Joanne Wrote:

> > No, it's not. It's also about logic. To
> make
> > this as simple as possible: How can anyone
> be
> > accused of making "false statements" about
> "facts"
> > when the facts are not (and probably cannot)
> ever
> > be known? There is a major fallacy here...
> >

Simon responds:

> So you as someone kind of aware of the subtle
> differences between the plain lies and the
> speculation on unlikely though almost possible
> speculation consider that you are the lowest
> common denomiator and that everyone else should
> easily be able to sift the wheat from the chaff ?

Joanne replies:

WHAAA??? I have absolutely no idea what this six line run-on atrocity is supposed to mean. If you want an answer, please rephrase in English...simple, straightforward English...

Also, I posed a question which you have ignored.


> > Comparing Brown's fictional novel with
> Goebbels
> > propaganda (which was not sold as "fiction")
> is a
> > pretty outrageous (and false) comparison.
> Brown
> > is not "fooling people" by writing a novel.
> Again,
> > Baigent et al. wrote the non-fiction book and
> the
> > Church says nothing about them...
> >
>
>
> Oh so Brown is free to make outrageous claims and
> I'm not ?

Did I say that?


>

> > The dictionary definition is not terribly
> > different. I really don't see where Brown's
> book
> > deters others from associating with Catholics
> or
> > Christians. He makes the Church a villain,
> but so
> > what? It's still fiction...what if he had
> made
> > the Masons the villains, or the Democrats or
> > Republicans? It would still be fiction.
> >
>
> Duh! Because people believe it and I care, and the
> RC church cares, about lies being believed by
> people, especially lies that denegrate the most
> fundamental things we have come to know.


Once again, you keep dancing around my core argument. The real truth, the historical truth is not known. Your assertion that Brown's book contains "lies" does not specify which lies. The fictional idea of a secret society protecting the descendants of Christ is not a lie; it's FICTION ! You are free not to like the book or its portrayal of the Church as a villain, but you cannot say Brown's book is lies, when the real truth is not known. And the real truth is not factually known. Please don't go off telling me about your subjective religious insights which are off-topic here...

I don't
> care if someone says Jesus was a mad crazy person,
> someone like the person portrayed in "The Last
> Temptation of Christ".

The Church didn't like that film either...

> Thats their choice. But I
> do care if someone believes that he didn't really
> die on the cross and was resurected as was
> predicted thousands of years before purely because
> they read some compelling novel where the author
> claims authenticity behind it.

Have you actually read the book? Can you point out where Brown says Jesus didn't really die on the cross? I didn't see that.


> > Many writers make big business the villain.
> Does
> > that make it true? Are people deterred from
> > investing in big companies? It's
> ridiculous...
> >
>
>
> Its not rediculous when its based on truth and it
> claims to be so. I stand up against big business
> even though I work for a big bussiness that
> advised other big businesses on what to do, when I
> feel its appropriate. Your generalisation that
> any old fiction that no one takes seriously and
> does not affect their view on the big questions in
> life is exactly the same as this, is the thing
> thats rediculous.


The word is not spelled "rediculous". It is spelled "ridiculous". I've already corrected you in another post, but you apparently misunderstood the correction.

It's hard to have a discussion with you because you insist on bringing in your own subjective take on any issue. So examples don't work with you. For the purpose of this discussion, I don't care how you feel about big business. My point is that big business is often made a villain in modern films and books. That "slander" does not deter people from continuing to support big businesses and to invest in them and buy their products. The analogy is that if the RC is made into a fictional villain, it does not mean that people will take that seriously enough to act on that fictional portrayal. Some people may do that, but many won't. In fact, some people will undoubtedly not buy any more of Brown's books. It'll even out.


> > There are elements outside the main
> characters
> > that are facts, though.
> >
>
>
> Yes and thats the whole problem, its sprinked all
> throughout with the facts and fiction, and there
> is no clear dilineation whatsoever. In fact if
> you're a cynic like me, the very few actual facts
> are used to support the falacies.


And that's what most historical novels do. The real facts give such books a true sense of history. How many people are too stupid to realize they are reading fiction in your opinion? There are people who believe the characters they see on TV are real, too. Fortunately, they are in the minority.


> > I don't think hurting
> the
> > church was necessarily his goal here.
> >
>
> Maybe not. I have no real reason to believe it
> was. But he claims to have done intensive
> research, and still he used every worst fact that
> has ever been said about the church, rather than
> what was well in the public domain as the reality
> when he wrote it. The two sides don't make for an
> easy assumption of innocence.

Here's another problem with your reasoning. You say he claims to have done intensive research, and you claim he has written lies. Why should you believe him when he says he has done extensive reseach if you think he has written lies?

Then you accuse him of using "every worst fact" that's ever been said about the church. Is he writing lies or worst facts? I don't know what "worst facts" you have in mind. Can you give specific examples from the book? As I see it, he read HBHG, and used that as inspiration for his novel. I don't know what other research he claims.


> > But didn't they? Isn't that what started
> this
> > thread? Did you read the links I posted that
> > showed the book has already been banned in
> > Lebanon?
> >
>
> Yes but thats not the Vatican. I would be against
> their decision if they chose to ask for it to be
> banned. But they fact is they have not.

Did you read the first link on this thread? So you believe that the cardinal who is speaking out and who has been deputy to a cardinal who may succeed the pope is just acting on his own? In that case, the BBC's headline is a lie, isn't it? Oooooh....Btw, in this country, bookstores have been asked not carry the book.


> Oh I'm more than welcome to engage in that kind of
> discussion. You haven't visited my new board yet
> where such discussions are "on topic"

I have visited your board. The topic in this thread is not about your personal feelings about Christianity. The topic is about whether Brown's book misrepresents facts. In cases where facts are known, I can certainly agree that he ignores known truth. Objectively, like it or not, a number of "facts" in the DVC are unknown. When the truth of a matter is not known, it's impossible to know whether someone is telling the truth or lying. You cannot accuse anyone of lying about something unless the truth is known, factually and objectively known...


> You see that is something you think. I'm sure you
> would even find the odd catholic priest who would
> agree with you. People are people. Any
> organisation that is free and unafraid accepts
> members that have different views. Vive la
> differance.

Euh?? Here again, I have no idea what you are talking about. You do know the Church has official positions and teachings which Catholics are required to believe, don't you?

>
> But I'm curious why you rekon its related to
> celibacy.

My point there is I'm wondering why the RC is reaction to Brown's book rather to Baigent et al. So I look at the differences between the two books. Brown pushes for the divine feminine and the idea of Jesus having a marriage. Baigent et al. don't make such a big deal of the former. AFAIK, in the Eastern churches, the clery are not celibate. The RC has had issues with celibacy and the priesthood. There are people who want to change the rules to allow priests to marry. If the idea that Jesus had a wife were to be accepted, it could change things for the RC priesthood. I wondered if that's what set the church off on this.

Alternatively, it may be the DVC, unlike HBHG, singles out the Opus Dei organization as villains. If there is a claim of defamation at all to be aimed at the book, it's probably in that area, since OD is an actual group, and they were singled out as the bad guys.


I tried to answer this issue which I
> see as fundamental to the whole issue surrounding
> this book, HBHG, and many modern gnostic beliefs.
> But clearly I failed.

You keep trying to shift the focus to your personal beliefs and understanding of Christianity. For the purpose of this discussion, that is irrelevant. If you would focus on the issues being discussed here, this thread is on topic for this board.