Scientists Can Now See Inside a Single Cancer Cell
31 minutes ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(226)
-
▼
June
(34)
- Snake Eyes, The Silent Master
- Edinburgh tours
- Hidden Messages
- Thunderbirds are Go!
- Big Mouth
- A Mon, Ow bout a nice Red Stripe?
- Batman Returns!
- Travel in Single File
- And None of Them are Named "Herman."
- For some of your professional needs
- New Vocabulary!
- Here Comes the Bride
- I don't know why, but I do.
- Training
- You know What they say about the Size of a Man's F...
- The more things change...
- Zombies?
- Legit or Not?
- Ever read Dune?
- More Debunkery
- One time I wish I knew how to post pictures...
- Harry Potter
- My Wife and I were just talking about this.
- Welcome! Come on in...
- Athena's Daughters
- More Sea Monsters
- The Not-So Hot Zone
- The Frog Prince
- Surgeon General's Warning!
- Administrative Notes
- Things that go Bloop in the Deep
- Pomp and Circumstance
- It's All Fun and Games, Until...
- Freedom of Religion Means "All" Religions
-
▼
June
(34)
My Blog List
Some of my Favorite Websites
Followers
RIP Frazetta
About Me
Search This Blog
5 comments:
Ah...the Da Vinci Code..found in the fiction section of the bookstore or library. Even with Mr. Brown's preface that it is based in factual locations an things/people and place that do or did exist...it can only be found in the "FICTION" area. With that in mind it is an interesting, even riveting read. Because it is FICTION based on "fact" Mr. Brown takes time to "teach" new things about the Catholic church that we didn't know. The book made me curious enough about some of his "facts" that I did some additional reading/research. It made me want to learn more. Which is not a bad thing. In hindsight, if he had not added the preface that much of what he wrote about is true and does exist "The Da Vinci Code" would have simply remained a piece of FICTION and an interesting, riveting read.
Which is PRECISELY my main problem with the book!
That, and the fact that while much of his research material (e.g. Holy Blood, Holy Grail) remains in print in English, the several well-researched refutations that have been published over the years have never been printed in the U.S., and (to the best of my knowledge) are out of print in the U.K. They remain available in France. So we are left with sporadic articles in less than mainstream magazines (e.g. Catholic publications, or the Fortean Times -- I linked the online version of the FT article), and breathless "could-it-be-true" pieces in the Big Media, such as the Stone Philips/MSNBC journalistic fluff I linked in a much earlier post.
Frankly, there is very little historical truth in the Da Vinci Code research -- but I know from experience it is a great tall tale!
Last night I watched this news Dateline show on the Da Vinci Code. I probably wouldn't have paid any attention to it if it weren't for your blog. I'm a little embarassed to admit that I didn't know anything about it since you said earlier such a person would have to be hiding under a rock. Anyway, I'm kind of confused why it is such a big deal. Why would it be so horrible if Christ had been married? My great aunt is a nun at Notre Dame. I used to write to her and ask her questions about the Catholic church. Her answers were confusing and partially in Latin. I did some reading on that New Advent site on celibacy to try and figure out why this tradition is so important and it's about as confusing as my aunt. I read the scripture references to it and I just don't see enough in those words to justify such a strict way of life. I don't buy the selflessness argument because it is definitely harder to be married and have a family. Now that I've seen how hard, it would be heaven to only care for myself again. It's the juggling of all those things, spouse, children, job, God, that can help a person to grow. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Christ had been married. He was the greatest teacher of love, and marriage is where love can be ultimately and fully expressed, yes, no? Another question, what would be the motivation for people to hide this if it is true? I'm guessing that you are Catholic, jrf, from some of your writing. Please don't be offended by me. That's not my intention at all. I just want to know why everyone is so worried about this. I honestly don't get it.
The "factual" problem with the "Da Vinci Code/Holy Blood, Holy Grail" hypothesis isn't limited to the dogma issues of Christ's sex life. It has more to do with the authenticity of documents that have been presented to prove certain claims, and the analysis of other historical evidence.
Mainline Protestants and Catholics have been fussing about the dogmatic issues of Christ's family life for centuries. The main argument comes down to this: Catholics believe that tradition counts heavily in faith. The Church explains revelation to the faithful. Protestants rely more heavily on personal reading of the Bible and looking for evidence in the text. The broad claim is that no one should stand between God and the person. The Catholic counterclaim is that without some authority to provide assistance and expertise, it would be too easy to fall into misunderstanding and heresy. The counter-counterclaim from Protestants is that the Bible IS the authority. And from there we get into more hairsplitting (made even more aggravating by the fact that not every denomination is really reading the same Bible).
Clergical celibacy is a tradition handed down from medival times. Although the Church has found scriptural passages as foundation for the practice, it was not the standard for the first few centuries of the Church's history. There were several policy reasons why the Church instituted the practice. First was the fact that too many priests were handing down their parishes to their sons as a family business. Since religion can be a lucrative business (there's my cynicism again) inheritance claims could be a major hassle for the central Church authorities. Imposing celibacy was one way to sort out the fact that all church property belonged to the Church, not to individual priests, parishes, or however else it might come up. A rather clean solution, don't you think? The Church likes to cite the idea that without a family, parish priests do not have to divide their attention between caring for their family and caring for their flock. I think this carries some weight, but it doesn't take too much imagination to see how this ties into the first policy reason.
In a less cynical vein, it should be remembered that their had always been a puritanical streak in Church views on sex. Celibacy was not an unusual vow for clergy to make even before it was imposed. Hermits, monks, nuns, etc. made vows of celibacy with an eye toward maintaining purity of the body. St. Augustine, a famous libertine in his youth, apparently died in chastity. More than one martyred girl became a saint because she died rather than give up her virginity.
On the other hand, the scriptural evidence in favor of celibacy and chastity cuts both ways. Several of the apostles, including St. Peter, were married when they began to follow Jesus. On the other hand, they apparently put aside their marriages to make ministry the sole focus of their lives.
And as for whether or not Jesus was married... Official Catholic theologians and historians say, "no way." I'm sticking to that because it is tradition. On the other hand, Protestants aren't as lockstep. Those who say "maybe," raise nagging questions such as, "Who really was married at the Wedding Feast of Cana?" and, "Why was Mary so worried about whether or not they had any wine left at the Feast if she was just a guest?"
The answers, I think, are ultimately not that important. What I do think is important is that people pick a religion that respects basic human virtues, embrace it, wrestle with it, ask questions about it, turn it over in their hearts, understand why their dogma is different from some other religions. And then accept the fact that God, ultimately is unknowable in our present, finite state of being. For that reason, their will always be mysteries. There must always be gaps in knowledge, and that is where true, quiet, religious Faith with a capital "F" exists.
BTW, that's a Catholic heresy.
Thank you so much. Many people are so afraid to discuss religion, even bitter about it. I love learning about others beliefs, but it is hard to get people to share things. That response was very thorough and totally answered my questions. I know about the heresy thing, for my religion is one of those religions who claims sole validity and authority from God, like Catholicism. Our current prophet has spoken a lot on religious tolerance and fellowship of people of other faiths, which has helped to counter the arrogance that can couple that sort of belief. That is totally true about faith. There is a scripture in the Book of Mormon that says, "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." It goes right along with what Christ said to Thomas in John 20:29.
Post a Comment