Experts agree: Dan Brown got most of his facts wrong.
Religion scholars have been whacking "The Da Vinci Code" like a low-hanging piñata. The swings have come from establishment Christianity — the Vatican and the Archbishop of Canterbury — and from the fringes of the faith — a member of the liberal Jesus Seminar and the agnostic historian Bart Ehrman.
That's so funny. Religious academics are saying Dan Brown got his "facts" wrong.
And where do religious academics get their facts?
From the Bible? A book that is almost completely unsupported by historical evidence? Hell, the lead character isn't even mentioned anywhere BUT in the Bible, so how can people be arguing about religious facts?
It seems to me that watching a priest and a devotee of The Da Vinci Code argue about the facts is like watching a Trekkie and a Trekker argue about where the borg really came from. I mean, it's all bullshit in the end and none of it can really be proven one way or the other short of a time machine, anyway.
I'm not saying we can't have a good natured debate about this stuff, but it cracks me up how these religious scholars defend their faith (whether they believe in God or not).
Grow up, guys--just because your book is 2000 years older than Brown's doesn't mean both don't belong in the fiction section at Barnes and Noble.
No comments:
Post a Comment