"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.
Choose your language: Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

With friends like this...

Poor Dan Brown. I almost feel sorry for him, when people offer this kind of defense of his book The Da Vinci Code (DVC). Name withheld to protect the clueless.

By the way, _The DaVinci Code_ was incredibly interesting and raised serious, legitimate questions. And that stands whether 10% or 100% of it is fiction. You're afraid of it's claims, for whatever reason. And FYI, I am quite well read, and intimately familiar with the Catholic faith. Your puny defense is to attack the credibility of the reader who may like the book.

Besides the laughable "100% fiction yet still serious, legitimate questions" comment, one can easily see my post about The Da Vinci Code -- a symptom... was much more than this person stated. Kind of funny, when they claimed to be well read. Apparently that high volume of reading doesn't include much skill with reading comprehension.

I have to also chuckle at "intimately familiar with the Catholic faith" and not being able to see the many errors in the book. Perhaps this individual confused personal knowledge of daily Catholic life with knowledge of church history and Christianity's early years. But that's not surprising coming from someone making such statements about Brown's work in the DVC.

Another item and I believe Dan Brown has made the same point, is that revealing the errors in his book, is showing fear, as if we're afraid of the truth. Notice the convenience of such a charge. If we don't point out the mistakes, then the claim would undoubtedly be, if it was wrong, they would say so. Yet, when we do, it's only because we're afraid of the truth it contains. Besides the fallacy of begging the question, we can see this is an unfalsifiable position. Sure, it's a convenient construct. However, I see no reason to think highly of such flim-flam.

Those who gleefully, and not always with good reason, toss around the unfalsifiable charge at people of faith in the scientific disciplines, would do well to recognize such in this case. Otherwise, it may be reasonable to conclude they only care about attacking orthodox Christianity and twisting, not only history, but distorting what the faith actually is, to such proportions as to make the word meaningless. I know, silly me, everyone that isn't Christian or claims to be one while criticizing the faith, is entirely objective. How could I think otherwise? Yeah right, and don't think that being a Christian or lazily tossing the label on your hat, saves you from the foregoing criticism either.


Filed under: Christianity -- Culture -- Apologetics

Blogs with open posts: Diane's Stuff -- Jo's Cafe -- rashbre central -- third world county -- Stuck On Stupid -- THM's Bacon Bits -- Blue Star Chronicles

Technorati Tags: Da_Vinci_Code -- Christianity -- Dan_Brown --  -- --  -- -- --

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions
<< Home

Click for Latest Posts

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: