The Da Vinci Dog


"If you know someone gullible enough to take a pulp airport novel as ‘evidence’ that Jesus Christ was not divine—but rather a horn-dog rabbi eager to “hook-up” with a former hooker, in order to father a race of bumbling French kings…do you really think the answer is to argue with him? Using, you know, reason? You might just as well pick up the book, smack him on the nose and say ‘No! Bad! No! Very bad!’ That’s likely to be more effective, and a heck of a lot more fun."

(Fedora Tip: Dom Bettinelli)

Comments 6

  1. Squat wrote:

    It’s true about the Lizard Men you know. They look just like the Sleestaks from the Land of the Lost. 😉

    Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 5:29 pm
  2. John wrote:

    Yeah, what kind of baffoon would accept an entire improbable mythology just because it was written in a very popular book?

    Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 5:46 pm
  3. Peter wrote:

    It seems to me there’s about as much direct, incontrovertible evidence that supports the hypothesis that Jesus had a wife and children as there is direct, incontrovertible evidence that supports the resurrection of Jesus. In both cases, scholars (and “scholars”) are making inferences from incomplete records and filling the gaps with what they think are the most sensible explanations.

    If you can have people on one side who say things like, “We know Jesus rose from the dead because nobody would have told such an extraordinary story if it wasn’t true,” and people on the other side who say things like, “We know Jesus didn’t rise from the dead because it’s too extraordinary to be true without extraordinary evidence,” then you’ve got nothing of value. It’s essentially the same thing with the Jesus-married-Mary-Magdalene theory. You have people one one side who say thing like, “We know Jesus didn’t marry her because the text doesn’t explicitly say he did and because that would be contrary to all the other things we believe to be true,” and people on the other side who say things like, “We know Jesus married her because the text doesn’t explicitly say he didn’t and because that would make the most sense, considering all the other things we believe to be true.”

    Me, I think I’ll just stick with the minimalist interpretation: Jesus may not have existed and primary source evidence is not conclusive either way without a massive reader-centered inference, but enough people through history have believed that he did (for whatever reason) and used that belief to create a huge and influential institution (among other things, many less than savory) that certainly exists.

    Arguments based on the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection (and now, Jesus and his hypothetical wife and descendants) are among the weakest both for and against Christianity because of the paucity of primary source material.

    Posted 02 Jun 2006 at 6:56 pm
  4. John wrote:

    The third post just reminds me of a question I’ve often been posed. Three hundred years from now, will people think that religions like mormonism and scientology are legitimate? Will they just become used to them?

    Posted 03 Jun 2006 at 9:50 am
  5. Advogado de Diabo wrote:

    John and Peter covered my gut reaction to this post so I dont need to reiterate, but one thing I need to add. The reason the book struck such a deep cord with so many readers is the underlying theme that the portrait of Jesus we have been presented with our entire lives is no doubt inaccurate. Im not saying Dan Brown got it right, he was just guessing to write a fun novel, but the idea of the true Jesus being taken away from us is quite compelling.

    P.S. Funky have you read the Da Vinci Code yet? If not I respectfully suggest you refrain from posting on it.

    P.P.S It was fun to read it on the plane.

    Posted 04 Jun 2006 at 12:02 pm
  6. Advogado de Diabo wrote:

    Copies of the Da Vinci Code Litter Crash Site

    Posted 04 Jun 2006 at 12:19 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *