16 Mar 05
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone of the roman catholic church bannes the popular book by Dan Brown.
The main point seems to be that the book falsely suggest that Jesus might have had a child with Maria Magdalene and continues to point out that christianity has suppressed women over the centuries.
What do you think ?
I’ve read the book (the new illustrated edition) and was quite disappointed - it’s not very good literature. I like the very thorough and precise research done around the reference to art and (parts) of history - but the plot and suspense is mediocre.
Now the Vaticans track record of banning is not really impressive (Galileo etc. )
So why do they keep trying ?
16 Mar 05
Originally posted by ScheelWhat does it mean for the Vatican to ban a book?
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone of the roman catholic church bannes the popular book by Dan Brown.
The main point seems to be that the book falsely suggest that Jesus might have had a child with Maria Magdalene and continues to point out that christianity has suppressed women over the centuries.
What do you think ?
I’ve read the book (the new illustrated e ...[text shortened]... track record of banning is not really impressive (Galileo etc. )
So why do they keep trying ?
Does it mean that the book is not allowed within the confines of Vatican City?
Does it mean that Catholics will be considered sinning if they read it?
What does this ban mean in practice?
16 Mar 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThese are naturally the interesting questions - pardon me for being so inprecise.
What does it mean for the Vatican to ban a book?
Does it mean that the book is not allowed within the confines of Vatican City?
Does it mean that Catholics will be considered sinning if they read it?
What does this ban mean in practice?
The Vatican is by definition the custody of Gods will on earth.
So if a representative of the Vatican bannes an idea or a book what does that mean ? Does it mean that the idea is false by definition ?
16 Mar 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNo - I’ve not read the original announcement (they insist on writing in Italian - even though everybody knows that Danish is the proper language for important messages) but :
Well, what sort of announcement was made?
Did the Cardinial just stand up and say, "I hereby ban The DaVinci code," or what?
In English: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1525702,00.html
The fuss is not something new, last year the novel was banned in Lebanon
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1306407,00.html
The root of the debate is off cause that mixed in with the storyline of a murder history the author tells a story of Christ that does not conform to traditional views.
16 Mar 05
Originally posted by ScheelIn that article it says the Cardinal was appointed to "rebut" the book, not ban it.
No - I’ve not read the original announcement (they insist on writing in Italian - even though everybody knows that Danish is the proper language for important messages) but :
In English: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1525702,00.html
The fuss is not something new, last year the novel was banned in Lebanon
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religio ...[text shortened]... a murder history the author tells a story of Christ that does not conform to traditional views.
16 Mar 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungRereading the original article http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=369588 and thinking the translation over, I see that I should have written condemned (rebuked ?) - not banned.
In that article it says the Cardinal was appointed to "rebut" the book, not ban it.
I’m sorry for the confusion and should probably do an edit.
What remains is however still the questions - why do the Vatican feel that they need to deal with fiction (as opposed to truth
😉 ) and is it wise ?
16 Mar 05
Originally posted by ScheelBecause a lot of people reading it will think they're reading truth, not fiction.
Rereading the original article http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=369588 and thinking the translation over, I see that I should have written condemned (rebuked ?) - not banned.
I’m sorry for the confusion and should probably do an edit.
What remains is however still the questions - why do the Vatican feel that they need to deal with fiction (as opposed to truth
😉 ) and is it wise ?
16 Mar 05
Originally posted by ScheelThe have been dealing with fiction for their entire existence.
Rereading the original article http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=369588 and thinking the translation over, I see that I should have written condemned (rebuked ?) - not banned.
I’m sorry for the confusion and should probably do an edit.
What remains is however still the questions - why do the Vatican feel that they need to deal with fiction (as opposed to truth
😉 ) and is it wise ?
16 Mar 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerShould the Vatican ban Jesus' parables?
Because a lot of people reading it will think they're reading truth, not fiction.
Plus, the book itself declares that it is a work of fiction, as most modern novels do, right on the copyright page for anyone simple-minded enough to not realize that they are about to read a piece of fiction. Does the Vatican think its members are this simple-minded?
16 Mar 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe Vatican knows its members are that simpleminded. It's something the Vatican has cultivated over the last two millenia. That's how they've managed to stay in business all these years.
Should the Vatican ban Jesus' parables?
Plus, the book itself declares that it is a work of fiction, as most modern novels do, right on the copyright page for anyone simple-minded enough to not realize that they are about to read a piece of fiction. Does the Vatican think its members are this simple-minded?
16 Mar 05
Originally posted by rwingettBanning books certainly seems a lot more like a tactic of such cultivation than it does a tactic of enlightening people about the truth of which books are fiction and which books are non-fiction, so I'm going to employ the reasonable doubt that the CCC allows me and find that I agree with you.
The Vatican knows its members are that simpleminded. It's something the Vatican has cultivated over the last two millenia. That's how they've managed to stay in business all these years.
16 Mar 05
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettBy the way, I don't know if you're following th Calling Out Ivanhoe thread, but we learned there that you and other weak atheists are actually going to heaven. The CCC, according to lucifershammer, says that as long as your doubt of God's existence is based on reason, you will not be cast into the furnace. I just thought you might like to know about that, since I was unaware of the clause, and I believe I have just thus achieved salvation upon learning of it.
The Vatican knows its members are that simpleminded. It's something the Vatican has cultivated over the last two millenia. That's how they've managed to stay in business all these years.
16 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLast sentence slavation? should be "sAlvation", but slavation is funny.
By the way, I don't know if you're following th Calling Out Ivanhoe thread, but we learned there that you and other weak atheists are actually going to heaven. The CCC, according to lucifershammer, says that as long as your doubt ...[text shortened]... I believe I have just thus achieved slavation upon learning of it.
slavation - to be a slave
slavation - to slaver?
hee hee
EDIT: Damn, your edit beat me - but it is in my quote!