EVIL AUTHORS: Da Vinci Code Is Plagiarism

There seems to be no honor among thieves, or evil people, at least.

Evil authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, who wrote Holy Blood, Holy Grail (a hack-journalism “investigation” purporing to show that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and gave rise to a prominent European royal bloodline that is at the center of a gigantic, centuries-long conspiracy) have now filed suit against evil author Dan Brown, claiming he committed plagiarism by ripping off their “non-fiction” work for his novel.

Quote:

Leigh told the Telegraph after issuing the writ: “It’s not that Dan Brown has lifted certain ideas because a number of people have done that before. It’s rather that he’s lifted the whole architecture – the whole jigsaw puzzle – and hung it on to the peg of a fictional thriller.”

More:

The authors argue that Brown lifted their all-important list of the Grand Masters, who supposedly guarded the secret documents pertaining to Christ’s bloodline, without acknowledgement.

The only mention of their book is when the villain of The Da Vinci Code, an eccentric English historian called Sir Leigh Teabing, lifts a copy off his bookshelf and says: “To my taste, the authors made some dubious leaps of faith in their analysis, but their fundamental premise is sound.”

The name Leigh Teabing is an anagram of Leigh and Baigent, the authors point out, while his physical description – he walks with the aid of crutches – is allegedly based on the third author, Henry Lincoln, who walks with a limp.

Lincoln has decided not to be part of the copyright action because of ill health, but is said to support it.

GET THE STORY.

Peggy's Cove

Here are a couple of environment shots from the recent Catholic Answers cruise. The place is Peggy’s Cove, Nova Scotia. It’s a scenic spot where there’s this . . . well . . . cove, y’see . . . and it’s got a lighthouse with a tiny post office inside it and a (bunch of) gift shop(s) and a restaurant and all of these weird-lookin’ rocks.

Peggyscove1

Here’s a closeup of the rocks. They reminded me of elephant skin, the way they were big, grey, lumpy, smooth, and cracked.

Peggyscove2

Thanks to Maureen North of Catholic Answers, who took these pictures!

Peggy’s Cove

Here are a couple of environment shots from the recent Catholic Answers cruise. The place is Peggy’s Cove, Nova Scotia. It’s a scenic spot where there’s this . . . well . . . cove, y’see . . . and it’s got a lighthouse with a tiny post office inside it and a (bunch of) gift shop(s) and a restaurant and all of these weird-lookin’ rocks.

Peggyscove1

Here’s a closeup of the rocks. They reminded me of elephant skin, the way they were big, grey, lumpy, smooth, and cracked.

Peggyscove2

Thanks to Maureen North of Catholic Answers, who took these pictures!

Tux Night

Okay, a little photoblogging today.

First, here’s a picture of me in a tux–for anyone who might be curious what that would look like. (I may have a full-length tux picture later.)

This one was taken at one of the formal nights on the recent Catholic Answers cruise. A couple of times per cruise they force everybody to get dressed to the nines, and this year (for once) I had a tux that actually fit!

Sitting next to me in this picture is Rose Sweet, a Catholic speaker and author who was one of the folks seated at my table that night. Check out her site.

Tuxphoto_1

What A Shame

NOTE TO FELLOW BLOGGERS: Feel free to link this one. It’s a point Catholics should be aware of.

A little liveblogging . . .

I’m watching the third presidential debate right now, and CBS moderator Bob Schieffer just raised the question of abortion. In answering the question, Sen. Kerry quoted the following from James 2:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? . . . faith without deeds is dead (Jas. 2:14, 20).

This was a dumb thing for several reaons. First, this passage was totally irrelevant to the question he was answering. Second, this is a flashpoint passage for Protestants, and quoted by a Catholic, it was guaranteed to send shivers up the spines of numerous Protestants in the audience (though many who would have the most strongly negative were not voting for Kerry already). Third, and most importantly, KERRY WAS OBLIVIOUS TO THE BITTER, HOWLING IRONY OF THIS PASSAGE AS APPLIED TO HIS OWN POSITION.

Kerry has professed–as a matter of his personal faith–a belief in the humanity of the unborn and his personal opposition to abortion, yet he has REFUSED TO UNDERTAKE ANY DEEDS TO PROTECT THE UNBORN.

Senator, faith without works IS dead. Your faith on this point INCLUDED.

It is not enough to say to the unborn “Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body” (Jas. 2:16).

One of the things that is “needful to the body” for the unborn is the legal protection NOT TO HAVE THEIR BODIES RIPPED APART BY AN ABORTIONIST.

Senator, YOUR faith, without YOUR deeds on this point, is DEAD.

What a shame, then, that it is left to a Texas Methodist (Sen. Kerry’s opponent in the debate) to repeatedly quote John Paul II’s phrase in saying that he supports “a culture of life.”

Forgiveness Revisited

A reader writes:

I ABSOLUTELY love your teaching content/style, Brother! I do have two questions of you, though: 1, a follow-up from your comment on “forgiveness” and 2, a question on suffering (in general, on how to treat & react to it):

1) FORGIVENESS – It sounded so liberating to hear you say “Why do it (ie. forgive someone) in a greater way than God does? In other words, if someone “asks” God for forgiveness, He does. If someone doesn’t ask, God doesn’t. Coming from a Protestant background, that statement seemed so liberating and just knocked my socks off. I’ve had folks that bruised me (emotionally) pretty badly and I severely struggled, trying to make myself “Believe” that I’d actually forgiven them (without them ever asking), but never quite “feeling” that I’d forgiven them (and feeling guilty about NOT quite forgiving them!). DO I HEAR you saying that I can keep them in a separate “you really hurt me” category and keep a feeling of wariness when around them? (I suppose that I might just have to keep that wariness from appearing grudgeful, though). Bottom-line, Jimmy; I need to know what is correct and what is desired (with my thinking about them and my treatment of them). I KNOW that I need to be ready to forgive them if they ask……and I would suppose that I need to keep from “holding a grudge). ??

2) SUFFERING – is allowed by God and can actually, if I “offer it so”, somehow actually have “positive effects” on folks coming to Salvation??

Finally, I’d love to be able to order your sessions from Catholic Answers Live. Listening to you on AM 990 (just north of Detroit) is a blessing……truly!!

THANKS, my friend and Brother-in-Christ!

Thank you very much for the support and the kind words. Regarding your questions:

1) It is entirely reasonable to be wary of those who have gravely hurt one in the past. The fact that they have done it before counts as evidence that they might one day do it again, though if they recognize and own up to what they did then this constitutes evidence that they are less likely to do it again than if they have not repented.

You are not in direct control of your feelings, and so you do not need to worry that you have feelings of anger or frustration regarding these people. You do, however, need to be prudent in not allowing these feelings to hurt you and your relations to others. This means willing yourself to try looking on the bright side, not taking things in a sharply personal way, and not obsessing about the feelings. In other words, you should make choices that will help you “chill out” and not focus on the negative feelings that arise when you think about these things.

You need to be willing to forgive, as you say, if they ask forgiveness. You also need to will their good. This means willing that they repent (at least before God, if not before you), find his forgiveness, and end up in heaven.

As long as you do these things, you are not holding a grudge against them, even if you do continue to feel wary and at times pained and angered by the memory of what they did.

For more info, read this article.

2) Suffering is allowed by God and we can ask him to bless others if we handle it in a way that pleases him. This is what Jesus did, and we follow his example when we ask God to bless others if we handle our sufferings in a God-pleasing manner.

We are to pray for others, including their salvation (which means praying that they will be given the graces enabling them to come to faith), and we may add extra “oomph” to these prayers–if I may put it that way–by asking God to bless them if we have pleased him, including how we have handled the sufferings that come to us.

Finally, though you can’t order my appearances on Catholic Answers Live (except for a “best of” CD of the kids’ show), you can download them for free from catholic.com.

Hope this helps, and God bless!

The Facade

FacadeThis summer when I was doing my 4000 mile road trip through the South and Southwest, I visited Roswell, New Mexico–y’know, the site of the famous “UFO crash.”

While there gawking at all the alien stuff on Main Street, I looked up and saw a building with a sign saying “Alien Resistance HQ.” It turned out to be a kind of Christian coffeeshop (“Defending the Planet, One Tasty Beverage at a Time”) using the “alien resistance” schtick to draw in New Agers visiting Roswell.

I had a talk with the gentleman who owns it. He’s very nice. From Detroit. An ordained Protestant minister. He founded a Christian motorcycle club. And now he spends his days evangelizing New Agers at Alien Resistance HQ. He also believes that the earth is hollow and that that’s where UFOs come from.

While at Alien Resistance HQ, I looked over the books and DVDs he had for sale. One was the book on the left. At the time, I didn’t buy it, but I did buy a DVD of a lecture by the book’s author, Michael Heiser (not the same as the guy who runs the coffee shop).

In the lecture Heiser–who is a scholar of ancient near eastern languages–critiques Zechariah Sitchin–who is a fake scholar of ancient near eastern languages.

In case you aren’t aware, Sitchen has published a number of books that are all the rage in the UFO community. In these books, he claims to have deciphered ancient texts that show that there is a planet in the outer solar system that swings into the inner solar system in a multi-thousand-year orbit. This planet is, according to the ancient texts, the home of an advanced race that gave rise to humanity and that is the basis of various world religions. He also claims they’re mentioned in the Bible.

This is, of course, pure bunkum.

Sitchen’s claims are absurd. They are not based on textual scholarship, because Sitchen has no scholarship. He is a fraud, pure and simple.

I’ve thought about critiquing Sitchen at some point, but haven’t had the occasion yet, so I was interested to see Heiser’s lecture. Got the DVD. Watched it. And it was good! I was quite pleased. Heiser takes Sitchen to task in a very gentlemanly but very devastating manner.

The lecture was so good that I decided I wanted to read Heiser’s work, including his novel, so I ordered it and read it while I was on the way to this year’s Catholic Answers Cruise. I’d like to recommend it to those who would be interested. Here’s the scoop . . .

The Facade is a novel in which Heiser explores the modern UFO phenomenon and ideas he has been pondering about aliens and how they might be related to the Bible. At the center of the novel is a character who is basically a knock-off of the author: a (then) still-in-school scholar of ancient near eastern languages who happens to have a strong interest in UFOs and something called “the divine council” (more on that in a minute).

A lot of this character’s biography seems to overlap (or at least reasonate) with Heiser’s at the start of the novel, but then the character’s biography takes a sharp turn. He is abducted by government agents who take him to a secret base where various experts have been gathered to try to help figure out how to break the news to the public of a crisis that proves the existence of extraterrestrial life. But, the reader quickly finds out, the agents running the discussion group are lying to the experts about the situation. The questions are: What is really happening here, and what–if anything–can be done about the true crisis?

The novel starts slowly. At first the experts do what experts typically do: Sit around in conference rooms and argue with each other. These discussions perform the function of getting the reader up to speed on the concepts that the novel will involve (which many readers will find fascinating), but the first part of the novel could really use some action. There’s too much “tell” and not enough “show.”

This changes, and the plot kicks into high gear. By the end of the book dramatic reversal is piling on top of dramatic reversal in a way that keeps the reader guessing until not just the book’s final pages but–for many readers–its final sentence.

I have to commend the author on several points for which he deserves a lot of credit:

1) He has written a book that attempts to seriously grapple with the question of extraterrestrial life from a conservative Christian perspective. There are hardly any books out there that do this, particularly in the direct way that this one does. It forces the reader to think through several different scenarios about what it would mean for Christians if extraterrestrial life was discovered in our day.

2) Though the main character (representing conservative Evangelicalism) does get the best and most crucial insights, the author makes a real effort to spread the credit around to characters with different viewpoints. It isn’t as if everyone else is a bumbler who has to be corrected by the Evangelical. Characters from other perspectives–including unsympathetic characters–get to contribute important insights. The author could have gone even farther in this direction–for example by having the Evangelical only know about the Bible and ancient languages and have the UFO insights all contributed by others–but Heiser deserves credit for not having the novel simply involve a set of lectures by a know-it-all representative of his position.

3) In fact, the main character has significant flaws. He’s not in constant mortal sin or anything like that, but the effects of the Fall are clear in him. He isn’t a macho, athletic, self-confident, Doc Savage kind of scholar-hero. He’s more of an ordinary, nerdy, sincere Christian guy thrust into extraordinary circumstances.

4) The author also gives sympathetic treatment to Catholic characters. The chief ally of the Evangelical expert is a Catholic expert who happens to be a Jesuit. This character is portrayed quite sympathetically and he gets to contribute important insights (including a major one that escaped the Evangelical hero, even though it was in his own field). The author doesn’t get all of the Catholic stuff in the novel a hundred percent right (in fact, a couple of things are silly), but he’s making a serious and respectful attempt to incorporate Catholic Christians into the novel. (Also, though John Paul II doesn’t appear and is dead by the time the novel begins, he is spoken of in glowing terms.)

5) There is a conversion of sorts that occurs during the course of the novel, and it is handled far, far better than conversions typically are in novels (of this or any sort). There is no “praying the sinner’s prayer” moment, and the author shows an awareness that serious conversions usually take time and are not complete all at once. In fact, this conversion isn’t quite complete by the end of the novel, but the character in question is far down the road to redemption.

6) The author is willing to deal with subjects that would be utterly taboo in many Evangelical novels. This means, in part, that some of the subjects discussed in the novel make it not suitable for children, though that material is slight. (Also, in case you’re wondering, nobody “does it” in this novel; it wasn’t written by Andrew Greeley, after all.) It also means that he does some really cool dramatic moves. Some of these pertain to the climax of the novel, and I was delighted to see them. The last sentence, in particular, does something few Evangelical authors would have the guts to do. (It also sets up a potential sequel.)

7) The author also explores modern UFO mythology from a sympathetic but skeptical perspective. He offers conjectures about the Roswell crash, for example, that you don’t hear very often.

One of the centerpieces of the novel is the idea of “the divine council.” Before the novel began the author’s character got himself into trouble by discussing this concept in an injudicious manner among Evangelicals, and I suspect that the author has done the same thing in real life. There are a few techniques the author could use to neutralize potential criticism on this point, but he’s onto something real here.

The basic idea is that in the ancient near eastern cultures–including Israelite culture–heaven was envisioned as a divine royal court with God (or the chief god) as the king. In addition to the king, the court also contained princes, counselors, military figures, and even a prosecutor (i.e., Satan). At the bottom of the heavenly court or “divine council” were the messengers, who we know as angels (since that’s what the word angelos originally *meant* in Greek: “messenger”; the same was true of the equivalent Hebrew and Aramaic terms). Over the course of time much of this imagery faded from popular consciousness and everybody in the divine council tended to be referred to as just angels, but the traces of the original divine council metaphor are still there in the Old Testament. (This is something I wrote about a number of years ago, though I could do a better job of it now.)

The author uses the novel to introduce the concept of the divine council to his readers, and although some things in the resulting angelology he offers are quite questionable (e.g., the degree to which members of the divine council might be able to assume biological form), it is still nice to get an obscure concept being introduced to a wider audience. Up till now, it’s tended to be just scholars who have been aware of it.

All told, The Facade is a fascinating exploration of how the idea of extraterrestrial life might square with the Christian faith, and I would recommend it to anyone who would like to see this question wrestled with in fictional form.

GET THE BOOK

P.S. *DO NOT* spoil the last sentence for yourself!

Thanks, Steve!

Howdy, folks!

I’m back from the Catholic Answers Cruise now. As expected, it was both a lot of fun and a lot of work.

Now that I’m back physically, I’ll also be back to regular blogging strength starting tomorrow morning.

In the interim, I just wanted to thank Steven Greydanus for gracing these “pages” with his insights and say that, as always, he’s more than welcome to contribute whenever he’d like.

Three cheers for Steve!

Looking Like A Winner?

Okay, you know those rubber novelty masks of famous people like Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and Tor Johnson that people (I’m never sure who) buy and wear?

Well, it appears that sales of these things are a good predictor of who will win presidential elections in this country.

Apparently, sales of presidential masks have picked the winner of the last six presidential elections (as far back as it’s been researched, apparently):

Masksales

BuyCostumes.Com has the story, as well as info on current mask sales this election cycle.