Seperation of church and library....

So, last week I read the DaVinci code and I loved it. It helps that I am a pagan and not, like, a member of the Opus Dei. It spoke of a lot of myths and theories I have hear since I was a child. For anyone who hasn't read this book I am including spoilers.

In my search for the path that fit me best I studied all faiths, upon studyind the ancient roots of christianity I found several books that theorized that the Holy Grail was in actuality the womb of Mary Magdelene. I have seen proof that the church will indeed kill to make a point, including "You will believe what we tell you and ignore anything that disagrees with it." I have seen many art books make the relatively minor mistake of calling the last supper a "fresco". All in all this FICTION book is based in some part on historical fact.
I realize thatsome of these facts the church is, understandably, upset about. For some strange reason it is incredibly important that Christ, while living as a man on earth, did not live as a man. He came to earth to live the life of a man, yet they will not accept that during this experiment he did the most miraculous things that a man can do. Creating the miracles of love and new life.
What has got me ranting about this is not their opinions on these subjects. People are entitled to believe whatever suits them best.

What has me upset is the fact that last night I watched a documentary on the History Channel called "Breaking the DaVinci Code." I naturally assumed that this would explore both sides of the debate in an unbiased and fact based way considering this was the History Channel. I was wrong. The three so-called "experts" thatthey presented were all right-wing Christian "historians" who has written books such as the "DaVinci Hoax". The entire documentary was to explore all the many and varied ways that Dan Brown was "wrong" They seriously came 1 step short of calling him a witch and calling for their poeple to stone him to death. Granted he took literary license with some of the historical facts in the book. What writer doesnt? The only things that he has actually claimed to be fact is that there are orginazations called the Opus Dei, the Priory of Sion, and that his architechtural and artistic informations is accurate. Never did he claim that his history is true. His book is in the fiction section for a reason people!

There is historical information that suggests that Christ and Mary Magdelene were married, altough most would never admit it. There was a council of Niccea and a council of Ephesus (which is not mentioned in the book) that decided not only the extent of the Divinity of Christ, but also his birthdate, the fact that he was a miracle birth, that Mary was a virgin, the dates of his crucifixion, amongst other things. The truth is Christ was probably born in or around August. Try telling that to a devout Christian.

They also in this "documentary" state that there is no pagan or femenine sexuality symbolized in any of the ancient Cathedrals of Europe. This is complete horseshit. Plain and simple. They don't want to see it, but it is there and widely recognized. Archways and chalices have symbolized woman and the sexual organs of such since several hundred years pre-christ. The green man is widely represented on a great many cathedrals including Notre-Dame in Paris.

Why, you might ask? Because the people who built these Cathedrals were the lowest bidder, and most of the laborers of the age stuck to the old ways much longer than the upper classes. They also knew that they would be made to follow these faith in time. The cathedrals were often built directly upon the sacred sites and circles that these people had worshipped on for ages. For that very reason. Because people follow their habits. They had always worshipped there so it was easier to get them to go there.

Again, I am not saying that they do not have the right to believe what they believe, however it is completely outrageous that on the History Channel where fact is supposed to be law they hare having a biased, skewed "documentary" wherein the last line is "Should we trust a fiction author for the truth? No but the truth is out there, probably on your own bookshelf." While showing a picture of the bible. There was an age when people understood that the bible was allegory. A series of stories to show the power of faith and make people realize the value of morals and ethics. Anybody who actually believes that Christ healed the dead or walked on water, or that Noah gathered 6 pairs of every clean animal and 2 pair of every unclean animal (and yes those are the actual numbers quoted in the bible) and fit them all onto a boat that was only 40 armlengths long (a cubit is the length from elbow to the front of your closed fist) is an Idiot. Likewise anyone who believe that Apollo actually carried the sun across the sky in a chariot, or that Zeus actually throws lightning from the sky, or that Buddha actually sat beneath a tree for 20 years without moving, or any of the stories from every faith that are simply symbolic are fact. And anyone who thinks that their faith will be hurt by a fiction writer putting forth information theorized for hundreds of years before he was born, obviously does not have enough faith.