do you think the da vinci code is a bad or good piece of writing?
94885
I have read this book a couple of times and am looking forward to the movie.\n\nI think it is a great piece of fiction.  Sure, there are some truths in it, but for the most part it is pure fiction.  I have been to many of the sites that he pointed to in the book and some just aren't the way he stated.\n\nI think that it makes baseless claims about Jesus being married and having a child, and a few other things, but that is his perogotive as a writer of fiction.\n\nI am Catholic and am not in a hissy or upset or mad that the book was written, but I am upset and mad when people use it as a basis to trash my Catholic faith.  It is FICTION!  He says so himself!  But regardless of being true or not, I look at it this way, if Jesus was married and had a child, what better roll model for me, as a Catholic father to have?
480865
The secret behind the Da Vinci Code is that it's claims are flat wrong and that the major basis of has already been proven bogus and manipulated.  \n\nIt tried to disprove the bible.  Dan Brown claims that:\n\n-"The Bible is a product of man...not of God." (Page 231)\n-"The New Testament is false testimony." (Page 345)\n-"The New Testament is based on fabrications." (Page 341)\n-"The Bible... has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book." (Page 231)\n\nIs there a woman in Leonardo’s Last Supper?\nLet’s do the math. Jesus and twelve apostles (all men) = 13 people. That’s how many people are in the picture. If Leonardo wanted Mary Magdalene in there, he would have to paint 14 people. \n\nLet’s do the history. The Last Supper was painted to decorate a dining room of a group of Dominican friars. Anyone of them was surely capable – especially when the painting was fresh and new – of noticing and asking why a woman was in the painting. But there is no record of anyone thinking that the figure to Jesus’ right was anyone but St. John because St. John was usually portrayed as a beardless, “pretty” rather than handsome youth. This “prettiness” was the artist’s way of highlighting his youth.\n\nLog on to www.wga.hu, click on Enter Here, click on “B” under “Artist Index,” scroll down and click on Bassano, Jacopo, scroll down his paintings and click on his Last Supper to get an enlarged view and see another young and “pretty” St. John.\n\nOr just think of Jeffrey Hunter playing Jesus in the “King of Kings” for a modern counterpart.\n\nAllow me to refer you to websites that would provide answers to your questions.
373455
it only claims that it is based on facts that doesn't even exist.  like for one, in the book's fact page, the priory of sion was being mentioned as an organization in the early 1099. in 1975, the Les Dossiers Secrets was discovered in Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale identifying Leonardo Da Vinci as member of the org. this is the major basis of the novel.  but the truth of this is that the Priory of Sion did not exist until 1957.  How can Leonardo Da Vinci be a member or a grandmaster for that matter he has already rotten?  Everything that Dan Brown has written about the Priory of Sion was based not on historical facts but rather on claims found in the Priory of Sion documents – all bogus works of historical fiction stemming from Plantard's fertile imagination (and what gave them a deeper ‘esoteric’ flavour was Philippe de Chérisey's input, who tried to decorate the fantasies in a surrealist fashion).\n\nit has misrepresented the church as a murderous institution and that Christian faith is utterly false.  \n\nIt isn't a defense to say that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. Fiction can't change the basic facts about major historical figures without being subject to criticism. People would be outraged if Doubleday printed a novel portraying Adolph Hitler in a positive light. Christians have a right to be outraged when the basic historical facts about Christ are falsified. The criticism will be even more intense when a publisher releases a book parodying the most sacred beliefs of others in this fashion.\n\nFurther, as we have seen in this special report, the book takes great pains to create the appearance of factuality, including placing the infamous "fact" page at the beginning of the novel. Brown has stressed the ostensible accuracy of the book on his web site and in interviews. This is not a case where an author and a publisher have produced an ordinary novel. They have gone to great lengths to mislead people into thinking that the novel has a historical basis. They deserve especially sharp criticism for this, and when criticism is made they cannot hypocritically hide behind the "It's just fiction" allegation after having made such extensive efforts to convince the reader that it is not "just fiction."
568228
All the hype around the Da Vinci Code makes me laugh.  The book is listed as SPECULATIVE FICTION.  That means that there is some historical facts but the basis is fiction.  I haven't read it, nor will I see the movie.  I have my own theories on Jesus and him being married.  I have more of a chance of being accurate than the book.  You see Jesus was jewish and became a rabbi.  Rabbinical law back then stated that a rabbi HAD TO BE MARRIED.  So the wedding at Caanan was his to Mary Magdelen.  He probably did have kids and that was the Medici line of rulers that claimed "divine right of rule".
1017173
Really?  I think the Da Vinci Code is a fictional work of Dan Brown's.
1028691
the "scandals" written in the Da Vinci Code have been around for centuries. heck, authors have written books about it since the middle ages. even the author of the Da Vinci Code admits to fudging "facts". it's a book/movie, and a bad one at that. if you believe one book/movie without doing your own research, then you're full of bologna too
306465
In the book, The Da Vinci Code, the dead pointed out many clues. So, I guess that means no, due to it only being a work of fiction. Or was it.
718310
Da Vinci *code* is more accurately an deluded absurdist lie, a sacrilegious acid trip, based upon ZERO evidence, and so acknowledged by its own author, as he DID list it as what it IS: FICTION!\n\nThere are many in this world who make every attempt to discount God, or put themselves in His place, to attempt to belittle those of faith.  But God IS GOD, the mere mortals HE CREATED have ZERO power to make Him more or LESS than what he IS.  That which is ETERNAL FACT is NEVER FICTION:  one can declare that ONE IS ZERO, for example, but the mere saying of it will NEVER make it SO.\n\nIn general it is beneficial to guard what you read or watch, because once you have put the information IN your head, to mix with everything already there, it is IMPOSSIBLE to simply *delete* the inaccurate/absurd information from truthful information of merit.\n\nBest wishes.
531741
Dear Lord, you have to realize that the book is FICTION. F-I-C-T-I-O-N!!! Do you honestly believe that Dan Brown is the keeper of the truth? NO! The Bible is God's word, not The Da Vinci Code. C'mon.
169101
I'm reading the book now.  It is about a supposed secret society that protected the secret that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen and had a son.  The artist da vVnci was supposed to have been a member of that secret society, and hid clues about it in his paintings.\n\nRemember, it is a work of fiction.  Not a bad read, and makes you think, but still fiction.
688030
It is wrong.  A lot of the book is just made up stuff mixed with a TINY bit of fact to make a story.  He wrote on a page of his book that everything was true in there, yet I went to a Christian website that listed quite a few things that were proven false about it!!!!
541954
It's ok. It's a fairly quick read, so you don't need to invest too much time in it, and it's fairly interesting. The ideas and characters come up every now and then in conversation, so it's good to have read if for background.\n\nBasically, it's kind of an indictment on the lives and characters of the rich.
599550
Apparently, we share the same problem. The problem of how to treat this book - as a fiction or as a fact. However, it is a fact that some people, after reading this book, started attending church or became even more religious. It would seem that the Pope has not heard about those people. \nThe Catholic Church has always been against anything that would make it look bad in the eyes of its weaker followers. The Church was a supporter of ancient knowledge, which was gradually deconstructed by scientists. Why was the reason for the Inquisition to treat as threatening some great scientists from the Renaissance period like Da Vinci or Galilei? \nAs I say it, treat it like a fictional book/movie. If you want to learn more, try and comfront the book with the Bible and/or any other writings. There is another book, I don't know how it is called in English, but it would sound something like "Breaking the Da Vinci Code".\nEnjoy the movie... It comes out on the 19th of May.\n\nPS: how would you feel if you break a request from a religious leader (the Pope) who doesn't even know you? let's make a bet: he will have a private copy of the movie, by the time it gets on the big screen.
422322
I think it's rubbish. I think it's a hoax, a clever elaborate hoax. I must applaud the person who created the Titor story for his (or her) ingenuity.\n\nIt seems to me that most people will believe anything, no matter how absurd.\n\nThe John Titor story actually sounds pretty believable when you compare it stories that appear in major religious texts like the Bible, the Koran, or the Gita. People believe those.
591175
The Da Vinci Code, the movie, is based on a FICTIONAL book, so the whole big stink is being made over someone's imagination.  Yes, little facts are mixed in here and there, but freaking out and saying the movie is an attack on faith is ridiculous.  At the very least, the movie should be encouraged because it motivates people to THINK, to examine their beliefs...regardless of how good or bad the acting may be.  Additionally, as for people being upset that some believe Christ married, it should be pointed out that NO WHERE in the Bible is marriage considered a sin.  Rather, the union between man and woman through marriage (made official in that time by sexual intercourse) is considered a GIFT from God. :-)\n\nAs for Pirates...WOO HOO!  I can't wait to see it!
647562
I read it and found the writing style difficult to get through. I was also outraged by the double standard.  Even if she had named her lover, she would still have had a harsher punishment than the man. I thought it was an interesting insight into the way people thought and believed in that time, and a warning for modern times not to think in such a backward way.\n\nI thought it was spooky the way her lover ended up with a Scarlet Letter embedded in his flesh, hidden away under his clothes. Was it his own guilt that caused it to appear? Was it some trick or poison the doctor gave him? Was it God's punishment?  The book doesn't make that clear, making the reader decide for him- or herself.
647875
The criticism of extremist religions was appropriate, considering what's been going on in the world for the last couple thousand years, especially since 2001. I didn't, however, care much about the message that faith is simply a choice, and not altered by inconsistencies in the bible or otherwise. While I can appreciate this idea, I just don't care, and I don't think religion, Jesus, and Mary Magdeline, are particularly interesting subjects. I thought it was kind of interesting - the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdeline were married and had kids, but, at least in the movie, that excitement was brief, and couldn't carry it. It seemed like it tried desperately to do other things to make it interesting. For example, there were murders, phobias, dark pasts, treacherous acts, plot twists, secret identities, intricate puzzles, mysterious forces at work, high drama, I mean they really tried to throw in everything under the sun, but if you only find the main premise mildly interesting, then all these elements fail. \n\nAlso, the idea that the blood line had survived, was not exciting to me, but probably mostly because I'm an athiest, so being a relative of Jesus' really becomes meaningless.