See other Religion Articles
Title: Top Cardinal Blasts 'Da Vinci Code' as 'Cheap Lies'
Source:
Netscape News
URL Source: http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news ... 2&dt=20050315130200&w=RTR&covi
Published: Mar 15, 2005
Author: Reuters
Post Date: 2005-03-15 17:59:13 by Mr Nuke Buzzcut
Keywords: Cardinal, Blasts, Cheap
Views: 8308
Comments: 568
Top Cardinal Blasts 'Da Vinci Code' as 'Cheap Lies' ROME (Reuters) - A top Catholic cardinal has blasted "The Da Vinci Code" as a "gross and absurd" distortion of history and said Catholic bookstores should take the bestseller off their shelves because it is full of "cheap lies." Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, in an interview with the Milan newspaper Il Giornale, became the highest ranking Italian Churchman to speak out against the book, an international blockbuster that has sold millions of copies. "(It) aims to discredit the Church and its history through gross and absurd manipulations," Bertone, the archbishop of the northern Italian city of Genoa and a close friend of Pope John Paul told the paper in its Monday edition. "This seems like a throwback to the old anti-clerical pamphlets of the 1800s," he said. The central claim of the book, written by American Dan Brown, is that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children. The Bible says Jesus never married, was crucified and rose from the dead. Bertone's comments were significant because until the Pope named him archbishop of Genoa in 2003 he was for years the number two man at the Vatican's most powerful department - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real," he said. "I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that." HOLY GRAIL A central storyline of the book is that the Holy Grail is not the cup which Christ is said to have used at the Last Supper but really the bloodline descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Bertone calls this idea "a perversion." Bertone is so incensed about the novel that he will be the key speaker at a roundtable in Genoa Wednesday night attempting to dismantle the book, which also accuses the Church of covering up the female role in Christianity. "I will try to clear things up and help form consciences," the cardinal said. "I think that when faced with affirmations that are so shameful and unfounded, readers who have even a minimum of basic (Christian) formation should react," he said. He said it was "sad" that even Catholic bookstores were selling The Da Vinci Code "for purely economic reasons." One bookstore selling "The Da Vinci Code" is the one in the Gemelli Hospital, a Catholic institution where the Pope spent a total of 28 days in two stints in February and March. In the interview, Bertone firmly rejected the book's claim that the feminine role in Christianity had been suppressed. "This is one of the most vulgar of inventions. The feminine element is present in all the Gospels," Bertone said. Bertone also strongly defended Opus Dei, the conservative Church organization that the book depicts as a ruthless, Machiavellian group that resorts even to murder in its attempt to keep the Church's secrets hidden. The novel is going to reach an even wider audience next year with the release of a film based on the book staring Tom Hanks. © Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Reuters Ltd. 03/15/2005 13:02 RTR
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-31) not displayed.
.
.
.
#32. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#28)
"The same is true of the archeological support for the Book of Mormon."-Mr Nuke Buzzcut Let me re-address this post by asking exactly what archeological evidence proves the Book of Mormon to be correct and accurate? Links please.
At the end of the day, you can find all the Roman roads, dead civilizations, and mysterious parchments you want, yet the entire system is based on something that is NOT there in a tomb in Gethsemane?? Thomas was on the right track. Lest I see the nail prints and thrust my hand into his side... Etc, etc...
that's a fairly absurd statement. compare the evidences.
Point taken, and I agree. I was going for the setup on the "Moron-i" line.
why should there be?
Most 2000 year old tombs are empty, is that it? Just that one is empty due to some other process than natural decay or grave robbery?
Here is one that should suffice. I'm sure you'll dispute it, but then I could just as easily dispute biblical evidences on the exact same grounds, were I so inclined. The point is that both books were written by people who wished to tie their fictional accounts to actual historical events. Most novelists do the exact same thing.
where is the tomb?
It's absurd to you because you choose to believe one and cannot accept the other because it doesn't fit with the myth you choose. Mormons, on the other hand, feel quite differently than you about that issue. And, people like myself view both as fantasies based upon historical events.
It's your fairy tale, you tell me. Back on the subject of the thread, why does the prospect of Jesus having a wife bother the Catholics so much? The Gnostic gospel of Phillip said he kissed her on the mouth many times, and loved her more than the disciples...
Your mind seems unable to grasp the arguement of proportions. Once again, compare the number of archeological finds which support the Bible to the number of archeological finds which support the book of Mormon.
Hmmmmmmm ... how did I know that you might Turin up on this thread?
Faith, my child. You have to have faith.
that's a legitimate question. we know the site of the traditional tomb, but have not determinded that Jesus was actually buried there. "Back on the subject of the thread, why does the prospect of Jesus having a wife bother the Catholics so much? The Gnostic gospel of Phillip said he kissed her on the mouth many times, and loved her more than the disciples..." I dunno, I'm not a Catholic.
I wouldn't stake my life on Gnosticism were I you.
You keep that up, and some people around here might get cross with you.
Therein lies the rub, eh? Upon whose teachings shall we stake our lives? Personally, I don't operate well on faith. I demand more of my 10 year old than "just because I say so", so why would I not demand more of my Deity?
Not to worry I am blessed with: Wash Away Your Sins Towelettes
ROFLMAO!! My parents were never religious, but they sent me to sunday school and I was that pain in the ass who would ask, um, how did a guy live in a whale's stomach without being fried by stomach acid and drowning when they take in enormous amounts of water? I think I was about 8 when I said, um, two of everything on one boat built by one guy? What did they eat? Who shoveled the poop? Was the ark the size of Nebraska? That was it for me with religion. I am not stupid. The idea that ANY book is true, infallible, is such a joke. You have to be mentally defective or willfully ignorant to believe a book which was REWRITTEN HUNDREDS OF YEAR AFTER THE EVENT is immaculately true. Seriously, how anyone can believe something they should know was rewritten by the Vatican in 1400 or so, when they excised a ton of stuff and rewrote the rest, just stuns me. It's as moronic as believing that professional wrestling is not fixed.
Because it would confirm the fact that Jesus wasn't divine. And we can't have that type of info floating around.
I'm not of a mind to try and defend either book. The point, and it is still valid even though you would prefer to dance around it, is that both books are loosely based around actual historical events. Nevertheless, that in no way establishes the credibility of the main point of either book. The spiritual/mystical/supernatural claims of both books are not validated by the historical context. They may be useful for archaeoligists seeking information about ancient civilizations, but they are of little use for establishing how to acquire life after death.
No, actually, it wouldn't destroy the claims of divinity. It would only diminish the claims of the orthodoxy who successfully stamped out the gnostic theology by force of arms.
That reminds me of a joke.... A priest dies and goes to heaven, St Peter says that he can do whatever he wants for all eternity. The priest says that he wishes to study the bible in it's original writings, so that he may fully understand what he gave his entire life for. St Peter then took him off to the largest library the priest had ever seen. About 2 years later, St Peter goes to the library to check on the priests progress in his studies. He finds the priest surrounded by ancient texts, and crying like a baby. St Peter looks at the priest and asks, what is wrong my son? The priest responds, it says celebRate!!!
Heh. Are you saying "the winners write history?"
First, I'd like to say that it's my humble opinion that most people who are inclined to Bible bashing are also in a general sense Biblically illiterate, self-inflated intellectuals, that think themselves to be gods. These people see themselves as the sole determiners of moral judgments, which usually include some activity spoken against in the Bible. I have never found a place in Scripture that specifically denied that Christ was married. Whether or not Christ was married wouldn't offend His divinity in my opinion. I tend to think He wasn't married but I could be in error. As far as the Gospels being fiction, I would point out that all of Christ's disciples suffered horrible deaths because they wouldn't quit talking about what they had witnessed. Thomas died in India, run through with a spear, Peter hung upside down, Bartholomew had his skin peeled from his body by a whip until he died, etc., these men merely had to deny their Master to avoid these death sentences. Not one single disciple recanted. Irrespective of the other writings referencing Christ, such as Pilate's writings to Caesar, or Josephus the historian in the 1st Century AD, the willingness to accept death by torture rather than deny Christ by the men that walked with Him, to me is the most critical evidence of the Gospels truthfulness. Satan rebelled against the authority of God and was cast down. Most of us choose to rebel against authority and run the same risk, it's our nature.
On the teaching that has a proven-track record? Christianity is the religion of millions. Gnosticism numbers nuts like the late Philip K. Dick among it's recent and few followers. "Personally, I don't operate well on faith. I demand more of my 10 year old than "just because I say so", so why would I not demand more of my Deity?" That's entirely your business. Your personal standards though, mean nothing to anyone else, and certainly prove nothing.
I think you need to spend some quality time reading up on Gnosticism, if you're going to use it's content and teachings.
The Catholic Church has a homosexual/paedophile contract to maintain with the U.S. Govt. and the Secret Fraternal Societies.
1. To: All (#0) "I think that when faced with affirmations that are so shameful and unfounded, readers who have even a minimum of basic (Christian) formation should react," he said. " How ironic that someone whose living is dependent upon pushing a fiction like the bible should react so defensively against another similar work. Mr Nuke Buzzcut posted on 2005-03-15 18:01:05 ET Reply Trace Private Reply so we have progressed thus far that you admit the Bible is not entirely a work of fiction?
Personally I think life after death is already a done deal. The only thing left to determine is the Zip Code. [7777777 or 666666]
Nor do yours, for that matter. You're saying that because millions believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus that validates those myths as a belief system? Millions also believe in Islam and the eastern religions...do they not have a proven "track record?" I'll just take my religion "cafeteria style", if at all. The Christians could use some fun stuff like that 72 virgin retirement plan the Islamics have. All the Bible thumpers have is eternity falling before some throne saying "Worthy is the Lamb..." I've had lamb before, and even with mint jelly, it ain't worth an eternity of praise.
So, Jesus is up on the cross, and he gasps out "PETER! Come to me! " Peter, at the foot of the hill, struggles to reach the top, but is beaten by Roman soldiers and cast down. Once more, the call comes...a bit weaker "Peter. Come to me!" "Yes Lord, I'm coming..." This time, he gets a little farther up the hill, but meets the same fate, a beating and a toss down the stony hillside. Again, the call. "Peter...come...to...me". Frenzied, Peter speeds around the Roman guards with newfound strength to race up Calvary, and fall at the foot of the cross, spent and gasping. "Yes Lord! I am here! Speak thou to me!" Jesus looks down and says "I can see your house from up here..."
Ok, guys, you have been having your fun. Those of us who do accept the Holy Bible as fact have the opposite opinion. We think we are right. You say that we are silly, etc for believing these things. You say that we can't prove that He was divine. But, the truth is you can't prove that He wasn't. So, you have your opinion. So, we have two sides of this dividing line. One side can't prove anything to the other side. You do not believe in His divinity, so be it. We do, so be it.
Prophency wise? No. "I've had lamb before, and even with mint jelly, it ain't worth an eternity of praise." Try it with parsely, or curried. Big improvement.
Well said Don, well said.
To quote a song I like: Surronded by Your Glory
Not the Baptists. Love the song, though. It has a great dynamic feel to the melody...slow build, then sorta majestic at the end. I play praise music in a band at church, as I've said, more for the music than the theology. Music would be more of a religion to me at this point, but I do appreciate some of the tunes.
The threads always turn into this faith v. fact things, and I've helped that along with my cynicism toward religion. The topic of the thread was and is an interesting one. Dan Brown's book put the Catholic church over the ragged edge of insanity. I've read all his books, and am "dissecting" a companion book to it called "Secrets of the Code" where some of the myth is separated from historical fact. It's fascinating. I believe critical examination of anything is crucial to understanding it. As Mekons alluded to earlier, when I began that critical examination of my faith, as early as seven years old, it evaporated into smoke and departed. I've never found it since, although, I confess having not looked very hard for it. If it comforts some to believe that way, I can't see the harm in it, within its proper bounds. When it's loosed on government and inflicted on the rest of us, though, there is a problem.
I am not so sure that Jesus having a wife is proof of His not being divine. Rabbi means "teacher", and most Rabbi's of His time did indeed have wives, so in context of the times in which He walked the earth, in taking a wife, would He not be doing what was socially acceptable? Also, saying that "he kissed Mary on the mouth" is proof of this or that, I think is a bit of a stretch and one can "read" anything into that that they choose. But a kiss in those times did not necessarily have the same sexual connotations as it does today. I kiss my 14 year old daughter on the mouth when she goes to bed, does that mean I am playing tonsil hockey with her? no. 1. Romans 16:16 "Greet one another with an holy kiss". 2. I Corinthians 16:20 "Greet ye one another with an holy kiss". 3. II Corinthians 12:12 "Greet one another with an holy kiss". 4. I Thessalonians 5:26 "Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss". 5. I Peter 5:14 "Greet one another with a kiss of charity". 6. Jacob kissed his father (Genesis 27:27) 7. Esau kissed Jacob (Genesis 33:4) 8. Laban kissed Joseph (Genesis 29:13) 9. Joseph kissed his brethren (Genesis 45:15) 10.Aaron kissed Moses (Exodus 4:27) 11.Moses kissed Jethro (Exodus 18:7) 12 David kissed Jonathan (I Samuel 20:41) 13.The father kissed the prodigal son (Luke 15:20) 14.The elders at Ephesus kissed Paul (Acts 20:37) Other New Testament accounts of using a kiss: Acts 20:37 reads, "And they wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck and kissed him". Luke 7:45, Christ addressed Simon upon entering this Pharisee's home saying, "Thou gavest me no kiss". In the parable of the prodigal son, when the son returns home in Luke 15:20 it reads, "And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck and kissed him". I think that *MAYBE* a kiss had different connotations then, just as kissing my daughter differs from kissing my spouse.
well, you MAY have a point there.....
And your Pastor is aware of your current belief system? You have a wonderful Pastor!
Comments (73 - 568) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestOh, I see. You'll pick-n-choose which evidence counts based upon which myth you choose to believe. That's typical.
#33. To: Continental Op (#30)
#34. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#31)
It's just as legitimate as the bible and comes with just as much archeological confirmation.
#35. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#31)
#36. To: Samuel Gray (#33)
yet the entire system is based on something that is NOT there in a tomb in Gethsemane??
#37. To: Continental Op (#36)
#38. To: Continental Op (#32)
#39. To: Samuel Gray (#37)
Most 2000 year old tombs are empty, is that it? Just that one is empty due to some other process than natural decay or grave robbery?
#40. To: Continental Op (#34)
that's a fairly absurd statement. compare the evidences.
#41. To: Continental Op (#39)
#42. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#38)
I'm sure you'll dispute it, but then I could just as easily dispute biblical evidences on the exact same grounds, were I so inclined.
#43. To: Samuel Gray (#33)
#44. To: 2Trievers (#43)
#45. To: Samuel Gray (#41)
It's your fairy tale, you tell me.
#46. To: Samuel Gray (#44)
#47. To: 2Trievers (#43)
you might Turin up
#48. To: Continental Op (#46)
I wouldn't stake my life on Gnosticism were I you.
#49. To: Samuel Gray (#47)
Arm yourself and your loved ones from unwanted sin with these handy, portable moist towelettes. A single swipe not only kills sins on contact, but removes unsightly germs as well. The perfect way to cleanse your body and soul while on the go! Each pack comes with six individually foil-wrapped towelettes. 
#50. To: Aric2000 (#2)
How ironic that someone whose living is dependent upon pushing a fiction like the bible should react so defensively against another similar work.
#51. To: Samuel Gray (#41)
...why does the prospect of Jesus having a wife bother the Catholics so much? The Gnostic gospel of Phillip said he kissed her on the mouth many times, and loved her more than the disciples...
#52. To: Continental Op (#42)
Your mind seems unable to grasp the arguement of proportions. Once again, compare the number of archeological finds which support the Bible to the number of archeological finds which support the book of Mormon.
#53. To: 2Trievers (#51)
Because it would confirm the fact that Jesus wasn't divine. And we can't have that type of info floating around.
#54. To: Continental Op (#45)
#55. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#53)
#56. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#53)
No, actually, it wouldn't destroy the claims of divinity.
#57. To: Samuel Gray (#48)
Therein lies the rub, eh? Upon whose teachings shall we stake our lives?
#58. To: 2Trievers (#51)
Because it would confirm the fact that Jesus wasn't divine. And we can't have that type of info floating around.
#59. To: Samuel Gray (#41)
Back on the subject of the thread, why does the prospect of Jesus having a wife bother the Catholics so much?
#60. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#52)
he point, and it is still valid even though you would prefer to dance around it, is that both books are loosely based around actual historical events.
#61. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#52)
They may be useful for archaeoligists seeking information about ancient civilizations, but they are of little use for "establishing how to acquire life after death."
#62. To: Continental Op (#57)
Your personal standards though, mean nothing to anyone else
#63. To: Aric2000 (#54)
#64. To: 2Trievers, All (#51)
Because it would confirm the fact that Jesus wasn't divine. And we can't have that type of info floating around.
#65. To: Samuel Gray (#62)
Millions also believe in Islam and the eastern religions...do they not have a proven "track record?"
#66. To: Don (#64)
Ok, guys, you have been having your fun. Those of us who do accept the Holy Bible as fact have the opposite opinion. We think we are right. You say that we are silly, etc for believing these things. You say that we can't prove that He was divine. But, the truth is you can't prove that He wasn't. So, you have your opinion. So, we have two sides of this dividing line. One side can't prove anything to the other side. You do not believe in His divinity, so be it. We do, so be it.
#67. To: Samuel Gray (#62)
All the Bible thumpers have is eternity falling before some throne saying "Worthy is the Lamb..."
What will my heart feel?
Will I dance for you Jesus?
Or in all of You be still?
Will I stand in Your Presense?BR> Or to my knees will I fall
Will I sing Hallelujah?
Will I be able to speak at all?
I can only imagine....
#68. To: CAPPSMADNESS (#67)
Will I dance for you Jesus?
#69. To: Don, Mekons4 (#64)
#70. To: 2Trievers (#51)
Because it would confirm the fact that Jesus wasn't divine. And we can't have that type of info floating around.
#71. To: Samuel Gray (#68)
Will I dance for you Jesus? Not the Baptists...
#72. To: Samuel Gray (#68)
I play praise music in a band at church
.
.
.