S
Sirach14
Guest
Dan Brown author of the Davinci code answers important question about his best selling novel.
danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html
danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html
- Status
V
Vincent
Guest
Dan Brown writes,
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?
This is probably what I find most disturbing about Brown’s novel: he gives us what he thinks is history, but presupposes that history is so subjective that in effect, we really can’t know anything about it.
Talk about sawing off the very branch he’s sitting on. He might as well make a self-referential inconsistency like, “it’s absolutely true that there is no absolute truth.”
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?
This is probably what I find most disturbing about Brown’s novel: he gives us what he thinks is history, but presupposes that history is so subjective that in effect, we really can’t know anything about it.
Talk about sawing off the very branch he’s sitting on. He might as well make a self-referential inconsistency like, “it’s absolutely true that there is no absolute truth.”
Y
yinekka
Guest
I know of two Catholic books which outline the factual errors in ‘The Da Vinci Code’ 1. The Da Vinci Hoax by Carl Olsen and Sandra Meisel and
2. De- coding Da Vinci by Amy Welborn. I am reading the latter at the moment and it is very easy to understand while not omitting any of the important facts. Amy has the ability to take a difficult subject and make it accessable to the general reader without sacrificing anything crucial. Her ‘Prove It’ books are an excellent example of this.
Amy, I hope you read this rap and that the cheque is in the mail!
2. De- coding Da Vinci by Amy Welborn. I am reading the latter at the moment and it is very easy to understand while not omitting any of the important facts. Amy has the ability to take a difficult subject and make it accessable to the general reader without sacrificing anything crucial. Her ‘Prove It’ books are an excellent example of this.
Amy, I hope you read this rap and that the cheque is in the mail!
T
Tanais
Guest
To me, Dan Brown shows he obviously doesn’t read any history books or just plain ignores them. Either way he ought to be ignored however since the majority of the American populace don’t even know their own history very well and are quite prone to a anti-Catholic conspiracy theory, he must be addressed.
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
yinekka:
I have read both De-Coding Da Vinci and The Da Vinci Hoax.
Although I found both of the books informative, Olson and Miesel went into more detail, especially on Gnosticism. In fact, I was looking for the specific quotes from the Church Fathers on this particular subject.
The one point that Welborn covered that Olson and Miesel did not cover was Opus Dei.
It is my opinion that Neo-Gnosticism, with its relativistic slant, is one of the the most dangerous threats to society today. It makes anything you believe as true. This means all historical societal norms are no longer valid if a person believes them not to be true.
And when historical societal norms are no longer valid, society breaks down.
PF
I have read both De-Coding Da Vinci and The Da Vinci Hoax.
Although I found both of the books informative, Olson and Miesel went into more detail, especially on Gnosticism. In fact, I was looking for the specific quotes from the Church Fathers on this particular subject.
The one point that Welborn covered that Olson and Miesel did not cover was Opus Dei.
It is my opinion that Neo-Gnosticism, with its relativistic slant, is one of the the most dangerous threats to society today. It makes anything you believe as true. This means all historical societal norms are no longer valid if a person believes them not to be true.
And when historical societal norms are no longer valid, society breaks down.
PF
B
Brun_0
Guest
Hello,
Dan Brown is an obvious apologist for the Anglo World, the Protestant Church, and the Freemasons.
This became very clear in his last book, The Lost Symbol. The novel is a fictional tribute to the Masons and the United States. No controversy there, and a bad guy from “the Middle East”.The hook in Davinci Code can now be properly intepreted as a scapegoating of the Catholic Church for “de-sacredfeminizing”.
I was wondering if Rome, instead of helping Hollywood help Dan Brown, could mend its image by turning the table on the Protestants and exposing a real Davinci Code coverup–the secret child of prostitute Mary Jane Kelly and Freemason Sir Arthur Sullivan. Both are Irish but protestant.
There are many pages online about this child who has never been debunked in five years. Here’s just one:
yoliverpool.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-41892.html
Dan Brown is an obvious apologist for the Anglo World, the Protestant Church, and the Freemasons.
This became very clear in his last book, The Lost Symbol. The novel is a fictional tribute to the Masons and the United States. No controversy there, and a bad guy from “the Middle East”.The hook in Davinci Code can now be properly intepreted as a scapegoating of the Catholic Church for “de-sacredfeminizing”.
I was wondering if Rome, instead of helping Hollywood help Dan Brown, could mend its image by turning the table on the Protestants and exposing a real Davinci Code coverup–the secret child of prostitute Mary Jane Kelly and Freemason Sir Arthur Sullivan. Both are Irish but protestant.
There are many pages online about this child who has never been debunked in five years. Here’s just one:
yoliverpool.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-41892.html
E
Evan
Guest
I’ve heard that “by the winners” quote a lot. I don’t know if I believe it.
Were the Jews in Babylon the winners?
Was Anne Frank a winner? She died knowing she was on the loosing side.
Were the Christians winners in the 1st century when the Bible was written?
I think that the losers often have to put there story in writing since they have no other outlet. The winners may put some things down on record, but the losers also write and disseminate. Alexander Solzenizen was a ‘dissident’ ie loser: Well known before the fall of the SU, but his writings were from before the fall. Even had he died before the fall, we would remember what he wrote.
- Status