11 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesCatholics recognise that most people don't "play by the rules" and so let them know exactly what's true and what's not when it comes to Dan Brown. What's your problem with that?
Those who don't play by the rules have no claim against those who do. Dan Brown plays by the rules: what he writes is not factual, and thus he publishes it as fiction with the appropriate disclaimer. Your hypothetical reader doesn't play by the rules: he disregards the disclaimer's either/or dichotomy. If your hypothetical reader turns to Publi ...[text shortened]... ther everything he reads - fiction, even - is true or not, then he is need of some serious help.
11 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe problem is that they denounce the author and the book, not limiting themselves to a factual analysis. Neither the author nor the book deserve any scorn.
Catholics recognise that most people don't "play by the rules" and so let them know exactly what's true and what's not when it comes to Dan Brown. What's your problem with that?
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerTo quote the author's own words:
Huh?
I can't believe you're joining DoctorScribbles' word games squad - I think you know exactly why the Catholics assert the Dan Brown books contain lies.
When reading any piece of fiction, one apprehends information on two levels - the primary level of the plot and the characters, and the secondary level of background, setting etc. With any ...[text shortened]... r and lingo is representative of the Mafia anyway.
But, of course, you knew all this already.
The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. *
---
* http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe Vatican calls it "a sack full of lies" and accuses Dan Brown of "deplorable" behavior.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7205300/
The Vatican calls it "a sack full of lies" and accuses Dan Brown of "deplorable" behavior.
Additionally: "Don’t buy this. Don’t read this because this is rotten food."
Actually, a Cardinal said those things (not the Vatican).
And yes, I agree that the Cardinal's comments are out of order here.
"Don’t buy this. Don’t read this because this is rotten food."
How is this any different from "A must-buy; an absolute gem"?
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerLMAO!
Actually, a Cardinal said those things (not the Vatican).
This must be the Catholic secret weapon! How many times will they use this Simon Says excuse?
"The cardinal leading the Vatican’s charge against The Da Vinci Code urged Catholics on Wednesday to shun it like rotten food and branded the bestseller “a sack full of lies” insulting the Christian faith."
You don't think this indicates that he was speaking on behalf of the Vatican? LOL! One day you'll have to realize that the Church is accountable for more than the contents of ex cathedra proclamations.
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerBecause the Cardinal is speaking from a position of authority and issuing a command, like when he might say "Don't use birth control." He is not merely sharing an opinion, like "Wow, St. Peters must be the most luxurious building in the world!"
[b]"Don’t buy this. Don’t read this because this is rotten food."
How is this any different from "A must-buy; an absolute gem"?[/b]
12 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThose things do all exist. Can you name one that doesn't? I'm not sure what your point is.
To quote the author's own words:
The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. [b]While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). ...[text shortened]... fictional characters. *
---
* http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html[/b]
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHow many times will they use this Simon Says excuse?
LMAO!
This must be the Catholic secret weapon! How many times will they use this Simon Says excuse?
"The cardinal [b]leading the Vatican’s charge against The Da Vinci Code urged Catholics on Wednesday to shun it like rotten food and branded the bestseller “a sack full of lies” insulting the Christian faith."
You don't think this indi ...[text shortened]... realize that the Church is accountable for more than the contents of ex cathedra proclamations.[/b]
As long as it takes you to understand that there is a difference between comments/statements made by a person in a personal capacity vs. in an official capacity.
"The cardinal leading the Vatican’s charge against The Da Vinci Code..."
Charged by whom? In what capacity? Is he on some committee of cardinals or theologians dealing with the Da Vinci code?
You don't think this indicates that he was speaking on behalf of the Vatican?
To use your expression, if one "plays by the rules" - then, quite simply, no.
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm afraid I'm going to have to put you on my "do not debate" list. Your loyalty to your Church has lately been interfering with your ability to meet a satisfactory level of reasonability in our discussions.
[b]How many times will they use this Simon Says excuse?
As long as it takes you to understand that there is a difference between comments/statements made by a person in a personal capacity vs. in an official capacity.
"The cardinal leading the Vatican’s charge against The Da Vinci Code..."
Charged by whom? In what capacity ...[text shortened]... Vatican?[/b]
To use your expression, if one "plays by the rules" - then, quite simply, no.[/b]
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBecause the Cardinal is speaking from a position of authority and issuing a command, like when he might say "Don't use birth control."
Because the Cardinal is speaking from a position of authority and issuing a command, like when he might say "Don't use birth control." He is not merely sharing an opinion, like "Wow, St. Peters must be the most luxurious building in the world!"
"Don't buy this book" is an exhortation, not a "command" unless the Cardinal in question has the authority to issue a binding command on the matter (as a CDF document would).
"Don't use birth control" is merely a repetition of traditional Church teaching.
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm 28 years old, having long outgrown Simon Says. You'll have to play with somebody else.
[b]Because the Cardinal is speaking from a position of authority and issuing a command, like when he might say "Don't use birth control."
"Don't buy this book" is an exhortation, not a "command" unless the Cardinal in question has the authority to issue a binding command on the matter (as a CDF document would).
"Don't use birth control" is merely a repetition of traditional Church teaching.[/b]
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesMy point is simple - this statement directly contradicts the disclaimer (which we both know is probably a legal nicety to prevent being sued for defamation) that "any resemblance etc. is purely fictional".
Those things do all exist. Can you name one that doesn't? I'm not sure what your point is.
It also proves my point - not every assertion in a work of fiction is fictional or intended to be treated as fictional.
For one thing that is false, but Brown asserts to be true - read the Priory of Sion section at
http://www.catholic.com/library/cracking_da_vinci_code.asp
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerHas it never occurred to you that the problem many of us have with the words of a Cardinal here a Father there and a "dude with a funny hat' over there is not hinged upon whether it is official church doctrine? The words of many of these men (Cardinals and the like) effect the behavior of hundreds or thousands of people OR MORE. If the church is really so concerned about making sure everyone knows exactly what the church DOES stand for perhaps it would be wise of them to issue retractions of their Cardinals statements. Then we can all know just what to blame the Church for and what to blame "Cardinal Bob" for.
[b]How many times will they use this Simon Says excuse?
As long as it takes you to understand that there is a difference between comments/statements made by a person in a personal capacity vs. in an official capacity.
"The cardinal leading the Vatican’s charge against The Da Vinci Code..."
Charged by whom? In what capacity ...[text shortened]... Vatican?[/b]
To use your expression, if one "plays by the rules" - then, quite simply, no.[/b]
Why does the Church not do this? Because it's favorite line of defense would be broken. As it stands Cardinals etc can say all manner of wacky things and thousands of people can and do alter their behavior because of those words. However, when somebody calls the Vatican to find out why the Church teaches these things they can just blame it on the Cardinal and go about their merry way. It is clever but I'm not the only one who can see right through it.
TheSkipper