Church has resulted in substantial controversy over many
of the "facts" within its pages. Not only is the novel influencing the
views of non-Catholic readers, it is raising difficult questions in
the minds of many Catholics, some of whom are being asked about
Brown's interpretation of Church history and theology. One Catholic
reader wrote to Envoy, saying:
"I own a Catholic bookstore. We are getting bombarded daily by people
who are buying into the garbage in this book. You cannot believe how
many people have been exposed to this book. . . . We even had an
elderly aunt talking about Opus Dei tonight and yelling at us that the
book is true or it couldn't be printed."
Another reader, a convert from Lutheranism, openly admitted the doubts
that The Da Vinci Code has raised in his mind:
"Honestly, [reading the book] shook my whole faith. I realize that the
book is fiction, but much of what he wrote about seemed like it was
based on historical facts aside from the characters. Since I am not a
Christian scholar I don't even know where to begin to refute these
claims. As the Catholic Church holds much of the evidence that would
refute the drivel in The Da Vinci Code, I was wondering if you could
point me in the right direction to a scholarly non-Christian book that
might help me make better sense of the whole historical chain of
events. If Christianity is nothing more than a big accommodation, it
becomes relegated to a lifestyle choice and not a religion, which I do
not want to believe."
We've heard many similar stories in recent months and expect to hear
more, which is the main reason this critique has been written. Just as
the Left Behind books have been used to promote a Fundamentalist
understanding of Scripture and the end times, The Da Vinci Code has
proven to be an effective tool for attacking Catholic doctrine and
undermining faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ, the authenticity of
Scripture, and the authority of the Church.
"I queried several in the audience why they were there, and what their
reaction was to the book and the evenings' discussion. One woman told
of her teenage son who was reluctant to go through the sacrament of
Confirmation, yet after reading the book found a more believable,
understandable, even human Jesus. That actually inspired him to
continue the path. Another person said that such material added to the
mystery, and in doing so served to strengthen her faith. For one it
called into question the credibility of the teaching of the Church,
yet felt that faith needs to be challenged to be pursued. Others
voiced the idea that this book reinforced a disenchantment with the
Church."
This group, and others like it, obviously emphasize opinion and
"feelings" over careful and objective study. Such an ambivalent
approach to the claims of the novel are summarized well in Rotert's
remark: "Fortunately the evenings participants did not come expecting
Yes/No answers." The same remark could be made about catechesis in
many parishes today, again highlighting the need for a more rigorous
approach to popular works such as The Da Vinci Code, especially when
many people are garnering their views of Church history and beliefs
from those sources.
Fiction, especially best-selling pulp fiction such as The Da Vinci
Code, has become a major means of "educating" the masses about many,
varied topics, but especially those issues that are controversial and
can be easily sensationalized. The belief that Jesus was married to
Mary Magdalene, had children, and was not divine in any way has
existed for several decades in American pop culture. Yet many, if not
most, readers of Brown's novel seem unaware of this--even though the
novel provides the titles of several books written in the last two or
three decades proposing such beliefs, most notably Holy Blood, Holy
Grail (Dell, 1982) by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry
Lincoln.
Put succinctly, here are the major problems with The Da Vinci Code:
It attacks the Catholic Church and her beliefs about Jesus Christ, the
Bible, and Church authority.
It claims to be completely accurate and based in fact, but it is not.
It rewrites and misrepresents Church and secular history.
It promotes a radical feminist, neo-gnostic agenda.
It propagates a relativistic, indifferent attitude towards truth and
religion.
In order to critique the novel thoroughly, we will have to go to the
heart of Brown's worldview and his beliefs about Christianity. There
we will find an obsession with the Gnostic, feminist notion of the
"sacred feminine," an idea that is not so much pro-woman, as it claims
to be, but anti-human and anti-Christian. We will also find that
Brown's understanding of early Church history is based on sources and
books that are antagonistic to the Catholic Church and filled with
dubious, even disingenuous, statements about the Church, Scripture,
and Gnostic writings.
The "Magdalene" and the Sacred Feminine
Most of The Da Vinci Code's story takes place in a period of about one
day, beginning with the murder of the curator of the Louvre. Robert
Langdon, a Harvard symbologist (a word created by Brown to describe an
expert in religious and esoteric symbolism), is asked by the French
police to help interpret a strange cipher left on the body of the
deceased. Langdon is joined in his investigation by an attractive
young cryptologist, Sophie Neveu. Soon they are suspects in the case
and are fleeing from authorities. In the course of trying to escape
and solve the murder, they ally themselves with wealthy historian and
Holy Grail fanatic Leigh Teabing, an acquaintance of Langdon's.
Chased by authorities and an albino "monk" who is a member of Opus
Dei, this small band of iconoclasts and Grail enthusiasts travel from
Paris to London. Woven throughout the narrative are a series of
lectures by Langdon and Teabing on the identity of the Holy Grail, the
importance of Leonardo Da Vinci and The Last Supper, and the "truth"
about Jesus and the Catholic Church. After some obligatory twists and
turns, the novel ends with a flat and not-so-rewarding conclusion,
with Langdon having a sort of epiphany at the supposed burial place of
Mary Magdalene: "With a sudden upswelling of reverence, Robert Langdon
fell to his knees. For a moment he thought he heard a woman's voice .
.. . the wisdom of the ages . . . whispering up from the chasms of the
earth" (p. 454).
The main character of The Da Vinci Code is Mary Magdalene--the Mary
Magdalene of neo-Gnostic, feminist mythology. According to the novel,
the "Magdalene" was the apostle of Jesus and is the Holy Grail. As
Sandra Miesel points out in Crisis magazine, Brown's "book is more
than just the story of a quest for the Grail--he wholly reinterprets
the Grail legend. In doing so, Brown inverts the insight that a
woman's body is symbolically a container and makes a container
symbolically a woman's body. And that container has a name every
Christian will recognize, for Brown claims that the Holy Grail was
actually Mary Magdalene. She was the vessel that held the blood of
Jesus Christ in her womb while bearing his children." ("Dismantling
The Da Vinci Code," Crisis, September 2003).
In a central section of The Da Vinci Code, Langdon and Teabing educate
Sophie about this premise. After explaining that the chalice of the
Holy Grail is not a cup, but a symbol of "a woman's womb" that
"communicates femininity, womanhood, and fertility," Langdon states:
"The Grail is literally the ancient symbol for womanhood, and the Holy
Grail represents the sacred feminine and the goddess, which of course
has now been lost, virtually eliminated by the Church. The power of
the female and her ability to produce life was once very sacred, but
it posed a threat to the rise of the predominantly male Church, and so
the sacred feminine was demonized and called unclean. It was man, not
God, who created the concept of 'original sin,' whereby Eve tasted of
the apple and caused the downfall of the human race. Woman, once the
sacred giver of life, was now the enemy" (p. 238).
He goes on to claim that "the Church," almost from the beginning, "had
subjugated women, banished the Goddess, burned nonbelievers, and
forbidden the pagan reverence for the sacred feminine" (p. 239). And
then, a few pages later, Teabing states that "the marriage of Jesus
and Mary Magdalene is part of the historical record" (p. 245). At that
point Teabing produces one of his sources, Elaine Pagels controversial
book, The Gnostic Gospels (1979). He then quotes from The Gospel of
Philip, which describes Christ kissing Mary Magdalene "on the mouth,"
offending and upsetting the disciples.
A bit later Teabing arrives at what is, it seems evident, Brown's main
point: "Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of
His Church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene" (p. 248). Teabing
proclaims that this, along with Jesus' supposed marriage to Mary
Magdalene, is "the greatest cover-up in human history" (p. 249). He
summarizes all of these sentiments by saying, "The quest for the Holy
Grail is literally the quest to kneel before the bones of Mary
Magdalene. A journey to pray at the feet of the outcast one, the lost
sacred feminine" (p. 257). As those who have read the novel know, that
describes exactly how The Da Vinci Code ends.
None of these claims are original with Brown, as he admits in the
novel and on his website ("...but the information is anything but
new"). Brown's depiction of Mary Magdalene as the embodiment of the
"sacred feminine" has been a common theme of recent neo-Gnostic,
feminist works seeking to rewrite early Church history based upon
Gnostic writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip,
the Gospel of Mary, and a handful of others. In addition to Pagel's
work and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, there are other esoteric histories
making similar statements: The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of
the True Identity of Christ by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince; Goddess
in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine and The Woman with the
Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail, the latter two both
by Margaret Starbird, a former Catholic who has been long associated
with Matthew Fox. There are websites devoted to promoting these ideas
about Mary Magdalene. All of this activity is part of a rapidly
growing interest in Gnosticism and "alternative" forms of Christianity
that are making overt appearances in popular media, including novels,
television, and movies. An example of the latter was the 1999
anti-Catholic dud, Stigmata, which depicted the Catholic Church as
furiously attempting to cover up subversive "truths" located in
Gnostics works such as the Gospel of Thomas. A much more successful
effort was the hugely popular Matrix, which melded neo-Gnostic ideas
with themes from Buddhism and other Eastern religions.
The Rebirth of Gnosticism
The claims made through the fictional narrative of The Da Vinci Code
cannot be understood without some knowledge of Brown's reliance on a
neo-Gnostic understanding of Jesus, the early Church, and
Christianity.
Gnosticism was the greatest challenge to the fledgling Christian faith
of the second and third centuries. Yet, despite its influence, it is a
difficult movement to define precisely because of its esoteric,
decentralized, and eclectic nature. In general, Gnosticism is
dualistic, focused on secret spiritual knowledge (gnosis),
antagonistic towards or uninterested in time and history, and
distrustful--even hateful--towards the physical realm and the human
body. Gnosticism seeks to escape the limits of time and space, to
transcend the physical and historical realm, and attempts to obtain
salvation through secretive, individualistic means (see James A.
Herrick, The Making of the New Spirituality: The Eclipse of the
Western Religious Tradition [Intervarsity, 2003], 179-203).
In his seminal study, The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien
God and the Beginnings of Christianity, Hans Jonas explains that the
"radical dualism" of Gnosticism exists on many levels: "God and the
world, spirit and matter, soul and body, light and darkness, good and
evil, light and death" (The Gnostic Religion [Beacon Hill: Boston,
1958, 1963], p. 31). Ancient Gnostics believed that the true God is
not only beyond the world and the material realm, He had nothing to do
with the creation of material matter: "The world is the work of lowly
powers which though they may mediately be descended from Him do know
the true God and obstruct the knowledge of Him in the cosmos over
which they rule" (p. 42). Put simply, the material realm is evil and
man must escape it. This can only be accomplished through gnosis, or
secret knowledge, of the true God.
This gnosis is rooted in the belief that humanity is not meant for
this evil, material world. Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, author of Lost
Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faith We Never Knew
(Oxford, 2003), writes that according to this view, "we are trapped
here, imprisoned. And when we learn who we are and how we can escape,
we can then return to our heavenly home." He notes how this concept
resonates with modern readers, "many of whom also feel alienated from
this world, for whom this world does not make sense, readers who
realize, in some very deep and significant way, that they really don't
belong here" (p. 114). It is also the case that the individualistic,
relativistic, and syncretistic character of Gnosticism is also
appealing to modern men and women who are distrustful of the Church,
believe Christianity to be anti-woman, and who have a generally
negative view of any structure of authority.
Elaine Pagels explains that some of the early Gnostics claimed "that
humanity created God--and so, from its own inner potential, discovered
for itself the revelation of truth" (The Gnostic Gospels, 122). Rather
than being outside of--and separate from--humanity, God is a creation
of mankind. Salvation is not about overcoming sin through and by God's
assistance, but is the overcoming of ignorance through self-knowledge
(p. 123-4). Ignorance insures destruction, while self-knowledge
provides liberation and escape from suffering. This means that the
Jesus was not the God-man who came to save mankind from sin, as
orthodox Christians believe, but is a "teacher, revealer, and
spiritual master" who is human only. In Gnostic teaching, Jesus is not
greater than the student, but he will help the student to transcend
him in knowledge and "Christ consciousness."
Another key concept embraced by many Gnostic groups was that of an
androgynous God, a deity who is a perfect balance of feminine and
masculine. Pagels writes, "Some [Gnostic groups] insisted that the
divine is to be considered masculofeminine--the 'great male-female
power.' Others claimed that the terms were meant only as metaphors,
since, in reality, the divine is neither male nor female. A third
group suggested that one can describe the primal Source in either
masculine or feminine terms, depending on which aspect one intends to
stress." She adds: "Proponents of these diverse views agreed that the
divine is to be understood in terms of a harmonious, dynamic
relationship of opposites--a concept that may be akin to the Eastern
view of yin and yang, but remains alien to orthodox Judaism and
Christianity" (The Gnostic Gospels, 51).
The Gnostic deity is both god and goddess, and the Gnostics despised
the Christians for "suppressing" the feminine nature of the godhead.
In The Da Vinci Code, Langdon lectures Sophie about this, telling her
that "the Priory [of Sion] believes that Constantine and his male
successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism
to patriarchal Christianity by waging a campaign of propaganda that
demonized the sacred feminine, obliterating the goddess from modern
religion forever" (p. 124). This suppression resulted, Brown's novel
tells readers, in a warped and unbalanced humanity, overly masculine
and lacking in feminine balance:
"The days of the goddess were over. The pendulum had swung. Mother
Earth had become a man's world, and the gods of destruction and war
were taking their toll. The male ego had spent two millennia running
unchecked by its female counterpart. The Priory of Sion believed that
it was this obliteration of the sacred feminine in modern life that
had caused what the Hopi Native Americans called koyanisquatsi--'life
out of balance'--an unstable situation marked by testosterone-fueled
wars, a plethora of misogynistic societies, and a growing disrespect
for Mother Earth" (pp. 125-6).
Many Gnostics not only believed the true God (beyond the god of this
world, the demi-god falsely believed to be God by Jews and Christians)
was androgynous, but that humanity was also meant to be androgynous,
or "masculo-feminine." Some Gnostics interpreted Genesis 1:27 as
saying God created "male-female," not "male and female." This idea of
an androgynous, "whole" humanity makes an appearance in The Da Vinci
Code. In talking to Sophie about the Mona Lisa, Langdon states,
"Whatever Da Vinci was up to . . . his Mona Lisa was neither male nor
female. It carries a subtle message of androgyny. It is a fusing of
both" (p. 120). This is wishful thinking on the part of Langdon (and
Brown), since the majority of art historians agree the portrait has
nothing to do with androgyny, but is simply a masterful painting of an
Italian lady, (most likely Mona Lisa Gherardini, the wife of merchant
Francesco di Bartolommeo di Zanobi del Giocondo). However, the idea
that Mona Lisa depicts an androgynous person does fit with the Gnostic
beliefs that those who were enlightened by gnosis needed to be in
pairs--male and female--forming a perfect whole, or "syzygy." Thus,
Jesus would require a female counterpart who would make him complete;
in Gnostic writings that woman, of course, was Jesus' "consort," Mary
Magdalen.
The interconnection between these ancient Gnostic notions and feminist
attacks on Church teaching, especially upon the male-priesthood,
should be apparent. If the male and female genders are not unique in
vital, but equal, ways--as the Catholic Church teaches--but are the
results of an incomplete anthropology, then there is no reason to keep
women from the priesthood or episcopal authority. If there is no
essential difference or distinction between men and women, then the
Church's refusal to ordain women is simply a matter of misogyny, not
of theological, doctrinal truth. This connection is readily apparent
in works of religious feminists intent on getting women ordained as
Catholic priests (or priestesses).
Finally, one difficulty in defining Gnosticism, whether ancient or
modern, is its syncretistic nature. As Jonas states, "the gnostic
systems compounded everything--oriental mythologies, astrological
doctrines, Iranian theology, elements of Jewish tradition, whether
Biblical, rabbinical, or occult, Christian salvation-eschatology,
Platonic terms and concepts" (The Gnostic Religion, 25). Today there
are numerous esoteric groups and movements that utilize Gnostic
concepts and writings: wiccans, New Agers, occultists, radical
feminists, neo-pagans, and a host of others. This is certainly the
case with The Da Vinci Code, which makes reference to a number of
esoteric and occultic groups and movements, but is especially enamored
with a radical feminist interpretation of Church history.
The Neo-Gnostic Myth of the Feminist Early Church
The beliefs about the early Church, Gnosticism, and Mary Magdalen that
are set forth in Brown's novel date back to the nineteenth century and
the advent of modern feminism. Philip Jenkins points out, in Hidden
Gospels: How the Search For Jesus Lost Its Way (Oxford, 2001), that
"late nineteenth-century activists saw Jesus and his first followers
as protofeminists, whose radical ideas were swamped by a patriarchal
orthodoxy." In addition to feminists, this "idea that the Gnostics
retained the core truths of a lost Christianity was commonplace among
occult and esoteric writers, many of whom shared the contemporary
excitement over women's suffrage and other progressive causes" (p.
125). These writers looked to heretical, Gnostic forms of early
Christianity for material to bolster their belief that Jesus was
really a radical feminist, the Church was initially founded as an
egalitarian and non-dogmatic body, and women were among the first
apostles--or were, as in the case of Mary Magdalene, the primary
apostles.
One of the first Gnostic texts used effectively by feminists was
Pistis Sophia ("The Books of the Savior"), which was published in
English in 1896. In it, Mary Magdalene is depicted as the foremost
apostle of Jesus, while the male disciples are frustrated by the lack
of attention they received from Jesus. But it was the discovery of
numerous Gnostic texts in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, that provided
even more ammunition for those looking to undermine Church authority
and change the structures and theology of the Catholic Church. Elaine
Pagels, whose popularizing work in this area has been immense, writes,
"The Nag Hammadi sources, discovered at a time of contemporary social
crises concerning sexual roles, challenge us to reinterpret
history--and to re-evaluate the present situation" (The Gnostic
Gospels, p. 69).
As Pagels' comment indicates, the timing of the Nag Hammadi discovery
was fortuitous for those wishing to reinterpret Jesus in their own
image and destroy traditional, orthodox understandings of
Christianity. "The hidden gospels have been used to provide scriptural
warrant for sweeping new interpretations of Jesus," Jenkins notes,
"for interpreting theological statements in a purely symbolic and
psychological sense, and for challenging dogmatic or legal rules on
the basis of the believer's subjective moral sense. Generally, the
hidden gospels offer wonderful news for liberals, feminists, and
radicals within the churches, who challenge what they view as outdated
institutions and prejudices" (p. 16).
This perfectly describes the intent of The Da Vinci Code, which uses a
fictional vehicle to promote the same agenda that a number of feminist
and post-modern scholars have been working on since the 1960s. Those
fans of Brown's novel who think the author has somehow stumbled upon
new and never seen information might be surprised to know how
commonplace his views are within the realm of Gnostic and feminist
studies. Jenkins' depiction of the literature produced within that
world could just as well describe The Da Vinci Code:
"Over the last century, the literature on hidden gospels, genuine and
fraudulent, has been pervaded by conspiratorial speculations which
suggest that some powerful body (usually the Roman Catholic Church) is
cynically plotting either to conceal the true gospel, or to plant
bogus documents to deceive the faithful. Such ideas run through the
many novels and fictional presentations on this them: in the Hollywood
film Stigmata, the Vatican is shown desperately trying to suppress a
"Jesus Gospel," which is unmistakably modeled on the Gospel of Thomas"
(p. 18).
It would take an entire book to address thoroughly all of these
intertwining topics and answer each of the questions they raise
(Jenkins' book is a good place to start; others are listed at the end
of this article). But here, in abbreviated form, are some important
points about these issues, all of them central to The Da Vinci Code.
The feminist idea that the early Church was an egalitarian body lead
by both female and male bishops and priests is based on flimsy
premises and lacks historical evidence. This has even been admitted,
in part, by Pagels, who stated in the 1998 PBS program From Jesus to
Christ, "I don't see a picture of a golden age of egalitarianism back
there. I see a new, unformed, diverse, and threatened movement which
allowed a lot more fluidity for women in certain roles for a while, in
some places and not in others" (quoted in Jenkins, p. 132). Feminist
scholars speculating about the first few decades of the early Church
usually treat the New Testament documents with suspicion, claiming
that they are the work of those men who finally gained control over
the Church through the suppression of women. Using a "hermeneutics of
suspicion," these scholars must ignore early evidence that the Church
was founded by Christ and its leadership on earth given to twelve men
(Matt. 10:1ff; 19:28; Lk. 22:25-30; Jn. 20:20-24) led by Peter (Matt.
16:15-19), and must instead insist upon using texts that were written
anywhere from fifty to three hundred years after the New Testament
documents.
In addition, there is the misleading notion that the Gnostic writings
are consistently pro-woman, while the New Testament writings--and
thereby the authors of those books--are anti-woman. This idea also
arises in The Da Vinci Code. After quoting from the Gospel of Mary
Magdalene, where Peter complains about Mary's closeness to Christ, Sir
Leigh Teabing states: "I daresay Peter was something of a sexist." (p.
248). He then remarks that "Jesus was the original feminist. He
intended for the future of His Church to be in the hands of Mary
Magdalene" (p. 248).
But Brown never bothers to have his characters quote from the final
verse of the Gospel of Thomas, the most famous of the Gnostic texts.
That verse states: "Simon Peter said to them: 'Let Mary leave us, for
women are not worthy of life.' Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in
order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit
resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will
enter the kingdom of heaven" (v. 114). This passage and others like it
do not fit well with the feminist view of the Gnostics, just as the
Church's positive treatment of women throughout history does not
compare well with the negative picture often depicted by feminist
groups.
One such group is the "Catholic" organization FutureChurch, which
states in an online article that "the Montanist and Valentinian
Churches, which had both male and female leaders, were eventually
suppressed. Scholars say that the Montanist and Valentinian
communities were orthodox. They were suppressed not because their
teachings were heretical, but because women as well as men engaged in
leadership." In fact, almost all scholars, including many feminists
writers, acknowledge that the Montanists and Valentinians were outside
the Church and considered heretical for numerous reasons, including
attacks on the deity of Christ (Valentinians), the authority of the
Church (both groups), an obsession with prophetic utterances
(Montanists), and dualist views (Valentinians). Even Elaine Pagels
states that "Valentinian gnosticism" was "the most influential and
sophisticated form of gnostic teaching, and by far the most
threatening to the church" (The Gnostic Gospels, p. 31).
Unfortunately, such misguided attempts to use ancient, heretical
movements for modern, heretical ends are becoming increasingly common.
The Dating Game
The dating of the New Testament writings and the Gnostic writings is
essential to appreciating the serious errors found in The Da Vinci
Code and in the works of neo-Gnostic enthusiasts. If Gnostic works
such as the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Thomas were written at
the same time as the canonical Gospels, the Pauline corpus, and the
other New Testament books (which are dated from 50 to 100 AD, even by
many "liberal" scholars), then the early Church resembles the picture
painted by feminist scholars--one in which various groups existed
equally, at least for a while, within a democratic, theologically
fluid era. According to this premise, the hierarchical and
male-dominated Church came much later, in the second and third
centuries, and Jesus was not deified as the God-man until the time of
Constantine. This is essentially the scenario depicted in The Da Vinci
Code (see p. 230ff).
However, if the Gnostic books weren't written until several decades,
or even centuries, after the New Testament books, a different picture
emerges. In it, the Gnostic writings are reactionary, the result of
the intense struggle of heretical sects against the established
teachings of the Church and the apostles. These struggles erupted in
the second century, especially noticeable around 135 to 165 A.D., and
continued for quite some time. The nature of this struggle can be seen
in the writings of orthodox apologists such as Irenaeus, who wrote his
great polemic refuting Gnosticism (especially the Valentinians),
Against Heresies, around 180 A.D.
Put another way, Gnosticism began to infiltrate the Church in full
force in the mid-second century, many decades removed from the life of
Christ, the apostles, and the formation of the Church--a distance in
time similar to modern-day scholars looking back at the lives of
Abraham Lincoln, or even George Washington. Gnosticism would have been
a movement arising outside of Christianity, even though some
overlapping of language and concepts may have existed, due in part to
a shared culture and the Gnostic interest in the Old Testament. Some
Gnostic proponents claim that a full-fledged Gnosticism is evident
within the Church in the person of Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-13), but this
view is speculative at best. Hans Jonas writes that Simon was "not a
dissident Christian, and if the Church Fathers cast him in the role of
the arch-heretic, they implicitly admitted that Gnosticism was not an
inner-Christian phenomenon." (The Gnostic Religion, p. 103).
An important characteristic of Gnostic writings is how much they vary
in character from the canonical writings: they are non-historical, or
even anti-historical, in style and content and they contain little
narrative or sense of chronology. The Nag Hammadi documents, as highly
touted as they are, have offered few, if any, new or illuminating
details about the life of Christ or events in the early Church. This
is due in part to the documents being written generations after the
fact as well as the anti-historical bias of Gnosticism, which scorns
the belief that the true God would care about the material, historical
realm. In concluding his examination of the veracity of the Gospel of
Mary and other Gnostic texts, Jenkins writes, "These uncanonical texts
were written at a time when the episcopal hierarchy was already well
established, when the early house churches were a distant memory, and
when the canonical gospels were already widely known as the principle
authorities for the life of Jesus. Mary and its like come from a time
when the church had already fixed its gospel canon at four. Despite
claims that Mary was excluded or omitted from that canon, presumably
because of its subversive feminism, the work was much too late a
candidate even to be considered" (p. 141).
Jenkins' conclusions are supported by the majority of biblical
scholars. For example, Dr. Bart Ehrman of the University of North
Carolina, in his book Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scriptures
and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford, 2003), dates none of the Gnostic
gospels before the "early 2nd century." Many are dated in the third,
fourth, and fifth century (pages xi-xv). The introductions to the
Gnostic works contained in The Nag Hammadi Library (Harper, 1979,
1988), edited by James M. Robinson, acknowledge the same dates, even
though they argue that the Gnostic writings should be considered just
as authoritative as the Four Gospels. Even Holy Blood, Holy Grail,
which takes extreme liberties in its "scholarship" (Teabing remarks,
in The Da Vinci Code, that "the authors [of Holy Blood, Holy Grail]
made some dubious leaps of faith in their analysis" [p. 254]--an
amusing understatement), states, "Modern scholars have established
that some if not most of the texts in the [Nag Hammadi] scrolls date
from no later than A.D. 150" (p. 380).
All of this flies in the face of Teabing's assertion in The Da Vinci
Code that "more than eighty gospels were considered for the New
Testament, and yet only a relatively few were chosen for
inclusion--Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them." (p. 231). Far
from there being "eighty gospels" considered for the canon at the time
of Constantine in the early 300s, there were only five or six still
being considered in the mid-second century. By the late second century
the early Church recognized the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John as the four inspired by the Holy Spirit and meant for the canon
of the New Testament. As Jenkins shows, "the process of determining
the canon was well under way long before Constantine became emperor,
and before the church had the slightest prospect of political power.
The crucial phase occurred in the mid-second century . . ." (p. 85).
In fact, there was already a growing consensus about the entire New
Testament canon by the middle of the second-century, even though it
would not be defined on an official (though not universal) level until
the late-300s and early-400s in a series of local synods. Justin
Martyr, writing around 150 A.D. and explaining the liturgy of the
Christians to his non-Christian readers, speaks of the apostles and
"the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus
delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them" ("The First Apology,"
66). Tertullian, writing around the same time, defends the four
Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Pauline epistles, the
epistle to the Hebrews, and 1 John and The Apocalypse against the
Gnostic ideas of Marcion ("Five Books Against Marcion," 4.2, 4.5). A
couple of decades later Irenaeus specifically refers to the four
Gospels and their authors and implies that they are granted a unique
status within the Church:
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own
dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the
foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple
and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had
been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in
a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of
the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a
Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies,
3.1.1)
A bit further on, Irenaeus writes, "It is not possible that the
Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are" (3.11.8)
and again prominently mentions Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, further
proof that that the number of gospels recognized as authoritative
within the Church was set at four at least 150 years prior to
Constantine and the Council of Nicaea.
Recommended Resources:
Sandra Miesel's critique of The Da Vinci Code
http://www.crisismagazine.com/september2003/feature1.htm
appeared in the September 2003 issue of Crisis magazine. Sandra is a
medievalist and an authority on esoteric groups and beliefs.
Father Andrew Greeley's review in National Catholic Reporter
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2003d/100303/100303m.htm
of Dan Brown's novel makes several good points. Although his review
contains some dubious statements, Father Greeley points out that the
book is anti-Catholic and full of ridiculous errors, stating, "Brown
knows little about Leonardo, little about the Catholic church, and
little about history." He is entirely correct.
Some comments that I've made
http://envoymagazine.com/envoyencore/Detail.asp?BlogID=1124
on Envoy Encore about the novel, pointing out some its the more overt
errors and unsubstantiated claims.
"Does The Da Vinci Code Crack Leonardo?"
http://www.newagepointofinfinity.com/new_page_10.htm
a New York Times article by art historian Bruce Boucher, demonstrates
that Brown's novel is full of big holes in the art department:
"Cracking the Da Vinci Code,"
http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/sightings/archive_2003/0924.shtml
is a short commentary by Margaret M. Mitchell, Associate Professor of
New Testament at the University of Chicago Divinity School and the
Chair of the Department of New Testament and Early Christian
Literature.
The writings of Early Church Fathers
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers
are available online on the New Advent site.
A popular, accessible history of the early Church is One, Holy,
Catholic, and Apostolic
http://www.ignatius.com/MyAccount/ViewProduct.asp?SID=1&Product_ID=288&TabID=1
(Ignatius), written by Kenneth Whitehead.
A more scholarly work, written by a non-Catholic, which examines many
of the issues raised in The Da Vinci Code, is The Hidden Gospels: How
the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way
written by Episcopalian Philip Jenkins. A chapter titled "Daughters of
Sophia" discusses the feminist use of Gnostic writings and the concept
of the "sacred feminine."
Searching for the Real Jesus in an Age of Controversy (Harvest House)
by Dr. Douglas Groothuis is an excellent introduction to radical,
feminist, and New Age attempts to rewrite Church history and undermine
the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ. Written for a popular
audience, it contains helpful information about Gnosticism and the
"Gnostic Jesus." It is currently out of print, but used copies can be
found on
http://www.abebooks.com
Also, several of Dr. Groothuis's articles on Gnosticism and its modern
"rebirth" are available online:
- "Gnosticism and the Gnostic Jesus"
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0040a.html
- "The Gnostic Gospels: Are They Authentic?"
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0088a.html
- "The New Gnostics and the Wisdom of Irenaeus"
http://www.gospelcom.net/ivpress/groothuis/gnosticirenaeus.htm
This Envoy article about the Council of Nicaea may also be helpful.
http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.4/coverstory.html
As for Mary Magdalen, this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm
has some good information.
Finally, a thorough introduction and critique of modern feminism
(including its use of Gnostics beliefs and writings) can be found in
Manfred Hauke's God or Goddess
http://www.ignatius.com/MyAccount/ViewProduct.asp?SID=1&Product_ID=679&TabID=1.
Plese send this to any of your friends, family, and colleagues that
you feel might find this interesting. Don't forget to visit our online
discussion forum
http://www.envoymagazine.com/forum/default.asp?CAT_ID=16
as well, where you can sound off about this and a wide variety of
other interesting and engaging topics.
.
|
|
| User: "tiglath" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
07 Jan 2005 12:29:45 PM |
|
|
Faulty, unclear thinking makes good writing impossible, but good
writing is not always a sign of lucid thinking.
No one illustrates the point better than extreme right columnists like
Charles Krauthammer and Cal Thomas.
In today's Washington Times Cal Thomas outdoes himself with an apology
for EVIL
Apparently people are having a hard time reconciling the existence of
God with the Tsunami Disaster, and rightly so.
The very Archbishop of Canterbury said, "This has made me question
God's existence."
See it here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/02/nbish02.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/01/02/ixportaltop.html
Anglicans and other Christians take note.
But it's all the same to Cal Thomas who dismisses the remark as having
been 'misinterpreted."
Here is Cal Thomas' article:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/cthomas.htm
"[...] some are asking how a 'loving' God, if He exists, could allow
such a catastrophe to happen. Another question is, 'Why do bad things
happen to good people?'
The questions are mostly rhetorical, since by asking them, the
questioners don't actually expect, or even desire, an answer. They are
asked in an accusatory way, as if the questions themselves indict, try
and convict as fools those who believe in God.
One counterquestion should be: Why do good things happen to bad people?
The Scriptures say, "Only God is good." All humanity is diagnosed as
"sinful" and "not righteous." Our desires are "only evil all the time."
Look it up."
Here is a man arguing for the existence of God in the face of Evil, and
to do so he quotes the Word of God in the Scriptures. That bad.
It's like using the word being defined in its definition.
Mr. Thomas, QED.
He continues:
"Here's another question for those who ask the other questions: If
catastrophe proves there is no God, does charity prove He exists?"
That is Cal Thomas planting a very large red herring by the Socratic
Method.
He then goes:
"Human tragedy is bad enough, but listening to some theologians trying
to explain it is doubly irritating. The archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan
Williams, wrote a Jan. 2 column for the Sunday Telegraph about the
tsunami disaster. The front-page headline about the column proclaimed,
'Archbishop of Canterbury admits: This makes me doubt the existence of
God.'
The headline writer misrepresented the archbishop's view, but so
convoluted was Mr. Williams' statement about the disaster (as noted by
an editorial the next day) it is understandable how the writer of the
headline reached his conclusion. Theologians should offer hope and
truth. The pagans serve up enough doubt."
Any reader of the Telegraph's article will see how Cal Thomas is trying
to obscure what the archbishop did not. Thomas then wants to censor
theologians who don't promote his god, and seek the truth.
Absolutely disgusting and as convincing as Alberto Gonzales' expressing
abhorrence for torture.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
01 Jan 2005 07:26:01 PM |
|
|
I was looking at Da Vinci's The Last Supper, trying to scope out the
anomalies mentioned in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, when I happened
upon a curious symbol. What I'm about to reveal has never been
documented before as far as I know. Once I show you this symbol, you
will never see this painting the same way again. No, it's not a dagger
or Mary Magdalene. It's not obvious until you are told it's there, and
then you will never ever miss it again.
http://www.RealmOfTwelve.net/about/grail.html
gary
P.S. I'd appreciate a comment left on the shoutbox at the site!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William December Starr" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
24 Nov 2004 08:26:27 PM |
|
|
In article <8ac4498e.0411240930.3ffa17ea@posting.google.com>,
weiler214@hotmail.com said:
CRACKING THE ANTI-CATHOLIC CODE
Part One of a Special Planet Envoy Critique of The Da Vinci Code
By Carl E. Olson, with Sandra Miesel
Please consider refraining from cross-posting these articles into
rec.arts.sf.written. Thank you.
--
William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
24 Nov 2004 03:02:07 PM |
|
|
On 24 Nov 2004 09:30:34 -0800, wrote:
Part One of a Special Planet Envoy Critique of The Da Vinci Code
What part of "The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction" do you not
understand?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim ONeill" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
24 Nov 2004 11:57:06 PM |
|
|
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:<p5u9q0t57p9e4ce7atj4k6vvi0me2cvsab@4ax.com>...
On 24 Nov 2004 09:30:34 -0800, wrote:
Part One of a Special Planet Envoy Critique of The Da Vinci Code
What part of "The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction" do you not
understand?
Then please explain this to Dan Brown, who clearly believes that,
while the characters etc are fiction, the whacko conspiracy theory he
plagarised from *Holy Blood Holy Grail*, *The Templar Revelation* and
other breathless, credulous, third rate, paperback, amateur crocks of
***** is actually the real McCoy.
Then go to Amazon.com and explain it to the historical illiterates who
have swallowed the so-called 'history' in this silly novel hook line
and sinker.
The sooner these gormless clowns realise this poorly written and
generally laughable piece of crap is pure fiction (and bad fiction at
that) the better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Christie" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
25 Nov 2004 11:53:50 AM |
|
|
--
Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
"Tim O'Neill" <scatha@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:b9ebd984.0411242157.39d6e1fa@posting.google.com...
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:<p5u9q0t57p9e4ce7atj4k6vvi0me2cvsab@4ax.com>...
On 24 Nov 2004 09:30:34 -0800, wrote:
Part One of a Special Planet Envoy Critique of The Da Vinci Code
What part of "The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction" do you not
understand?
Then please explain this to Dan Brown, who clearly believes that,
while the characters etc are fiction, the whacko conspiracy theory he
plagarised from *Holy Blood Holy Grail*, *The Templar Revelation* and
other breathless, credulous, third rate, paperback, amateur crocks of
***** is actually the real McCoy.
Then go to Amazon.com and explain it to the historical illiterates who
have swallowed the so-called 'history' in this silly novel hook line
and sinker.
The sooner these gormless clowns realise this poorly written and
generally laughable piece of crap is pure fiction (and bad fiction at
that) the better.
Unlike the Catholic Church, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim ONeill" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
25 Nov 2004 04:20:17 PM |
|
|
"Roger Christie" <rochrist@<REMOVETOEMAIL>charter.net> wrote in message news:<p3ppd.10283$QW1.1537@fe07.lga>...
--
Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
"Tim O'Neill" <scatha@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:b9ebd984.0411242157.39d6e1fa@posting.google.com...
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:<p5u9q0t57p9e4ce7atj4k6vvi0me2cvsab@4ax.com>...
On 24 Nov 2004 09:30:34 -0800, wrote:
Part One of a Special Planet Envoy Critique of The Da Vinci Code
What part of "The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction" do you not
understand?
Then please explain this to Dan Brown, who clearly believes that,
while the characters etc are fiction, the whacko conspiracy theory he
plagarised from *Holy Blood Holy Grail*, *The Templar Revelation* and
other breathless, credulous, third rate, paperback, amateur crocks of
***** is actually the real McCoy.
Then go to Amazon.com and explain it to the historical illiterates who
have swallowed the so-called 'history' in this silly novel hook line
and sinker.
The sooner these gormless clowns realise this poorly written and
generally laughable piece of crap is pure fiction (and bad fiction at
that) the better.
Unlike the Catholic Church, right?
Nope, much like the Catholic Church. Or Christianity generally.
Peoples' capacity for believing fiction never ceases to amaze.
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:<dj9cq01d7epgl3s4tbrkbnqpt6no2svnb2@4ax.com>...
Sort of like the Bible, I guess...
Couldn't agree more. Doesn't mean the Bible, like any ancient texts,
can't be used with caution and proper historical method to get
information about what probably did and didn't happen though. Dan
Brown and his dim-witted acolytes wouldn't know proper historical
method if it bit them on their collective arses.
Cheers,
Tim O'Neill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
28 Nov 2004 10:18:41 PM |
|
|
In soc.history.medieval Tim O'Neill <scatha@bigpond.com> wrote:
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:<p5u9q0t57p9e4ce7atj4k6vvi0me2cvsab@4ax.com>...
On 24 Nov 2004 09:30:34 -0800, wrote:
Part One of a Special Planet Envoy Critique of The Da Vinci Code
What part of "The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction" do you not
understand?
Then please explain this to Dan Brown, who clearly believes that,
while the characters etc are fiction, the whacko conspiracy theory he
plagarised from *Holy Blood Holy Grail*, *The Templar Revelation* and
other breathless, credulous, third rate, paperback, amateur crocks of
***** is actually the real McCoy.
Then go to Amazon.com and explain it to the historical illiterates who
have swallowed the so-called 'history' in this silly novel hook line
and sinker.
The sooner these gormless clowns realise this poorly written and
generally laughable piece of crap is pure fiction (and bad fiction at
that) the better.
It won't be realized, Tim. It has become entrenched in
the public mind as true, just as a number of other current
myths have become so entrenched that many think them true.
You do know that a majority of Americans don't believe in
evolution?
----- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Swarts" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
29 Nov 2004 05:30:01 PM |
|
|
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:coe7v1$bsd$6@reader1.panix.com...
You do know that a majority of Americans don't believe in
evolution?
----- Paul J. Gans
A majority of Americans? Which majority is that? Last time I checked,
every public school and college level biology course was teaching evolution.
I have been in four courses so far which find basis in human evolution and I
am a computer science student... :p
Would this be the majority of uneducated Americans? The majority of
religious devouts? Or the majority of infants or little children?
God made man through evolution :) For God, it was six "days". For us, it
happened to be a few billion years of work from the single cellular muck we
came from :)
-Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leo G Simonetta" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
08 Dec 2004 03:14:36 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:30:01 -0500, "Robert Swarts"
<rswarts@bu.edu> wrote:
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:coe7v1$bsd$6@reader1.panix.com...
You do know that a majority of Americans don't believe in
evolution?
----- Paul J. Gans
A majority of Americans? Which majority is that? Last time I checked,
every public school and college level biology course was teaching evolution.
I have been in four courses so far which find basis in human evolution and I
am a computer science student... :p
Would this be the majority of uneducated Americans? The majority of
religious devouts? Or the majority of infants or little children?
God made man through evolution :) For God, it was six "days". For us, it
happened to be a few billion years of work from the single cellular muck we
came from :)
According to Gallup
Third of Americans Say Evidence Has Supported Darwin's Evolution
Theory
Almost half of Americans believe God created humans 10,000 years
ago
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107
by Frank Newport
"Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's
theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well
supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just
one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence.
The rest say they don't know enough to say. Forty-five percent of
Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much
in their present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of
Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is
the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for
word."
You have to pay to see the rest now but I seem to recall this is
about the same as they have found in the past.
Here is another example
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm
It's about halfway down on the page
ABC News PrimeTime Poll. Feb. 6-10, 2004. N=1,011 adults
nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by ICR.
"The creation story in which the world was created in six days."
Literally true 61 Not literally true 30 NA 8
Then there is the recent Newsweek poll:
The Christmas Miracle
Most Americans believe the virgin birth is literally true, a
NEWSWEEK poll finds
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/
Dec. 5 - Seventy-nine percent of Americans believe that, as the
Bible says, Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, without a
human father, according to a new NEWSWEEK poll on beliefs about
Jesus.
--
Leo G. Simonetta
lsimonetta@newsguy.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cosmin Corbea" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
03 Dec 2004 11:54:49 PM |
|
|
Robert Swarts wrote:
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:coe7v1$bsd$6@reader1.panix.com...
You do know that a majority of Americans don't believe in
evolution?
----- Paul J. Gans
A majority of Americans? Which majority is that? Last time I
checked, every public school and college level biology course was
teaching evolution. I have been in four courses so far which find
basis in human evolution and I am a computer science student... :p
Would this be the majority of uneducated Americans? The majority of
religious devouts? Or the majority of infants or little children?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107
Quote: "Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory
of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the
evidence".
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
Quote:
God created humans in present form
All Americans 55%
Kerry voters 47%
Bush voters 67%
--
Regards,
Cosmin Corbea
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
04 Dec 2004 12:40:33 PM |
|
|
In soc.history.medieval Cosmin Corbea <cosminc@no_spam.canada.com.invalid> wrote:
Robert Swarts wrote:
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:coe7v1$bsd$6@reader1.panix.com...
You do know that a majority of Americans don't believe in
evolution?
----- Paul J. Gans
A majority of Americans? Which majority is that? Last time I
checked, every public school and college level biology course was
teaching evolution. I have been in four courses so far which find
basis in human evolution and I am a computer science student... :p
Would this be the majority of uneducated Americans? The majority of
religious devouts? Or the majority of infants or little children?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107
Quote: "Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory
of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the
evidence".
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
Quote:
God created humans in present form
All Americans 55%
Kerry voters 47%
Bush voters 67%
One can infer, from comments he has made, that Bush is
a creationist.
---- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
06 Dec 2004 09:01:46 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 05:54:49 GMT, "Cosmin Corbea"
<cosminc@no_spam.canada.com.invalid> wrote:
Robert Swarts wrote:
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:coe7v1$bsd$6@reader1.panix.com...
You do know that a majority of Americans don't believe in
evolution?
----- Paul J. Gans
A majority of Americans? Which majority is that? Last time I
checked, every public school and college level biology course was
teaching evolution. I have been in four courses so far which find
basis in human evolution and I am a computer science student... :p
Would this be the majority of uneducated Americans? The majority of
religious devouts? Or the majority of infants or little children?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107
Quote: "Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory
of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the
evidence".
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
Quote:
God created humans in present form
All Americans 55%
Kerry voters 47%
Bush voters 67%
It's pathetic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
06 Dec 2004 11:25:12 AM |
|
|
In soc.history.medieval Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 05:54:49 GMT, "Cosmin Corbea"
<cosminc@no_spam.canada.com.invalid> wrote:
Robert Swarts wrote:
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:coe7v1$bsd$6@reader1.panix.com...
You do know that a majority of Americans don't believe in
evolution?
----- Paul J. Gans
A majority of Americans? Which majority is that? Last time I
checked, every public school and college level biology course was
teaching evolution. I have been in four courses so far which find
basis in human evolution and I am a computer science student... :p
Would this be the majority of uneducated Americans? The majority of
religious devouts? Or the majority of infants or little children?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107
Quote: "Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory
of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the
evidence".
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
Quote:
God created humans in present form
All Americans 55%
Kerry voters 47%
Bush voters 67%
It's pathetic.
And it runs the world.
----- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sheila J" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
29 Nov 2004 05:34:07 PM |
|
|
Robert Swarts wrote:
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:coe7v1$bsd$6@reader1.panix.com...
You do know that a majority of Americans don't believe in
evolution?
----- Paul J. Gans
A majority of Americans? Which majority is that? Last time I checked,
every public school and college level biology course was teaching evolution.
I have been in four courses so far which find basis in human evolution and I
am a computer science student... :p
Would this be the majority of uneducated Americans? The majority of
religious devouts? Or the majority of infants or little children?
God made man through evolution :) For God, it was six "days". For us, it
happened to be a few billion years of work from the single cellular muck we
came from :)
-Rob
The God made man through evolution theory is the one that I've had to
reconcile myself with. As a youngster, I believed adamantly that God
made us in 6 days. The science of it all, however, has made me amend my
view. I think the God had us evolve theory works for the most part. I
truly don't understand how you can not rationalize some sort of 'God' as
the father of everything. Even if you just believe that the entire
universe erupted from some gasses...where do the gasses come from?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tiglath" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
03 Jan 2005 01:30:31 PM |
|
|
Sheila J wrote:
Robert Swarts wrote:
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:coe7v1$bsd$6@reader1.panix.com...
You do know that a majority of Americans don't believe in
evolution?
----- Paul J. Gans
A majority of Americans? Which majority is that? Last time I
checked,
every public school and college level biology course was teaching
evolution.
I have been in four courses so far which find basis in human
evolution and I
am a computer science student... :p
Would this be the majority of uneducated Americans? The majority
of
religious devouts? Or the majority of infants or little children?
God made man through evolution :) For God, it was six "days". For
us, it
happened to be a few billion years of work from the single cellular
muck we
came from :)
-Rob
The God made man through evolution theory is the one that I've had to
reconcile myself with. As a youngster, I believed adamantly that God
made us in 6 days. The science of it all, however, has made me amend
my
view. I think the God had us evolve theory works for the most part.
I
truly don't understand how you can not rationalize some sort of 'God'
as
the father of everything. Even if you just believe that the entire
universe erupted from some gasses...where do the gasses come from?
Your question indicates that you may believe that *everything* must
have an origin.
If so, to be consistent you ought to ask also, "where did God come
from."
If you are willing to make an exception for God as the First Cause, why
not make it for The Universe ('the gasses')?
All religion is doing is adding an extra and unnecessary step to your
thinking: instead of saying that the Universe was uncaused you imply
that it was created by God and that God was uncaused. That extra step
gives us only a different name for the First Cause, but no new
information and understanding to its nature and modus operandi;
therefore, the 'God' step according to Occam's Razor is just vanity and
can't be dispensed with.
There is no fundamental difference between believing that God always
existed and believing that the universe always existed. But the former
seems to required to believe entire collections of supertitions that
defy reason, while the latter leads, more rationally to view 'God' as
the sum total of the physical laws. The advantage of that is that the
sum of physical laws of the universe don't require constant praising,
prayer, devotion, and surrender of our higher functions, it merely
requires that you watch your step, don't play with matches, and look
out for tsunamis -- which I much prefer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sheila J" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
03 Jan 2005 02:14:48 PM |
|
|
tiglath wrote:
Sheila J wrote:
Robert Swarts wrote:
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:coe7v1$bsd$6@reader1.panix.com...
You do know that a majority of Americans don't believe in
evolution?
----- Paul J. Gans
A majority of Americans? Which majority is that? Last time I
checked,
every public school and college level biology course was teaching
evolution.
I have been in four courses so far which find basis in human
evolution and I
am a computer science student... :p
Would this be the majority of uneducated Americans? The majority
of
religious devouts? Or the majority of infants or little children?
God made man through evolution :) For God, it was six "days". For
us, it
happened to be a few billion years of work from the single cellular
muck we
came from :)
-Rob
The God made man through evolution theory is the one that I've had to
reconcile myself with. As a youngster, I believed adamantly that God
made us in 6 days. The science of it all, however, has made me amend
my
view. I think the God had us evolve theory works for the most part.
I
truly don't understand how you can not rationalize some sort of 'God'
as
the father of everything. Even if you just believe that the entire
universe erupted from some gasses...where do the gasses come from?
Your question indicates that you may believe that *everything* must
have an origin.
If so, to be consistent you ought to ask also, "where did God come
from."
If you are willing to make an exception for God as the First Cause, why
not make it for The Universe ('the gasses')?
All religion is doing is adding an extra and unnecessary step to your
thinking: instead of saying that the Universe was uncaused you imply
that it was created by God and that God was uncaused. That extra step
gives us only a different name for the First Cause, but no new
information and understanding to its nature and modus operandi;
therefore, the 'God' step according to Occam's Razor is just vanity and
can't be dispensed with.
There is no fundamental difference between believing that God always
existed and believing that the universe always existed. But the former
seems to required to believe entire collections of supertitions that
defy reason, while the latter leads, more rationally to view 'God' as
the sum total of the physical laws. The advantage of that is that the
sum of physical laws of the universe don't require constant praising,
prayer, devotion, and surrender of our higher functions, it merely
requires that you watch your step, don't play with matches, and look
out for tsunamis -- which I much prefer.
My answer to this would probably be that while I see God has not needing
a beginning because his beginning is beyond our understanding, the
beginning of the universe is within our grasp, so, by extension, can
only be conceived by God (who, once again, is beyond our understanding)
Faith is a very powerful thing. It can make otherwise intelligent people
appear absolutely babbling when it comes to explaining why they believe.
For me, faith is enough. But then, I always sucked at science! ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "I.E_Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Cracking The Anti-Catholic Code: The Rebirth of Gnosticism |
03 Jan 2005 02:33:19 PM |
|
|
"Sheila J" <mydoggie@shaw.ca> skrev i meddelandet
news:YIhCd.679115$Pl.96619@pd7tw1no...
tiglath wrote:
Sheila J wrote:
Robert Swarts wrote:
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:coe7v1$bsd$6@reader1.panix.com...
You do know that a majority of Americans don't believe in
evolution?
----- Paul J. Gans
A majority of Americans? Which majority is that? Last time I
checked,
every public school and college level biology course was teaching
evolution.
I have been in four courses so far which find basis in human
evolution and I
am a computer science student... :p
Would this be the majority of uneducated Americans? The majority
of
religious devouts? Or the majority of infants or little children?
God made man through evolution :) For God, it was six "days". For
us, it
happened to be a few billion years of work from the single cellular
muck we
came from :)
-Rob
The God made man through evolution theory is the one that I've had to
reconcile myself with. As a youngster, I believed adamantly that God
made us in 6 days. The science of it all, however, has made me amend
my
view. I think the God had us evolve theory works for the most part.
I
truly don't understand how you can not rationalize some sort of 'God'
as
the father of everything. Even if you just believe that the entire
universe erupted from some gasses...where do the gasses come from?
Your question indicates that you may believe that *everything* must
have an origin.
If so, to be consistent you ought to ask also, "where did God come
from."
If you are willing to make an exception for God as the First Cause, why
not make it for The Universe ('the gasses')?
All religion is doing is adding an extra and unnecessary step to your
thinking: instead of saying that the Universe was uncaused you imply
that it was created by God and that God was uncaused. That extra step
gives us only a different name for the First Cause, but no new
information and understanding to its nature and modus operandi;
therefore, the 'God' step according to Occam's Razor is just vanity and
can't be dispensed with.
There is no fundamental difference between believing that God always
existed and believing that the universe always existed. But the former
seems to required to believe entire collections of supertitions that
defy reason, while the latter leads, more rationally to view 'God' as
the sum total of the physical laws. The advantage of that is that the
sum of physical laws of the universe don't require constant praising,
prayer, devotion, and surrender of our higher functions, it merely
requires that you watch your step, don't play with matches, and look
out for tsunamis -- which I much prefer.
My answer to this would probably be that while I see God has not needing
a beginning because his beginning is beyond our understanding, the
beginning of the universe is within our grasp, so, by extension, can
only be conceived by God (who, once again, is beyond our understanding)
I second you Sheila. Mind you I use to tell my students that the final proof
that God is beyond our understanding and has so been before the beginning of
the universe is that God is the only one who can create something/anything
out of nothing. ? What do I mean? students ask questions here all the time.
Then I say I believe in God and I think the theory of Big Bang to be
correct. ?That's not possible. the students might say.... then I say. Before
the Big Bang there was nothing but God after the Big Band the Universe
started to count time down to our days. Since nothing can be formed or made
out of nothing as far as we know, and God is beyond our understanding, then
someone must have had the power to create the universe. That someone can in
my mind only be God.
Faith is a very powerful thing. It can make otherwise intelligent people
appear absolutely babbling when it comes to explaining why they believe.
For me, faith is enough. But then, I always sucked at science! ;-)
Yes isn't Faith a very powerful thing. But it's good to have Faith all the
same.
Inger E
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | |
