I just finished reading Dan Brown's Lost Symbol (ya, I am a bit behind the curve...my brother and I share books so I had to wait for him to finish first)... Anyways... just curious as to how many Christians/Catholics buy into what he says in the book about the Bible. As a scientist and a casual religion student, I was fascinated with how he was trying to intertwine science and the Bible. Also, just curious as to how that plays into the whole "untapped human potential" they keep talking about. It really lends me to recall my psychology classes back in college....Jung's universal self/consciousness. I honestly don't know how to label his book. On the outside it seems like a big time religious book, but then it talk about the ancient mysteries (which oddly seem more like Carl Jung's Universal Consciousness theory). How does non-atheist view this theme about God is not God but God is us... about how we all have the potential to be Gods...? I know it doesn't bother me, because I am agnostic.
I dont think any Christians takes him seriously or look to his work for theological teaching as he is not even a Christian, but generally people tend to read his stuff as fact rather than a novel (which it is) like they did with his plagiarised da vinci code (i think it was that). The teaching that we are god is taught in many world religions and is heavily emphasised in new age spiritual beliefs.
this man is an expert at persuasive writing, not a historian. most of the facts in his books are fictitious, he just has a knack of writing so persuasively, that it sounds true <- not a christian
Yes, I agree a lot of what he wrote in the DaVinci Code isn't original. The conspiracy theory has been written many times over, but I wouldn't exactly call him a plagerist, afterall the book though is heavily focused on the same content...the book is actual the storyline about Robert Langdon and how he goes through the journey to discover, etc etc. But anyways...my question is actually more about how he talks about the Bible being more the mythical teachings and how it really teaches more about the person becoming a god versus the apparent teaching of the God. Like Dan says he is definitely persuasive... just curious as how other people saw the book. Granted anything taken out of context and in pieces can be used to make any argument. Perhaps I had more time to think about these things because this is one of his weaker books...lol
I had a brief read of the last few pages of the novel. The thrust of the conclusion is basically new age and is common to all new age materials on this subject. It is clearly not core Christian doctrine if you know your Bible. What I noticed of interest is the reference to the Gospel of Mary which is a Gnostic bible and not part of the official Bible. Gnostism had its roots in Greek thinking and was prevalent after the time of Jesus. It tried to blend Christianity and Greek thinking with emphasis on knowledge as the key to enlightenment. The reference to the word "Elohim" as plural in the novel as meaning the minds of man as opposed to the presense of the Holy Trinity during creation as recorded in Genesis is an example of how one can misrepresent the Bible to suit one's view. This is no different to the reason used to justify the use of marijuana because in Genesis, God created all plants and it was good.
I like dan brown's work. Most of his work contains many historical facts. And his biblical fiction shouldnt be considered plagiarism because most of his topics are debated issues over the centuries... Although his "The Da Vinci Code" is an idea borrowed/stolen (i heard different versions) from a Russian writer but Angels and Demons and The Lost Symbol mainly focuses on issues we have long debated. Like if the freemasons help build America, conspiracy theories etc. I know many Catholics dont like him and all but they cannot deny the fact that the church did kill off people with free will ie: Galileo which is mentioned a lot in Da Vinci Code. That is TRUE historical fact that Galileo was prosecuted by the church for introducing gravity and heliocentric.
