The first topic I wish to discuss in my Da Vinci Code series deals with a statement made at the beginning of the novel itself. Page 1 of Dan Brown's book reads as follows: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." With a little research (mostly cited from Josh McDowell's research) one will find, however, that this is not the case. For starters, there are not 666 panes of glass in the Louvre pyramid as Brown says on page 21, but rather there are 673. On page 131 of the novel, Brown says that "Madonna of the Rocks" is a 5 foot tall canvas painting. In reality, it is 6.5 feet tall and is painted on wood. Now, at this point, most of you have probably lost interest in this all together because there is no point in bitterly arguing about little details such as the height of a painting or the number of glass panes in the Louvre. Normally, I would agree with you, but this is actually an issue of importance. The problem arises because Brown uses these pieces of incorrect information to support his theory and storyline. It would not be a problem if he would not have included the "fact page" at the beginning of the book, but he did. He sells these untruths as fact and then uses them as actual, "historical" proof for his flawed viewpoints. Any respectable historian in the art world would also tell you that Da Vinci did not go by "Da Vinci," but rather his name Leonardo. Vinci is the town Leonardo lived in, "Da Vinci" literally means "of Vinci." No art historian or museum curator would ever refer to him as Da Vinci. It is basically the equivalent of referring to me as "of Albuquerque." That's just splitting hairs, however. An interesting aside. Check back soon for more updates about the artwork the book is centered around as well as some organizations that make an appearance in the novel.
~Tribal~
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Da Vinci Madness
We all knew it was coming; we all knew -- okay, maybe just those of you who read this blog with some regularity (all 2 or 3 of you not on the writing staff) -- that I would eventually write a post about The Da Vinci Code spouting off my radical, intolerant, racist, biased, sexist, unfeeling, cruel, pompous, fundamentalist viewpoints on this holy work of fiction that no one can DARE to question. So, I'm gonna pull a one up on all of you. Rather than do just one post about this excellent, infallible, sacred, GOD INSPIRED novel by Dan Brown, I will take the pleasure of mercilessly ripping it to shreds in (hopefully) daily segments! This series, however, will most likely not begin until early next week, so make sure you check back then for some updates.
As for this post, I would like to explain the purpose behind why I am doing this, as well as inject my own thoughts about the work and Dan Brown himself. To start, I recognize that The Da Vinci Code is indeed a work of fiction. I am not one who is going to go lead marches down the streets of D.C. to get the book banned, because I know that our soldiers die to protect our freedom of speech -- no matter how false, slanderous, inaccurate, historically flawed, or RETARDED that speech may be, I know that if I expect people to not silence and ban my works, then I should not do the same to them. It's a matter of freedom as well as simple politeness. So, to get on with it, why would a recognized work of literary fiction be such a hot topic of debate anyway? Up until recently, I was under the impression that the author himself only professed it to be fiction. After reading several quotes from Brown's website, however, I am now under the very evident impression that he does believe in his theory, and he does claim that the theory "may hold merit." In addition to this, he makes a statement at the beginning of the text saying that all information about art, architecture, and the like is indeed fact. After a little research, that proves to be incorrect as well, and he uses these "facts" as evidence to his theory.
The problem with The Da Vinci Code starts when uninformed, unchurched, or unschooled people pick up the novel and begin to read it. It goes from "Wow, what a page turner!" to "Whoa! I never knew that about Jesus and Christianity!" People do not realize that in addition to being bad philosophy and bad theology, it is just horrible history. Hardly anything in the novel proves to be true besides maybe the occasional "Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa." People read this book and then suddenly absorb the inaccuracies with it, thinking that an overnight success author knows all the secrets to the universe. Now before I go further, I will admit that I have not read the book. Our family has a copy, however, and I intend to read it at my earliest opportunity. In addition, I will be going to see the film sometime in the near future. However, I have read very much about the book, and fact remains fact if I read the story part or not. I specifically know of claims the book makes (in the form of actual quotations from the book) and in what context it makes them. I can comment and research the correctness of these claims without having to have read the book itself, and not having read the book makes me no less of an "expert" than if I had read it. So check back often for updates on this issue. At the most, I have about 24 posts planned out, but I may end up condensing a great deal of those for time's sake. I will also turn on the comment feature of this site so you may leave me your love letters, hate mail, and anything in between. Feel free to leave us a message if you wish. Everything you say is welcomed here, even if you are an off the deep end liberal. We will still listen to what you have to say before we laugh. So, check back often and please leave comments! I hope this subject will prove to be a valuable weapon for those who know the truth.
~Tribal~
As for this post, I would like to explain the purpose behind why I am doing this, as well as inject my own thoughts about the work and Dan Brown himself. To start, I recognize that The Da Vinci Code is indeed a work of fiction. I am not one who is going to go lead marches down the streets of D.C. to get the book banned, because I know that our soldiers die to protect our freedom of speech -- no matter how false, slanderous, inaccurate, historically flawed, or RETARDED that speech may be, I know that if I expect people to not silence and ban my works, then I should not do the same to them. It's a matter of freedom as well as simple politeness. So, to get on with it, why would a recognized work of literary fiction be such a hot topic of debate anyway? Up until recently, I was under the impression that the author himself only professed it to be fiction. After reading several quotes from Brown's website, however, I am now under the very evident impression that he does believe in his theory, and he does claim that the theory "may hold merit." In addition to this, he makes a statement at the beginning of the text saying that all information about art, architecture, and the like is indeed fact. After a little research, that proves to be incorrect as well, and he uses these "facts" as evidence to his theory.
The problem with The Da Vinci Code starts when uninformed, unchurched, or unschooled people pick up the novel and begin to read it. It goes from "Wow, what a page turner!" to "Whoa! I never knew that about Jesus and Christianity!" People do not realize that in addition to being bad philosophy and bad theology, it is just horrible history. Hardly anything in the novel proves to be true besides maybe the occasional "Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa." People read this book and then suddenly absorb the inaccuracies with it, thinking that an overnight success author knows all the secrets to the universe. Now before I go further, I will admit that I have not read the book. Our family has a copy, however, and I intend to read it at my earliest opportunity. In addition, I will be going to see the film sometime in the near future. However, I have read very much about the book, and fact remains fact if I read the story part or not. I specifically know of claims the book makes (in the form of actual quotations from the book) and in what context it makes them. I can comment and research the correctness of these claims without having to have read the book itself, and not having read the book makes me no less of an "expert" than if I had read it. So check back often for updates on this issue. At the most, I have about 24 posts planned out, but I may end up condensing a great deal of those for time's sake. I will also turn on the comment feature of this site so you may leave me your love letters, hate mail, and anything in between. Feel free to leave us a message if you wish. Everything you say is welcomed here, even if you are an off the deep end liberal. We will still listen to what you have to say before we laugh. So, check back often and please leave comments! I hope this subject will prove to be a valuable weapon for those who know the truth.
~Tribal~
Thursday, May 11, 2006
"Ethical Decision Making"
A few Fridays back, the junior class at the Dallastown Area High School embarked on what is known to be Ethical Decision Making day at the Penn State York campus. Now, when I first heard of this, I thought it might actually be something to look into, and it might actually be something good. Then I began to think...what is a public high school doing teaching young people about morality? These are the same public high schools that banned the longstanding tradition of morning prayer and rejected the scientific validity of intelligent design. These schools are trying to push God and religion out the back door while at the same time trying to keep a hand on the values that coexist with such belief. Well, their efforts are definentaly in vain. Rather than hearing what IS right or IS wrong, we were enlightened with the "truth" that the ethical code of conduct varies with every job or career. Kind of amazing what some of these "educators" can come up with.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Monday, May 08, 2006
Conservative Insanity
Tonight marked the premier of Glenn Beck's nightly television show. It runs every weeknight at 7, 9, and 12 ET on CNN (though make sure you have the right CNN, there are multiple CNN channels -- with Suscom cable the one should be channel 40). The TV show works basically like his radio show. It's a "fusion of entertainment and enlightenment" -- very commical and entertaining while retaining its informational nature. You should all watch it...TONIGHT.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Friday, May 05, 2006
Well, You Don't Look Christian To Me...
I would like to start this entry by saying that I am sorry if I come across has edgy or aggressive with this post. This is something that has been pent up inside of me for a long time. It all started when the P.O.D. promo team (of which I am a member) sent me a free copy of Risen magazine. This issue happened to have a picture of Sonny (P.O.D.'s singer) on the front cover, in all of his dreadlocked/tattooed glory. Well to get on with it, the first thing I heard when I pulled the magazine out of the box of promo materials was, "That does not look like a Christian man." This is actually a very old subject of tension between me and several elder members of my church, but this incident just happened to revive the fight. I deal with this kind of thinking on a regular basis. I am also criticized by many for "having friends that look like bums" and for even "dressing like a bum off the street" myself. Christians (and it is often the older generations) tend to have a problem with how people look, which is ironic if you ask me. We as teens are always taught by our pastors and parents to not be caught up in the aesthetic and shallow things in life. Yet at the same time, these same people often condemn others merely for looking a certain way.
Now let me continue here with some very relevant ancient history. You know, the funny thing about history is that it always contains a lesson for future generations. Well, enough rambling, I will get on with my point. In New Testament times, was Jesus wearing a tie and a suit? Well maybe that's a bit overdoing the question because ties and suits did not exist back then, but did Jesus wear the best of the best in clothing? Did he own several sets of "synagogue clothes" for His Saturday morning excursions to temple? Why, the answer to that question is a more than resounding NO. Did Jesus "hang" with the well dressed, "well groomed," clean shaven and fair faced people? Well, okay He hung with everybody, but if you look, He spent most of His time with those considered unclean and godless by the standards of the time. Did they have several sets of Saturday clothes? No. Now the interesting part is if you look at the ones who did insist on dressing well and being well groomed and keeping good hygiene. I'll give you a hint, they're the ones who wanted to crucify Jesus. Yes I'm talking about the Pharisees. They were too shallow to see through people's appearances and into who each person really was. Jesus, on the other hand, cared about the people, not how they looked or dressed.
The Bible says that God will not judge by how one looks, so why should we? If Christ does not judge by one's clothing or one's tattoos or hair, then what makes us think we have a right to do so? Do we honestly think we are that much better than God, that we know how to judge and He doesn't? As Montgomery Gentry sings in one of perhaps the coolest country songs ever, "you do your thing and I'll do mine...who are you to judge me? My Judge is going to judge us all one day." Did you hear that? MY JUDGE IS GOING TO JUDGE US ALL ONE DAY. Not Pastor so and so, not Deacon him, and not our parents. Someone with tattoos and dreadlocks can very much be a Christian man. There is no such thing as "looking Christian." That is such a shallow, plastic form of Christianity that I can't believe it.
While I am on the issue, I would like to comment on some similar issues. People have this concept that when you go to church you must wear a dress shirt and tie and nice dress pants and shoes. HEAVEN FORBID that you even think about wearing shorts or jeans. That is a cardinal sin that will condemn you to hell forever. Okay, well this is the part where I tell you that what I just said was completely sarcastic in case you could not pick up on it. So, the main argument for dressing up for church happens to be that is shows respect for God (although I also hear a lot that it's just not good to show up looking like a bum...gee wonder what Montgomery Gentry would say to that). So, this would imply that not dressing up would be disrespecting God's holiness. As the father of a friend of mine has said, "Does that mean when I'm sitting at home in an undershirt and shorts that God doesn't like me praying or doesn't hear my prayers?" This man holds a high position in our church might I add. Anyway, his point is 100% correct. Does God care what you look like in church or does God care about what your heart looks like in church. "Come just as you are."
If any of these people that condemn for looking "unChristian" actually spent time with people on the street, they would realize that their actions actually drive people away from the church. I have prayed with numerous people on street corners in York city who tell me they go to very casual churches. Most of these people do not even have enough money to buy their food for the next week, so how in Christ's name are they to buy an overpriced, made in Indonesia, piece of fabric suit? I have had people tell me that people all decked out in suits with slicked back hair scare them away. No lie. They honestly feel not welcomed by churches because of HOW THEY DRESS. I have also held conversations with a very steadfast atheist who almost turned Christian at one point. This girl would be described by many as a "goth," and she said that the first time she walked into a church, they all kept away from her and cast very askance glances at her. So, for this reason she will probably forever see Christians as an exclusive group of people haters that are so blinded and narrow minded by their ignorance that they stop caring about people. Please tell me this is not Christ's church, because I feel it is. PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE PUSHED AWAY FOR THE SOLE REASON OF THE WAY THEY LOOK. If by the end of this post anything looks "unChristian," it should be those who are too set in their ways to see Christ's love. Wake up, people.
~Tribal~
Now let me continue here with some very relevant ancient history. You know, the funny thing about history is that it always contains a lesson for future generations. Well, enough rambling, I will get on with my point. In New Testament times, was Jesus wearing a tie and a suit? Well maybe that's a bit overdoing the question because ties and suits did not exist back then, but did Jesus wear the best of the best in clothing? Did he own several sets of "synagogue clothes" for His Saturday morning excursions to temple? Why, the answer to that question is a more than resounding NO. Did Jesus "hang" with the well dressed, "well groomed," clean shaven and fair faced people? Well, okay He hung with everybody, but if you look, He spent most of His time with those considered unclean and godless by the standards of the time. Did they have several sets of Saturday clothes? No. Now the interesting part is if you look at the ones who did insist on dressing well and being well groomed and keeping good hygiene. I'll give you a hint, they're the ones who wanted to crucify Jesus. Yes I'm talking about the Pharisees. They were too shallow to see through people's appearances and into who each person really was. Jesus, on the other hand, cared about the people, not how they looked or dressed.
The Bible says that God will not judge by how one looks, so why should we? If Christ does not judge by one's clothing or one's tattoos or hair, then what makes us think we have a right to do so? Do we honestly think we are that much better than God, that we know how to judge and He doesn't? As Montgomery Gentry sings in one of perhaps the coolest country songs ever, "you do your thing and I'll do mine...who are you to judge me? My Judge is going to judge us all one day." Did you hear that? MY JUDGE IS GOING TO JUDGE US ALL ONE DAY. Not Pastor so and so, not Deacon him, and not our parents. Someone with tattoos and dreadlocks can very much be a Christian man. There is no such thing as "looking Christian." That is such a shallow, plastic form of Christianity that I can't believe it.
While I am on the issue, I would like to comment on some similar issues. People have this concept that when you go to church you must wear a dress shirt and tie and nice dress pants and shoes. HEAVEN FORBID that you even think about wearing shorts or jeans. That is a cardinal sin that will condemn you to hell forever. Okay, well this is the part where I tell you that what I just said was completely sarcastic in case you could not pick up on it. So, the main argument for dressing up for church happens to be that is shows respect for God (although I also hear a lot that it's just not good to show up looking like a bum...gee wonder what Montgomery Gentry would say to that). So, this would imply that not dressing up would be disrespecting God's holiness. As the father of a friend of mine has said, "Does that mean when I'm sitting at home in an undershirt and shorts that God doesn't like me praying or doesn't hear my prayers?" This man holds a high position in our church might I add. Anyway, his point is 100% correct. Does God care what you look like in church or does God care about what your heart looks like in church. "Come just as you are."
If any of these people that condemn for looking "unChristian" actually spent time with people on the street, they would realize that their actions actually drive people away from the church. I have prayed with numerous people on street corners in York city who tell me they go to very casual churches. Most of these people do not even have enough money to buy their food for the next week, so how in Christ's name are they to buy an overpriced, made in Indonesia, piece of fabric suit? I have had people tell me that people all decked out in suits with slicked back hair scare them away. No lie. They honestly feel not welcomed by churches because of HOW THEY DRESS. I have also held conversations with a very steadfast atheist who almost turned Christian at one point. This girl would be described by many as a "goth," and she said that the first time she walked into a church, they all kept away from her and cast very askance glances at her. So, for this reason she will probably forever see Christians as an exclusive group of people haters that are so blinded and narrow minded by their ignorance that they stop caring about people. Please tell me this is not Christ's church, because I feel it is. PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE PUSHED AWAY FOR THE SOLE REASON OF THE WAY THEY LOOK. If by the end of this post anything looks "unChristian," it should be those who are too set in their ways to see Christ's love. Wake up, people.
~Tribal~
Thursday, May 04, 2006
The Mighty Face of Terror
American troops have recently recovered some new tapes that al Zarqawi was trying to film for propaganda purposes. The only problem, however, is that in the video, Zarqawi has trouble being able to correctly operate the machine gun he is using. He fires a few times, and it jams. An underling minion must fix it for the great warrior, though, because Zarqawi himself apparently appears too incompetent to understand the firearm he is using. To make matters worse, one of the terrorists who grabs the gun manages to land his hand right on the barrel...which is of course searing hot after Zarqawi's play time. As if that is not enough of a comedy, Zarqawi is wearing New Balance tennis shoes -- made by an American company. Hmm, I thought he was part of that little coterie that hated America. Here's the link where you should be able to access some of the video. You can't make this stuff up.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)