the da vinci code/HBHG etc etc etc

[lunamoth]

LOL. I never thought about the XX thing. I imagine that God could create whatever chromosome 'he' wanted to in order to incarnate. I appreciate the EO view that God choose to incarnate as male because of the prevailing gender attitudes at the time.

Haha, I quite agree with you about the chromosome thing. I was just having fun. But now that you bring it up again, maybe Mary was an XXY female...hmmm.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Guy Murchie is a rather prominent Baha`i scholar - or was until his passing away. This particular book is a wonder, indeed. I like the way he turns each chapter into a blank verse and includes the whole book in that form as an appendix.

Regards,
Scott

I didn't know he was bahai. I loved the book!

Chris

 

[Devadatta]

IAnyway, I think one good thing to come from all this tizzy around the Da Vinci Code is to get Christians interested in the feminine divine again. It has too long been a paternal church and if bible historians, religious scholars and popular culture can combine to remind us that there is no male or female in His eyes, and thus no dominance of male over female is justified, it may bring a welcome change.

Speaking of picking up on ideas, it’s strange to me that hardly anyone else has picked up on this one. I saw the movie last night and it confirms my previous impression that what this movie is really about is the suppression of the feminine in the Christian tradition. The idea that Jesus may have had a girlfriend/wife is in that sense just a vehicle for this larger theme. Maybe it’s too obvious, considering the name of the protagonist’s book? Certainly it’s nothing new. Feminist writers on comparative mythology & religion have been making these points for decades. I think that if this movie does ultimately have any measurable impact beyond entertainment value it will be in further motivating women inside and outside the church to change the status quo. As far the marital status of Jesus goes, I don’t think it has any legs. Like most aspects of his life, it simply can’t be verified one way or another.

But here I’d like to add a pet peeve. It’s these Christian/Catholic apologists coming on with their hurumphs! hurumphs! condemning the book for its poor scholarship. Here the implied if not openly stated contrast is between a pop novel and the centuries old intellectual heritage of the church. Clearly this is peddling deception. The true comparison is between the plausibility of what Brown says about Jesus and some of the equally untestable doctrines the church represents. The evidence runs rather thin on either side. But this is a very old game: intellectual rigour put not to the service of truth but to the diversion of intellectuals and to the bafflement of the rest.

Sincerely,
Devadatta