'Da Vinci Code' malarkey revisited

[Apologia100]

Fidelis:

If “Cracking The Code” is the one I am thinking about, I would not recommend it. Several posters in this forum have mentioned it has anti-Catholic overtones.

Since it is the only book that MalWart offers that refutes the junk in The DiVInci Code, it is my only option. Sometimes a 50% solution is better than none at all. It’s easier to refute Fundamentalist anti-Catholicism than Gnostic New Age Mysticism, because you can use Scriptures which fundamentalist will accept more readily than someone who denies the accuracy of Scripture because of Dan Brown’s “research”.

 

[Tony_Hage]

Funny how gullible people are, especially when it comes to believing in UFOs, conspiracy theories, or something as stupid as the ‘Da Vinci Code’, and they end up by asking for more of the same.

Few days ago, I was watching the BBC World News, and one of the “serious news” reports the anchorman mentioned was, and I will paraphrase: “Europe’s is seeing a rise in number of tourists visiting its historical sites, this report after the World Financial Report”. I had a feeling that he will be talking about nothing but the ‘Da Vinci Code’, and he did. Following the Financial Report, the anchorman said, “as a result of the ‘Da Vinci Code’ book, many people from across the world are flocking to Europe’s historical sites. Why? well, because of this,–and he showed few clips of people in different museums, looking for clues, tiles, writings, symbols, … and talking among themselves that they could not find any of the “facts” mentioned in the book – and the anchorman said “all of this because the book said on one of its first pages ‘all the descriptions and *something, something * are facts’” — he said this with a smirk.

While I enjoyed the joke, my “beef” with the BBC is that they did not report it according to the following: “… that ends our World Financial Report. On the Human Dishonesty and Gullibility Report, people are flocking to Europe’s….” and the BBC have plenty to report.

I am pretty sure, if Dan Brown was watching the BBC, his conclusion would be: Wow!, there is more money to make out of those suckers, I better getting cracking. Well, anyway you look at it, this is dishonest and, where are you Rouhallah Khomani?

Tony

 

[Amber101]

SteveW:

Could you explain about renaissance art techniques and the seating arrangement? We need facts.

I’ll try. I use visuals for my students while I’m explaining.

OK, during the Renaissance artists made huge leaps in realism and perspective. They figured out how to draw your eye to what was important in their painting, to get the point across so to speak. For instance, if you look at Raphael’s works (Example: Madonna of the Meadows), you will notice that the figures are arranged in triangles. Usually the Madonna is the largest “triangle” with a young Jesus and St John the Baptist filling out the triangle and/or arranged in smaller triangles. This draws your eye to Mary, who draws your eye to Jesus. (Sort of a cool art world way of saying “Mary leads us to her Son.”)

The same is true with Da Vinci. If you look at “The Last Supper” your eyes are immediately drawn to Jesus! You can’t help it! Da Vinci designed it that way. Look in the background and you see three open windows or doors with light shining through them, the largest of which Jesus is sitting directly in front of. On the sides you see 8 rectangle shapes that kind of look like dark closed doors, 4 on each side. These shapes are subtly pulling your eyes back to the the very center of the work which is this dome shape above the window in the center right above Jesus head, forcing your eyes to look at our Lord during a crucial moment in the gospel where he says, “One of you will betray me.” AT this point every one is recoiling in shock or sadness (like St John). Da Vinci captures that moment beautifully! The recoiling figures continue to draw your eye to Jesus at the center!

I have these transparent overlay things that I wish I could show you! They really make it very clear as to how important arrangement is in a painting and how it is used to get across the most important parts, drawing your eyes to it.

Also, I should mention that the use of these “triangles”, perspective, and positive and negative space have been used in other eras of art, not just the Renaissance. You can find it in icons and in other works of the middle ages, but the artists of the Renaissance perfected it!

 

[catsrus]

I do not want to read this book but it’s getting lately that I might have to just to refute the ding-dongs that have said that I should because I’m Catholic and it will “open my eyes”. I’ve tried the “it’s a novel, NOT history” approach and all I get is a smirky condesending smile. Same thing with those Left Behind books. I don’t want to read this stuff but so many people actually believe they are reading truth that not having read any of them it’s difficult to argue. Sort of the “know your enemy” approach I guess. Though I am strong in my faith, I think reading them could open the door to Screwtape & Co. Sure don’t want to go there! :nope:

 

[CARose]

It’s my hope to have a parish “Ladies Book Club” to discuss Amy Welburn’s “de-coding Da Vinci”. We had a big snow storm the other night, so no-one showed, but I’ve spoken with several parishoners who have expressed an interest in also knowing how to respond to the interest the DVC book has generated.

One woman told me that it got her son (I believe he may be Gay) to begin discussing and considering who Jesus is/was, now that he had been presented in a “more human form”. Apparently, due to a piece of art he had displayed, he was asked to do a treatment on what drew him to the perspective his piece projects. His first response was received with “No, try again” and according to his Dear Mother, he then set out to do more “historical” research on the subject and is coming up with some “very interesting thoughts” on who Jesus was during the Teen Years.

I don’t know where all this will lead. She’s hopeful that the time and contemplation he’s putting into learning about Christ, as a man and as an important figure in the world, may help him to come around in his thinking. One can only hope and pray that this is true.

I find it amazingly wonderful that God again manages to take that which is evil and use it to His own ends. Let us continue to learn the truth so that when we are given opportunities, we are prepared to defend the reason for our Joy.

May the Lord be with you,

CARose

 

[Proc]

catsrus:

I do not want to read this book but it’s getting lately that I might have to just to refute the ding-dongs that have said that I should because I’m Catholic and it will “open my eyes”. I’ve tried the “it’s a novel, NOT history” approach and all I get is a smirky condesending smile. Same thing with those Left Behind books. I don’t want to read this stuff but so many people actually believe they are reading truth that not having read any of them it’s difficult to argue. Sort of the “know your enemy” approach I guess. Though I am strong in my faith, I think reading them could open the door to Screwtape & Co. Sure don’t want to go there! :nope:

I, too haven’t read this book but you have mentioned another bogus book–Left Behind. I know that these books do not reflect Catholic teaching but I’m fuzzy on just what our Church says about the second coming. Can someone shed some light on this subject? Peace, Proc

 

[Apologia100]

Proc:

I, too haven’t read this book but you have mentioned another bogus book–Left Behind. I know that these books do not reflect Catholic teaching but I’m fuzzy on just what our Church says about the second coming. Can someone shed some light on this subject? Peace, Proc

Here is a link to an excellent Catholic Answers document on the Rapture and discusses different perspectives on eschatology. If you want to discuss it further, I’d recommend you start a separate thread so as not to throw this one off topic. Here’s the link:

catholic.com/library/Rapture.asp

 

[Fidelis]

catsrus:

I do not want to read this book but it’s getting lately that I might have to just to refute the ding-dongs that have said that I should because I’m Catholic and it will “open my eyes”. I’ve tried the “it’s a novel, NOT history” approach and all I get is a smirky condesending smile. Same thing with those Left Behind books. I don’t want to read this stuff but so many people actually believe they are reading truth that not having read any of them it’s difficult to argue. Sort of the “know your enemy” approach I guess. Though I am strong in my faith, I think reading them could open the door to Screwtape & Co. Sure don’t want to go there! :nope:

I read this book, not because I thought it might be a good book, but in order to be able to intelligently and credibly discuss and rebute it. I considered doing so an act of self-sacrifice in the name of truth.

If you think it might be harmful to your faith to read this book but still feel you need to do so to defend against it, I suggest you innoculate yourself first by reading some good material beforehand, like Amy Welborn’s book. There’s also a helpful article by Carl Olsen, co-author of “The DaVinci Hoax” that has a lot of helpful articles:

carl-olson.com/abouttdvc.html

 

[catsrus]

Thanks Fidelis. I will do that. It’s not that I think it would be harmful to my faith exactly but that I’m only 2 years confirmed and though I read a lot of Catholic books, I don’t believe I’m too good at the apologetics yet. I tend to get defensive rather than explain well and I know that’s a poor showing on my part. I joined these forums mostly to learn. So far, so good. Some of the posters here are extremely good at explaining and defending The Faith.

 

[catholicmom]

I read the DaVinci Code with great trepidation and when I was half way through I began to relax and honestly just enjoy the fast paced storyline (I was on holiday at the time) because it was such a lot of nonsense. When I got to the end I thought, 'Is that it?" I do believe however, that a good read of some refuting articles/book before starting the Code innoculated me from any shock about its so-called revelations. Hearing the responses you have all gotten when you try to discuss the book, I would suggest trying another tactic in response to people who are feeling convinced. I would seriously and interestedly ask the person what in the story appealed to them and what they learned from it etc. and then (armed with some knowledge) discuss how this would fit with historical facts. Sort along the lines of, “It is an interesting interpretation but I was reading that in actual fact…” I think engaging them in discussion from their perspective rather than stating that you think it is bogus and then trying to ‘prove’ your point, may generate more open communication. It is hard to do this unless one is well versed on the topic. Good luck to anyone who tries!