Forms of entertainment do not exist to simply entertain. They are expressions of the artist or entertainer. It is the nature of a story to convey a belief, values... even spiritual lessons we all remember from our childhood tales. Aesop didnt write his fables for fanciful purposes... he did them to get the "moral" conveyed to children. Whether we like it or not, entertainment DOES convey the principles and values of its creator, teaching us it purpose in its own ways... some subtle, some far from subtle.
I have read The Da Vinci Code. I also read its pre-quel, Angels and Demons. They are excellently written fictional works of design by an unabashed heretic named Dan Brown. Creative as he is devious, Mr. Brown has taken fragments of truths and twisted them for his own purposes; lacking the intellectual honesty necessary to avoid misleading people, it is obvious that Dan Brown also lacks the respect for Our Lord and Mr. Browns own "fans."
Why would he go to such trouble? Well, why would any of us go to such trouble to do anything or to convey any of our beliefs? Why did Anton LeVay go to so much trouble? Why did Aleister Crowley go to so much trouble? Simple. Because Satan is real. *GASP!* We, in our "tempered" and "tolerant" society dare not mention the name of Satan... its far too taboo a topic. Lets just go on with our pretty little lives and ignore the fact that EVIL IS REAL AND IT HAS A NAME. Satan. IT HAS A MISSION, AND THAT MISSION IS TO RUIN YOUR SOUL.
The confusing (and dangerous) aspect of this brilliant WORK OF FICTION is Browns sneaky way of fudging the truth and blurring the line between fiction and fact. (Not to mention misleading people who arent history experts) IF BROWN WAS TELLING THE TRUTH WHEN HE SAID HE WROTE THE BOOK TO GENERATE DISCUSSION ABOUT FAITH, RELIGION AND HISTORY... then why did he go SO FAR to confuse the truth with lies (oooh.... excuse me... this is "art"... is FICTION a more P.C. term here than the truthful use of the word "LIES?")
NO SERIOUS HISTORIAN WILL EVER CONTEND, as the book/movie implies, THAT:
* Jesus was married
*Mary Magdaline is the figure to Christs right in "The Last Supper"
ps... it's really St. John the lesser who was the youngest of the disciples, and was not of age to have a full beard.
*Mary Magdaline rivaled Peter and Paul, or any of the disciples as prominent religious figures. She is, however one of the most prominent women mentioned in The Holy Bible, possibly because of hers being one of the first testaments to Christs resurrection.
EVERYONE HAS HIS OWN AGENDA. What is mine for writing this? To dispel heresy.
"We cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth"
(2 Corinthians 13:8)
Bottom line: This book/movie is an attack on traditional Christian beliefs and values that center on Christ. Boldly, it calls The New Testament a hoax in favor of false gospels, such as the gnostic and apocryphal books.
That which is not OF God is AGAINST Him. Too bold a stand? I didnt make it up... He did:
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot.
But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.
Apocalypse of John the Apostle (Revelation) 3:15-16
1 comment:
Have you read the book, Southern Belle? The book claims to be BASED IN TRUTH(S) that are detailed at the beginning of the publication.
As I posted before, the book itself isn't the problem... but the author's misuse of his role as fiction writer in the post-mortem is nothing short of blasphemous.
Post a Comment