---

The problem here is that Dan Brown's works aren't based in any sort of real religious, historical or philosophical theories. Their source material is the equivalent of the National Inquirer. They are fiction and should be taken as such.

---

actually forget this, i interpreted this wrong, my bad.

Post edited at 8:40 am on June 16, 2008 by iinsurgent

---

Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 8:34 am on June 16, 2008

---

 The problem here is that Dan Brown's works aren't based in any sort of real religious, historical or philosophical theories. Their source material is the equivalent of the National Inquirer. They are fiction and should be taken as such.

---

no, they are.

---

..."no, they are?"

No, they are what?

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

---

Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 8:34 am on June 16, 2008

---

The problem here is that Dan Brown's works aren't based in any sort of real religious, historical or philosophical theories. Their source material is the equivalent of the National Inquirer. They are fiction and should be taken as such.

---

no,some are based on theories but the storyline is fiction.

---

They are based on theories that are not accepted by any historian, theologian or philosopher. In other words: they are fiction based on fiction, somewhat akin to Twilight being based on stories about Dracula.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

---

Quote: from iinsurgent at 11:37 am on June 16, 2008

---

Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 8:34 am on June 16, 2008

---

 
 The problem here is that Dan Brown's works aren't based in any sort of real religious, historical or philosophical theories. Their source material is the equivalent of the National Inquirer. They are fiction and should be taken as such.

---

 

 no,some are based on theories but the storyline is fiction.

---

They are based on theories that are not accepted by any historian, theologian or philosopher. In other words: they are fiction based on fiction, somewhat akin to Twilight being based on stories about Dracula.

---

yeah, i realized that after i reread it a couple of times. sorry  

---

Quote: from iinsurgent at 11:37 am on June 16, 2008

---

Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 8:34 am on June 16, 2008

---

 
 The problem here is that Dan Brown's works aren't based in any sort of real religious, historical or philosophical theories. Their source material is the equivalent of the National Inquirer. They are fiction and should be taken as such.

---

 

 no,some are based on theories but the storyline is fiction.

---

They are based on theories that are not accepted by any historian, theologian or philosopher. In other words: they are fiction based on fiction, somewhat akin to Twilight being based on stories about Dracula.

---

You seem pretty confident in that claim, obviously, the theories we're most likely talking about, (Of which you didn't specify) are accepted and debated by numerous scholars today.

But, for me to elaborate, I'd wish for you to specify which Hypothesis(Decided to start using the right terminology) Dan Brown referred to that aren't accepted by any Historian, theologian.... Um, I don't believe philosophy has anything to do with this, but if you're feeling confident.

I'll be the first to note one hypothesis I believe to be supported.

Galileo was made a martyr by The Vatican and the Vatican's involvement resulted in his death. Pope John Paul II affirmed their poor treatment of the Captive, Galileo Galilei in 1993 when The Church officially conceded that the earth is not stationary and revolves around the Sun.

-------
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means
What you think it means." -Inigo Montoya

But back to the original topic: The Vatican has a right to ban folks from shooting movies on their private property just as much as I have a right to ban folks from shooting movies on my private property. The only people making a big deal of it are the media, who like to blow things out of proportion so they can sell more papers.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

---

Generally speaking, the ones regarding to Jesus and Mary Magdalene being anything more than a teacher and a student. Even National Geographic tends to rofl at the idea of them being anything more; the only people who don't rofl at it are conspiracy theorists who see monsters lurking in their own shadows and the idiots who believe them.

But back to the original topic: The Vatican has a right to ban folks from shooting movies on their private property just as much as I have a right to ban folks from shooting movies on my private property. The only people making a big deal of it are the media, who like to blow things out of proportion so they can sell more papers.

---

Haha, Hardly. During the time they were covering the Jesus Claims they were talking a lot about the other Religions that contended with Christs. Mostly Apollonius, Simon Magus (Reffered to as Simon The Magician, in one of the Gospels.) But also a couple specials on Mary Magdalene, documents reporting that she was heading the Christian movement after the reported death of Jesus.

But, that's National Geographic. I'll find the report that quotes The Vatican conceding to the premise that Mary Magdalene wasn't a Prostitute. Which they claimed for the entirety of Vatican Christian History.

I never denied Vatican's Right to deny filming privileges. It just seems that Vatican is Afraid of Something, (Since it surrounds Bible Vs. Science Controversies.)

-------
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means
What you think it means." -Inigo Montoya

---

Or they just don't want people filming something that's basically spitting in their faces on their property.

---

I suppose that's one way to look at it.

-------
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means
What you think it means." -Inigo Montoya

---

Generally speaking, the ones regarding to Jesus and Mary Magdalene being anything more than a teacher and a student. Even National Geographic tends to rofl at the idea of them being anything more; the only people who don't rofl at it are conspiracy theorists who see monsters lurking in their own shadows and the idiots who believe them.

But back to the original topic: The Vatican has a right to ban folks from shooting movies on their private property just as much as I have a right to ban folks from shooting movies on my private property. The only people making a big deal of it are the media, who like to blow things out of proportion so they can sell more papers.

---

I also forgot to mention, this movie has nothing to do with The account of Mary Magdalene and I wonder if you'd ever read it.

Besides, "Spitting" in peoples faces, they're advocating the amount of detail and thought put into the Architecture that The Vatican owns. I for one am half heartedly thankful. Though I remain Agnostic, I find the Sculptures and structures surrounding the Christian Religion Fascinating. One of the only reasons I'd ever wanted to go see Rome, had this movie been made I might have lost that desire (Since I heard from a friend that The Church of the apostle Peter, or whatever the one with pagan sculptures,  wasn't as great as it seemed in the book.) and missed out on a lot of other great things from Rome.

I suggest they go Animated Film with it.

-------
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means
What you think it means." -Inigo Montoya

Furthermore, you seem to be missing the point, so let me ask you this: if the KKK wanted to use your bedroom as the location for their promotional video, would you think, "Oh gee! Now my bedroom gets to be famous!"?

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

Second of all, it's mostly a fictional account of a mans discovery of the alleged Path of The Illuminati.

Furthermore, read the my initial post and my replies. I don't have a problem with The Vatican exercising it's right to deny the filming of their "Bedroom".

I did state that The Vatican was quoted saying, "It turns the Gospel Upside Down." And I can only assume that the comments are regarding to a few of the only references of the Bible in the Angels and Demons. (Only one of which was actually used in the book.)

"the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."
""the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." ""And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place, etc." All of those being from Chronicles, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes. Anyone aware of those being mentioned as Gospels?

So why can't The Vatican be honest about why they don't want them Shooting Around Rome and Vatican City?

-------
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means
What you think it means." -Inigo Montoya