"Why the Da Vinci Code is TRUE!"

I saw an interesting article last week in the Kansas City Star.

It highlights a series of talks that Rev. Paul Smith is having, and gives a synopsis, but even the synopsis is interesting. Makes a good point, the talks give the details.

While the story is fiction, Smith says it reveals four important truths, and “attacking the bad facts in the story is like accusing Jesus of making up the story of the Prodigal Son and therefore saying there is no truth to it.”

Those 4 truths are original diversity, lost gospels, marginalizing women, and distorting the humanity of Jesus.

The article gives a little info on each of those 4. And if you go to Rev. Paul Smith's website, under teachings, you can download 3 of the 4 talks. (The last one will be up in about a week.) The series is called, "Why the Da Vinci Code is TRUE!: (and today’s Christianity is dysfunctional)".

I've read the first one, and found it quite interesting and informative. I look forward to reading the others.

An Inconvenient Truth

I saw the movie (documentary) An Inconvenient Truth yesterday. Very powerful. I encourage you (anyone) to go see it. A powerful presentation on the very real problem of global warming. It's an important issue. What kind of world do we want to live in in our futures and our children's futures? The climate changes due to green house gasses causing global warming is real, it's happening now. If we don't start doing things differently, it's going to get much worse.

It's not just a matter of temperatures a few degrees warmer. It's about floods, droughts, hurricanes. The disaster caused by hurricane Katrina may very well be our doing, not just by us choosing to build a city in such a low lying area, and trying to control the Mississippi and all that (though that too), but because, with green house gas emissions, we have raised world temperatures, including ocean temperatures, and warmer oceans makes for stronger hurricanes.

Go see the movie. It's well made, engaging, and it's a very important topic.

The Da Vinci Code

Okay, I haven't seen the movie. I'm thinking, it just won't be as good as the book. It's because I liked the book so much that I'm not real inclined to see the movie, because I think I'll be disappointed.

Interestingly, looking at the critics reviews at Yahoo Movies, one says "If you liked the book, you'll be fine" and another "...can't help but fail to measure up to its literary predecessor". Maybe it depends on the person. Me, I do fear for me it would be the latter.

As for some of the ideas presented by the characters in the book (like I said, I haven't seen the movie, though one hopes that the same ideas are presented in the movie), well, I tend to be an open minded sceptic. I ain't going to assume that because a character in Dan Brown's book says it's so, that it's indeed so. But, unless I know otherwise, I'll keep an open mind.

As for Jesus being married, so far as I know there is no evidence at all that Jesus was celibate. It's a projection, I think. Being used to a celibate priesthood, and, in the absence of any direct reference to Jesus being married or single, it's easy to assume Jesus was single without thinking about it. (And I understand that the celibate priesthood doesn't go back to the beginning of Christianity, but does go back to before the protestant reformation.) And, heck, how many people would assume that Peter was celibate? But, hey, wait, Jesus cured Peter's mother-in-law. And St. Paul in one of his letter mentions Peter being married. So, if in the case of Peter, lack of mention of a wife in the gospels doesn't mean he wasn't married, couldn't it be the same for Jesus? And, from what I've read, not being married would have been rather unusual at the time.

Actually, for me, the fact that St. Paul, when talking about his own celebacy, doesn't ever tell us Jesus was single, well, that definitely seems to suggest that Jesus was likely married. Emulating Jesus is not a reason St. Paul ever gives in support of celibacy.

Okay, Jesus being married but his wife never being mentioned is one thing. And believable. But the idea of Jesus specifically being married to Mary Magdalene is a different situation. If that's so, then you have the case of all 4 gospels mentioning Jesus' wife, but not bothering to mention that she's his wife. I personally find that idea a little odd. On the other hand, I have somewhere read a plausible sounding explanation for that.

As for the idea of the sacred feminine, I think that would be interesting to read more about, but it's not a major interest of mine.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter.