Jump to content

The Stupidity!


The Sage Nabooru
 Share

Recommended Posts

What a coincidence! Just as Serene Agnostic Atheist had a run-in at a Barnes & Noble, so did I, this morning, at the one next to the Best Buy in oh-so-dull-and-boring-and-fundie Fenton, MO, although my encounter was of a different flavor. It was just this morning:

 

I was slowly floating my way around the cheaper-on-sale section near the checkouts and entrance, because I just got the Tong Sing and I wanted to see if the store had anything equally awesome for an equally low price, when, standing in the middle of one aisle, stood a strange-looking woman.

 

She was grinning almost manically at nothing in particular, occasionally glancing down at the Da Vinci Code stack before her on the bottom table-like shelf. She had long, stringy blond hair, glasses attached to a pink neon string around her neck, and was wearing faded light blue jeans and an even more faded white T-shirt with 90's-style bright colors and big letters that I didn't bother to read. She startled me by saying, "Oooh, you should really get this book."

 

Me: "Huh? Oh, the Da Vinci Code? Yeah, I've heard of that."

Her: "Have you read it?"

Me: "No.....I really don't like fiction."

Her: "Oh no it's not fiction. It's all true. It shows how the scientists and Christians and all of that have just been lying to us for years about Jesus 'cuz he had a family and all of that and they just covered it up."

 

My freak meter started rising, so I ignored her and continued staring at book covers. I can hear her babbling away, but I managed to cut it off from my brain until, while kneeling down to look at some bottom-shelf books, I was startled by a ham-like face and dingy breath as she knelt down next to me and tapped my shoulder.

 

Her: "Hey. Hey. You really need to deal with this. If you're not reading the Da Vinci Code because the Church told you not to, you'd better stop listening to them. They're trying to cover this up." Her voice was getting firmer. "You need to do this. You need to know the truth."

 

Me: "Um, actually, I'm really just an amateur archaeologist, not a Christian at all, but even as an amateur I know that it's just a work of fiction with absolutely no fact in it whatsoever." I stood up and walked briskly away to the sound of, "Oh, it's the scientists? They're brainwashed you? Shit....."

 

So I had to leave the store because she honestly scared the shit out of me and I didn't want her following me around telling me about Nostradomus and the Thirteen Crystal Skulls. And here I am, stuck with nothing to eat at home because I was gonna get something from the cafe there. Stupid freak cheated me out of my overpriced pastries and coffee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just goes to show, some people will believe whatever they want to, regardless of the pesky facts. I have read the book and it is a good work of fiction, but the 'facts' in the book have been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't help that the NG Channel and Discovery is playing programs about "Inside the Real Da Vinci Code" or "Decoding Da Vinci" or whatever. I always thought those channels, especially NG, would show at least some kind of respect for factuality but no, even they're all over ratings now. Sad, really, considering that they present evolution/The Big Bang as fact.

 

The magazine is still good, though......

 

LOL, I just can't get over how people fall for a book. A book! A NOVEL! At least the Bible can claim some historical facts. It just makes me laugh and shake my head. What's next, Hunt for the Real Baby-sitters Club?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all true except for the Priory of Sion, which was a complete fabrication (not by Brown).

 

 

There are actually quite a few of Dan Brown "facts" that are under serious dispute, and at times seem like outright fabrications.

 

Here is a summarization I copied from http://www.answers.com/topic/the-da-vinci-code (I hope this isn't too long)

 

* The book's claim that, prior to AD 325, Christ was considered no more than a "mortal prophet" by his followers, and that it was only as a consequence of Emperor Constantine's politicking and a close vote at the First Council of Nicaea that Christianity came to view him as divine: This has been debunked by various authors with extensive reference to the Bible and Church Fathers, sources that pre-date the First Council of Nicaea. (See this example, or Olson and Meisel (2004), who refer to The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325–1870 (1964) by Philip Hughes.) At the Council, the central question was whether Christ and God were one, or whether instead Christ was the first created being, inferior to the Father, but still superior to all other beings (see Arianism).

* The central issue of the book, the female deity and unity of male and female, is one of the main preoccupations of modern New Age Wiccan Paganism, but was never an issue in early Christianity. Brown does not quote scriptural support for his thesis, whether canonical or apocryphal. While it can be argued that the role of Mary Magdalene was generally underestimated in history, and this argument has scriptural support, the assertion that she was romantically involved with Jesus is pure conjecture -- even gnostic apocrypha do not go that far. However the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene do describe Jesus as loving Mary more than the other disciples and consider her to be an equal to the men, showing her debating with Jesus. In the Gospel of Philip Jesus is described as frequently kissing her, which is described in vague terms leaving plenty of possible interpretations.

* Historians have disputed the claim that Mary Magdalene was of the tribe of Benjamin. The fact that Magdala was located in northern Israel, whereas the tribe of Benjamin resided in the south, weighs against it. Furthermore, Paul was a Benjamite but makes no mention of this supposed marriage.

* The idea that the purported marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene would create a "potent political union with the potential of making a legitimate claim to the throne" (Chapter 58): The worldly connotations of Jesus' kingdom being in or beyond the world have long been a subject of debate in scholarly communities. For those who believe in the story of the gospels, his death and departure after resurrection would exclude him from being an earthly king. However, the connection of the Christian church with actual earthly governments cannot be denied.

* Mary Magdalene is said to have been labelled a whore by the Church (Chapters 58 and 60). This derives from a common linkage initiated by Pope Gregory I between figures mentioned in the Gospel of Luke, chapters 7 and 8, one of whom is Mary Magdalene, described as a victim of demonic possession: "Mary who is called Magdalen, out of whom seven devils were gone forth" (Luke 8:2). Gregory equated her with Mary of Bethany and an unnamed female "sinner". Later, Mary was also equated with the "woman taken in adultery" in the Gospel of John, increasingly connecting Mary with sexual sins. It is true that Catholic tradition has tended to defend these integrations in contrast to other Christian traditions (see the Catholic Encyclopedia [2]), However the "promotion" of adultery into prostitution arises from Mary's role as patron saint of repentant sinful women. [3] The euphemistic term "magdalen" has been used to refer to repentant prostitutes because of this (see Magdalen Asylum), becoming attached to Mary herself.

* The assertion that "the sacred feminine" has been suppressed by Christianity: In Roman Catholicism, for example, Mary (of Nazareth), the mother of Jesus, is specially venerated as the "Mother of God," the "Queen of Heaven," the spiritual mother of all mankind, and is believed to be free of sin. However it is also of merit to note that in the gospels Jesus did not accord her any privileges, and treated her with a seeming indifference. This claim, however, can be countered by arguing he tells one of his apostles, The Beloved Apostle, to watch over and care for her as he would his own mother. It can further be countered by the Wedding of Cana where Jesus obeys his mother, Mary, to perform the miracle of transmuting water into wine before his official ministry begins.

* The claim that Rosslyn Chapel was built by the Knights Templar. It was actually founded by Sir William St Clair, third Earl of Orkney and Lord of Rosslyn.

* Brown mistakenly calls Godfrey de Bouillon a king of France. Godfrey was a nobleman from Boulogne. At the time of the First Crusade, Philip I was the king of France. Godfrey was a successful commander and eventually became the first western ruler of Jerusalem, taking the title Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri, defender of the Holy Sepulchre.

* The allegation that "the Church burned at the stake five million women" as witches has been a problem for many critics because data do not exist to permit an estimate. Reports have ranged from between the extremely high figures of 9 million and extremely low figures of mere hundreds, both of which have been vigorously challenged. More considered estimates range between 40,000 and 60,000, mostly carried out by secular Christian courts, and not by the Church. Witch burnings were also much more prevalent in some Protestant denominations, although The Da Vinci Code claims that they were a purely Catholic event.

* The assertion that the original Olympics were held "as a tribute to the magic of Venus" (Chapter 6), ie apparently Aphrodite: Although the origins of the Olympic festivals remain in obscurity, it has been well documented that they were religious festivals in honor of Zeus and Pelops, not Venus [Aphrodite].

* The theory that Gothic architecture was designed by the Templars to record the secret of the sacred feminine: historians note that Templars were not involved with European cathedrals of the time, which were generally commissioned by their own bishops.

* The depiction of the Templars as builders, guild-founders and secret-bearers: Templar historians point to abundant evidence that Templars did not themselves engage in building projects or found guilds for masons, and that they were largely illiterate men unlikely to know "sacred geometry," purportedly handed down from the pyramids' builders. However they did build large fortresses. And the Masonic order, founded in the eighteenth century, did seek to rewrite the history of the Templars in this respect.

* The portrayal of the Priory of Sion as an ancient organisation is incorrect: The Priory of Sion was originally founded in 1956 by Pierre Plantard and Andre Bonhomme, not 1099 as claimed in the book. The Les Dossiers Secrets was a forgery created by Philippe de Cherisey for Plantard. Plantard, under oath, eventually admitted that the whole thing was fabricated. [4]

* The suggestion that all churches used by the Templars were built round, and that roundness was considered an insult by the Church: Some churches used by the Templars were not round, and those that were round were so in tribute to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Moreover, there are quite a number of round churches, including Bramante's Tempietto, built for Pope Julius II on the site of St. Peter's crucifixion. The Pantheon in Rome, which has a circular interior and was originally built as a pagan temple, was re-dedicated as a Christian church in 609 by Pope Boniface IV. Moreover, the circle was thought to be holy and perfect by many Christian thinkers.

* The depiction of Opus Dei as a monastic order which is the Pope's "personal prelature". In fact, there are no monks in Opus Dei, which has primarily lay membership and whose celibate lay members are called numeraries. Moreover, Opus Dei encourages its lay members to avoid practices that are seen as overly "monkish." The term personal prelature does not refer to a special relationship to the Pope. It means an institution in which the jurisdiction of the prelate is not linked to a territory but over persons, wherever they be. However, members of Opus Dei do practice voluntary mortification of the flesh, as has been a Christian tradition since at least St Anthony in the third century AD.

* The claim that the Egyptian gods Amon and Isis represent a divine couple. In Egyptian mythology Isis was never the spouse of Amon, but of Osiris (god of the underworld), and Amon's spouse was Mut. Dan Brown also misleadingly claims that Amon was the god of masculine fertility, which is in fact Min. However, in the sychretist phase of Amon worship, he was sometimes identified with Min.

* The contention that the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo da Vinci as a self-portrait and that its title refers to the Egyptian gods Amon and Isis: It is uncertain who was the historical Mona Lisa; but there have been persuasive sources pointing to her being Lisa Gherardini or, less probably, Isabella of Aragon. However, other researchers have concluded, using "morphing" techniques, that the resemblance to Leonardo is striking (Lillian Schwartz of Bell Labs and Digby Quested of the Maudsley Hospital in London). At any rate, the title "Mona Lisa" was not chosen by Leonardo, and it was not applied to the painting until the nineteenth century. "Mona" is a contraction of "madonna" (meaning 'lady' or 'madam'). Lisa is the name of the most likely subject of the painting. In any case, it is more commonly known as "La Gioconda" in Italian (Lisa Gherardini's married surname, the feminine form of "Giocondo").

* The book matter-of-factly states that Leonardo da Vinci was a "flamboyant homosexual". While there are clues about Leonardo's personal life that may form a basis for the argument that he was homosexual, it is not conclusively known to be a fact, nor do scholars agree upon this.

* The book provides no evidence for its claim that the original design for the "cryptex" came from Leonardo's secret diaries, and a codex is not a scroll, but what would today be considered a book.

* There is no evidence for the contention that the first version of Leonardo's The Virgin of the Rocks was rejected by the church because of its heretical content. There is, however, evidence for a lengthy legal dispute over payments and expenses.

* The contention that Mary Magdelene is depicted sitting next to Jesus in Leonardo's famous "Last Supper" is disputed by most art historians.

* The suggestion that the Tetragrammaton is "an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name of Eve, Havah" (Chapter 74). It is generally believed that the four Hebrew letters that form the Tetragrammaton (Yud, Hay, Vav, Hay) literally translate to 'To be, to become" which are believed to represent the name of the God of Israel.

* Venus is depicted as visible in the east shortly after sunset (Chapter 105), which is an astronomical impossibility. This was corrected to "west" in some later editions, like 28th printing of British paperback, ISBN 0552149519 and apparently current printings of the US hardback. [5].

* Brown characterized the cycle of Venus as "trac[ing] a perfect pentacle across the ecliptic sky every four years", but Venus completes five cycles in eight years.[6] [7], a fact well known to the ancient Greeks and Mayans. This was changed to "eight years" in some later editions such as the British paperback and at least the April 2003 printing of the US hardback - [8].

* The association of "left" with terms such as "sinister" and other negative overtones is older than Christianity (the pre-Christian Latin word for left was "sinister", with negative implications, and the word for right was "dextera", with positive implications) and also exist in other cultures, such as Hinduism (for instance, "left hand tantra"). Also, the claim that "left brain" colloquially means irrational, emotional mind is false; the left hemisphere of the brain is associated with rational, male functioning.

* The claim that the early Israelites worshipped the goddess Shekinah as the equal to Yahweh. In fact the term Shekinah (derived from Hebrew for "dwelling") does not appear in early Judaism at all, but was used in later Talmudic Judaism to refer to the "dwelling", or presence of God among his people. It also came to be interpreted as the more "homely" or feminine aspects of God.

* One of the cryptex clues claims that the Knights Templar worshipped a pre-Christian fertility god (a horned god) named Baphomet. However, this name is only known from records of the Templars' trial on charges of witchcraft, and is most probably a corruption of the name Mohammed.

* The reference to Paris having been founded by the Merovingians (Chapter 55). In fact, Paris was settled by Gauls by the 3rd Century BC. The Romans, who knew it as Lutetia, captured it in 52 BC under Julius Caesar, and left substantial ruins in the city, including an amphitheater and public baths. The Merovingians did not rule in France until the 6th century AD, by which time Paris was at least 800 years old.

* The repeated anachronistic reference to the Vatican as the center of power in the early Catholic Church, including reference to "the Vatican" suppressing gnostic writings in the 4th century. Until the early Renaissance, the papal palace was in the cathedral of St. John Lateran. It was not until the 1400's that there was anything like official power in the vicinity of the Vatican Hill in Rome. In the 4th century, the Vatican was little more than a church and cemetery by the side of the road.

* The allegation that Pope Clement V burned the ashes of the Templars and threw them into the Tiber River in Rome. When the Knights Templar were killed in France in 1312 by King Philip IV of France, neither they nor the pope were anywhere near Rome. Their end occurred during the early years of the Avignon papacy, which lasted from 1309 to 1377.

* Even the title "The Da Vinci Code" is not especially precise: the painter Leonardo da Vinci is nearly always referred to by scholars and to those outside the United States as "Leonardo." The "da Vinci" part of his name refers to the town that Leonardo's father came from, and has generally not been used by itself to refer to him. However naming conventions for artists are often inconsistent (Michelangelo Buonarroti is known as "Michelangelo"; Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio is known as "Caravaggio", after his home town). The convention used in the book is probably due to the fact that its target audience, mainstream America, know the painter as "da Vinci".

* The book states that, at the explicit demand of French President Francois Mitterand, the Louvre Pyramid was constructed with 666 panes of glass. In fact, there are 673. ([9]), ([10]).

* In the book, Langdon mentions that one of his students showed him a DVD of "The Lion King", where the letters "SEX" were spelled out in cloud of dust in one scene. While it is still debated whether the letters spell out "SEX", "SF49", or nothing at all, due to the controversy the scene in question was digitally altered for the DVD version and definitely does not show any letters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really all comes down to a rather simple reality: Come up with something that's freakishly unbelievable, against the traditional mores and beliefs of a society, something that's not only lacking evidence but has actually been debunked, and market it as "alternative thinking" and put it in the metaphysical aisle, and thousands of people will buy into it. That's why people buy NESARA and other forms of so-called New Age crap. They get into the whole "alternative spirituality" thing and then assume that in order to be really spiritual and tuned-in, they have to buy every single piece of rediculous bullshit put out by greedy liars while all the while totally denying that they're being ripped off and the aliens really aren't coming to rescue them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i like how people think scientists are a conspiracy cult. like all people intrested in science are holding this big secret amongst themselves. no matter what part of science intrests you you have secret knowledge above everyone else about christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so sick of hearing about that stupid book. Ooooooo, decoding the secret language in the ever-so-mysterious Holah Babble!!! Who the fuck cares what some yahoo claims to have found in the Holah Babble? It is a book proven to be full of contradictions and bullshit, not to mention promoting a sick religion full of abuse and slavery. Why anyone would want to pretend they have cracked some code in it is beyond me.

 

The only thing that's cracked is the dope who wrote that book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bible Geek had a reference to Moby Dick as a book that people "de-coded." But hey, that Dan Brown made a good coin off of popular stupidity. I would have read that book, and his other ones if they were correctly filed under fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all true except for the Priory of Sion, which was a complete fabrication (not by Brown).

 

 

There are actually quite a few of Dan Brown "facts" that are under serious dispute, and at times seem like outright fabrications.

I know. I was just tongue-in-cheekly mocking the bit of historical fiction upon which Brown's entire premise rests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolfheart and Dianka, you've got the wrong book. Its not the Bible Code thats being discussed but The De Vinci Code which has nothing to do with the stupid picking random words out of text and claiming prophesy.

 

I've read the Di Vinci Code and the prequel Angels and Demons, and they are both interesting murder mystery stories. I've not heard Dan Brown claim anything other than these are a story based on historical groups and real world locations. Seems like the media have got hold of it and spun it into a huge story, which was great for Dan Brown cos the attention shot the book to the top of the best sellers lists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my 1st period senior high school teachers saw me reading a fantasy book of mine before class one day, and suggested that I read "the De Vinci Code", claiming it would be right up my alley. WTS? NONE of the books I read for fun are ANYTHING like what I've heard about "the De Vinci Code". I deal with faeries and dragons and werewolves and shapechangers, not angels and demons!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolfheart and Dianka, you've got the wrong book. Its not the Bible Code thats being discussed but The De Vinci Code which has nothing to do with the stupid picking random words out of text and claiming prophesy.

 

I've read the Di Vinci Code and the prequel Angels and Demons, and they are both interesting murder mystery stories. I've not heard Dan Brown claim anything other than these are a story based on historical groups and real world locations. Seems like the media have got hold of it and spun it into a huge story, which was great for Dan Brown cos the attention shot the book to the top of the best sellers lists.

 

My mistake; I really should check my posts when I'm exhausted.

 

Although, I am still sick to death of both books. I don't get the hype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone read Holy Blood Holy Grail? It is a research book that I found to be interesting. One thing that struck me as odd was that they interviewed a man who was supposedly the current leader, or whatever, of the Priory of Sion. What ever.

If I remember correctly, the authors never claim to find the truth, just odd coincidences. The most interesting part I thought was when they delved into Jesus. They examined some inconsistencies in The Bible and give a couple of explainations they had come across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read Holy Blood, Holy Grail but I read one of Michael Baigent's other works, The Messianic Legacy. It also has a mention of the Priory of Sion.

 

Conspiracy theories get kind of tedious after a while. After being regaled with countless tales of great-great-grandkids of Jesus and MaryM, and malevolent space lizards from the planet Niburu and Indigo Brats and Mayan calendars with best-before dates, I just shrug and say, "Okay, if any of this is true, what do I, personally, intend to do about it?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The former was fun to read, but was pretty far stretched in it’s case. A series of obscure French documents (that no one could verify) one minute, a series of convoluted associations and historical data the next. It was like reading a creationist’s sourcebook debunking evolution. Still, it had its moments.
I agree, although I'd rather read this than any book "disproving" evolution. I found it interesting because it went into obscure sources, the stuff you will never hear about (perhaps for good reason, but I'm a curious fellow). Parts of it were very dull, but others were interesting (such as the part about the Hassassins).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to read a well-written book about ancient mysteries, conspiracies and secret societies, try 'Foucault's Pendulum' by Umberto Eco. It's much better than anything Dan Brown could come up with.

 

And it's properly labeled as fiction. Altho, Eco has actual historical facts in his book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how I have anything wrong, Christians have made staements and written books that dispute everything in the Da Vinci code, which is fiction. That added fuel to the fire, Borders has the book in the Metaphysical section in my local store, people lap it up and somehow this book became something that needed to be de-bunked. Maybe I'll see the movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, while I think, if Jesus is a mythological figure that he is linked with Mary (and I mean both Virgin and Whore Mary). They just seem to 'fit'. (pun intended)

 

However, even if it was true that Jesus and Mary came to earth as God/dess incarnate and had offspring and a 'royal bloodline', who cares? Perhaps I was raised too selfishly, although I certainly am fascinated and awed and relieved at how really unimportant I am and how self-obsessed I get in my life; the idea of worshipping 'descendants' of the two doesn't strike me with awe. Maybe I'm missing something, it's possible. But so what? Ooh, I'm some cute white girl from Russia and it turns out that actually I'm a holy descendant of a royal bloodline and how can I live up to this? I mean I'm just me and I don't know how to be royal but I'm sure I'll go through a series of wacky and intriguing adventures which will be chronicled in a hollywood movie in thirty years when I'm enjoying crumpets and delicatessen meats in my cushy chair in my cushy home.

(I'm mimicking a supposed 'descendant', I'm not actually a cute white blonde girl from Russia).

 

The idea of descendants makes me jealous. Why should I worship them? Why should they be better than me? Why should they deserve more attention than me? So there's a descendant, and so what? Are these descendants supposed to be our new royalty, telling us what to do and us listening to them? I think a lot of gnostics and 'heretics' over the years have seen the 'good' and 'humanistic' side of God, to argue that Female is Sacred as well as male, as did a cult around 12th century Europe who's name I've forgotten, to argue that we shouldn't load ourselves with riches and own property, like Saint Francis of Asissi did.

 

I think we know the true tests, what a book says versus what our heart says, what a portrait or drawing says versus what our instincts tell us.

I want to find the holy within me. I don't want to be self obsessed but I do want to feel holy. To feel powerful. I don't see how finding some members of the lucky sperm club which supposedly exist would help me do that.

 

 

Also, on the subject of Mary Magdalene not being a whore. I think it's better in some ways if she IS a whore. Because fine, you're cultured, you're lucky, you have money or skills or whatever, and you don't have to whore yourself. But what attracts me to Christianity is the idea of forgiveness for the things you do to yourself and the htings you do to others (not avoiding the consequences), to not be afraid of facing your 'parent' because they have eternal love. And just as I'm proud of women who don't whore their bodies and are rich in their power and sense of self, I'm also proud of women who don't have better choices and who care for themselves and their children and try to find joy in life.

 

Even though I disagree with women who whore themselves out of a personal choice even though other options are available that have more integrity and still support life, they are women too. They are part of the experience that make up Female. There are lots of whores all over the world, in every town and every city, at stops where the soldiers of the world need to cum in and fuck or rape a woman to calm their nerves, underground as slaves, homeless children on th streets who whore themselves to adults and then do glue to take their minds away, porn stars who we all watch. I like the idea of Mary Magdalene as a whore, as a woman who, maybe grew up like any girl (or boy) might, wanting and needing basic things, and like most of us, having some fulfilled and others not. For whatever reasons, lack of self worth, violence to self, lack of adequate supplies (money, food, clothing etc), slavery, a personal choice, etc. whores herself.

 

And then she meets this other person (who may or may not be Jesus, maybe she's already stopped whoring at that time, maybe she's being stoned because this guy who remembers her from the old days and doesn't want to be respectful tries to rape her. Maybe he rapes her, maybe she kills him or gets away. Maybe he talks trash, maybe his mother and wife talk trash, then fast forward to where the town is hanging out ready to stone this woman), or maybe she just gets out of it herself, and she FINDS HERSELF. She RE-MEMBERS herself. Whoring is part of our consciousness and our species' story, particularly as females.

 

The idea that Mary Magdalene is somehow less holy for having fucked up, for having whored herself, is as ridiculous to me as the idea that Jesus is more holy for never having made love to or lusted after a woman is to others. Maybe the whoring phase she goes through is her death, and the changes she makes in her life and the path she chooses to walk are her resurrection. Mary Magdalene being an ex-whore is, for me, more than half the reason to look up to her. Her story is part of mine, part of all women's and part of all of ours'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez. I liked it, but people like that would seriously have put me off reading it if I'd run into them. I thought it was a good read, but it is most definitely fiction, and anyone who insists that it's real is seriously deluded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez. I liked it, but people like that would seriously have put me off reading it if I'd run into them. I thought it was a good read, but it is most definitely fiction, and anyone who insists that it's real is seriously deluded.

 

and The Sage's description of this bookstore stalker (creepy) is right on target for describing the delusional.

 

I swear, sometimes it's like some institution just flung open the doors and sent all the crazies into the street. :twitch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That bookstore-freak story is creepy! "What a strange person!"

 

Anyway, I though the Da Vinci Code was a good book. I read it as fiction. It's in the fiction section in the bookstore here...

I've also read Angels & Demons and Deception Point by Brown. I just enjoy the stories as entertainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.