Da Vinci Code

[gevo]

Perhaps this is done as a practical joke in honor of all those people who take the bible itself as non-fiction.

And perhaps those who dettermine the validity of this book are themselves undulged in this way of life, and these kind of misleading philosophies, and self contradictions... why else would they endorse this book as non-fiction.

[loseyourname]

Beats me. I never realized this book was advertised as non-fiction.

Anyway, I haven't read it and have no interest in doing so, so I'll be bowing out now.

[anileve]

The book is awesome. It's time people stop taking everything the author mentions as an actual and factual history. It was meant to be embellished to add a sense of thrill. And one must admit any book that opens a window to a further research and such heated controversy is far from being classified as "hogwash". It was not advertised as non-fiction; therefore people must stop critiquing as if it was. Most of the screams of outrage are usually resonating from deeply religious individuals which are so territorial when it comes to their faith.

James Bond was light years away from reality, yet I don't remember anyone raising hell because he was a glorified womanizer and led a surreal lifestyle without ever getting caught or severely disfigured. So if one wants an accuracy of history they should take this book as prelude to a particular subject and grab a history textbook afterwards. Same thing goes for the Bible, none of the events which occurred in that book have been confirmed. Some presumptuous conclusions without the backing of facts were presented, nothing have been proven. Plus the book omitted a large portion of human civilization and focused on a certain family tree, it’s time we realize that it’s not a universal guide to life and respect other peoples view. If you cannot prove your faith don’t impose your unfounded theory on others, it goes for both believers and non…

[Sip]

Faith by definition cannot be proven If it could be proven, it wouldn't be faith but fact!

[gevo]

The book is awesome. It's time people stop taking everything the author mentions as an actual and factual history. It was meant to be embellished to add a sense of thrill. And one must admit any book that opens a window to a further research and such heated controversy is far from being classified as "hogwash". It was not advertised as non-fiction; therefore people must stop critiquing as if it was. Most of the screams of outrage are usually resonating from deeply religious individuals which are so territorial when it comes to their faith.

James Bond was light years away from reality, yet I don't remember anyone raising hell because he was a glorified womanizer and led a surreal lifestyle without ever getting caught or severely disfigured. So if one wants an accuracy of history they should take this book as prelude to a particular subject and grab a history textbook afterwards. Same thing goes for the Bible, none of the events which occurred in that book have been confirmed. Some presumptuous conclusions without the backing of facts were presented, nothing have been proven. Plus the book omitted a large portion of human civilization and focused on a certain family tree, it’s time we realize that it’s not a universal guide to life and respect other peoples view. If you cannot prove your faith don’t impose your unfounded theory on others, it goes for both believers and non…

Anileve, i have admitted several times that this book is a very good book, but NOT in the "non-fiction" section .. it has some very good information about art and history, but it is dangersou for those who use it as fact to argue against a religion.. it stand very little ground. and that is what i dont like about it.. it is a very thrilling book to read, entertaining and mysterious

[anileve]

Faith by definition cannot be proven If it could be proven, it wouldn't be faith but fact!

In this case "faith" would be geared towards religious beliefs, I think it's pretty obvious. Does that satisfy you? If not then perhaps you can rephrase to make it immaculate.

[Sip]

Don't know what you mean but I was agreeing with you above. "Religious faith" is faith because it can't be proven. So anyone that stands up and says anything that doesn't agree with their religion must be "fiction", while not willing to admit that their religion itself might be fiction, is an idiot.

[hyebruin]

Don't know what you mean but I was agreeing with you above. "Religious faith" is faith because it can't be proven. So anyone that stands up and says anything that doesn't agree with their religion must be "fiction", while not willing to admit that their religion itself might be fiction, is an idiot.

i'd like to see you say that, while standing at the altar, to the priest in front of your bride, and family and in-laws, and the guests!!! and be sure to invite us! i wouldn't wanna miss out this soap opera moment

[Archetype8]

Why are you constantly arguing outside the premise for each thread? Then, when you sort of lure others into deceit by affronting those who confront you of doing that, you wonder why.

[Sip]

If I were ever to get married, the only reason I would agree to a traditional church wedding would be for the sake of the relatives and inlaws. And if I do in fact agree to a church wedding, I would say no such thing (as above) ... I would just shut my mouth as religion tends to make people blind to other points of view.

A festive public gathering is neither the time nor the place ... but a discussion forum is a different story