Logo
登入
<<<

名稱: 密碼:

加入 | FAQ | 聯絡我們
全部區域 > 信仰生活 > 文化藝術 > The Da Vinci Code

頁:  1 | 2 回 應
作者 內容

SK2


Posted -
2004/9/13 下午 11:48:33

估唔到又幾好睇喎!不知又無其他人睇過呢?

Jedi


Posted -
2004/9/14 下午 12:01:01

I wonder how true it is on the part of Opus Dei where its members practice mortification and discipline of the body! Do lay people still do this to themselves these days???

sk2


Posted -
2004/9/14 下午 09:58:33

書中提及的Opus Dei,應該是天主教組織,作者指它和教延的關係,又好似唔係太好?何解呢?

書中又提到它為上一任教宗所器重,但現任教宗又想和它劃清界線,不知是否有根據?

edward


Posted -
2004/9/14 下午 10:51:37

Da Vinci Code 這本書,小弟沒有看過。但風聞美國教會那邊對它的印象不太好。

閣下可參考以下網頁:

Critical Reviews of the Da Vinci Code

就小弟所知,現任教宗把主業會(Opus Dei)的創辨人Josemaria Escriva列入了聖品。

Cecil


Posted -
2004/10/11 下午 04:10:22

不能说OPUS DEI(主N)跟教廷关系欠佳。这是非常带误导成分的描写,但因为是创作故事,大家就不要为这说法宣布下去就是了。主N的创立人圣施X去年才宣圣,这N在香港教区也非常活遄A千万别误N好了。

Cecil


Posted -
2004/10/11 下午 04:14:00

其中關於西班牙在二次大戰時跟從佛朗哥將軍和意大利德意志等國聯盟,這是歷史來了,聖施禮華是西班牙人。

Augustine


Posted -
2004/10/11 下午 06:44:02

I'm really curious what is the problem for supporting General Franco? Isn't he the protection of the Church against the assaults of the leftist revolution in the 1920s?

If a book gains its fame by blasphemy, where is the artistic value of it? Could there ever be a piece of impious art? (If art really means something reflecting goodness, while God (who is the ontological Good) is the source of all created goodness?)

Jedi


Posted -
2004/10/11 下午 08:20:29

有人說Opus Dei是代表著教會中的極右組織,連一些教會人仕也對它有所顧慮,再被此書渲染,被誤會也在所難免啊!

edward


Posted -
2004/10/11 下午 08:30:39

奧兄的世界觀也不應這麼「絕對」吧?異教藝術在此世界上多的是。各位有沒有去過柬埔寨的吳哥窟或中國的敦煌呢?

羅馬萬神殿的建築,難道在異教時代是不值一題的醜惡之作,而在教會接收後就忽然成了藝術?

各位請留意:風琴最初是使用在鬥獸場的。

Augustine


Posted -
2004/10/12 下午 12:57:04

(1) The assertions concerning Our Lord in the Da Vinci Code truly amounts to blasphemy (since the author could not plead ignorance to Christian doctrines about Christ).

No one could excuse an objective sin in the name of artistic purpose, so much so as Emperor Nero could not excuse himself by saying he was doing a piece of spectacular art when he burnt the City of Rome.

(2) If blasphemy is a sin, it is a privation of Goodness. The author of Da Vinci Code, is not obeying the Natural Law. (We would say it is better for him to state the truth about Our Lord in the book). The same could be said of the sins of pagans building images glorifying false gods or Romans using organs at Colloseum. Their acts are generally objective sins.

(3) However we need to distingush the sin itself from the creature employed by the sinner.

Because everything God created is good, he didn't created sin.

When I say the book Da Vinci Code is an impious art, I mean it is being employed for blasemphy. It may have an extraordinary style of writing or very attractive stories, but it is an instrument of evil.

Like the sword that beheaded St. John the Baptist, it could be a real piece of "art" in the Herodic court. While being employed in killing a saint, it could be attributed "an evil sword".

In the same meaning I call the book Da Vinci Code, an "impious piece of art" or simply an "evil book".

(3) If you ask me then why I question the artistic value (style of writing, interesting stories......) of the book?

I would say because we have a different understanding of the meaning of true "art", which should be discussed.

Augustine


Posted -
2004/10/12 下午 12:59:57

To me a true piece of art should conform to its Final End as a creature, i.e. glorifying God, that's the purpose of creation, isn't it? I would say a piece of art sublimates because it is used to glorify God and not mere human appetite, so a simple chapel built with great charity would be more "artistic" than a magnificent architecture for pure secular purpose (such as the Statute of Liberty in NY)

Of course it is equally reasonable to say the evilness of the sin belongs to the sinner alone, not to the instrument employed. In this case we must admit "creatures used against God's Laws are still glorifing God even they are instruments of sins".

It is possible that creatures as involuntary instruments, are unlike us, could only always glorify God while we could choose not to (at least when we are alive).

edward


Posted -
2004/10/12 下午 06:07:14

奧兄:

一、文藝復興時期,藝術家創作大衛像或聖母手抱耶穌聖屍像就可以,創作希臘神祗的作品就算是大逆不道呢?

二、你如何使梵二Dignitatis Humanae中所指、其他宗教皆有「真善美聖」的元素、合乎你的看法?

三、可否說:凡信主的女性皆為靚女,而非基督徒的女性均為醜邪之怪物?非基督徒之間,不能有真實的愛情?這些論調,對與教外人交談有何益處?

四、我比較傾向於認為beauty is for the eyes, just as music is for the ears and truth is for the intellectual;把藝術與真理混合是不可取的。

mitrophanes


Posted -
2004/10/12 下午 07:00:09

哈哈,OPUS DEI难道就是老虎屁股摸不得的吗?
如今的主业会在某种程度上是不是罗马天主教的“国中之国,教中之教”?秘密结社是不是基督宗教应该有的精神呢?请想一想当初的灵智派(诺思替派)为何被教父们狠批判,“圣殿骑士团”为什么被教廷禁止,这个骑士团的后人在欧洲演变成了什么组织,他们和上古的埃及宗教有什么联系,为什么在旧约中屡将埃及作为邪恶的象征?
其实,就好像基督宗教有其相续不断的传承:乐园/原祖父母----圣祖------先知------基督------宗徒-------宗徒继承者------今日的教会------基督再来,新天新地
敌基督也有其传承:悖逆之天使-----偶像崇拜和异教------埃及以及世界各地的密教传统------伪宗徒和伪教父(异端者,灵智派等)------圣殿骑士团-------共济会------犹太复国主义-------普世主义-----圣殿重建,敌基督来临,统治世界的最后邪恶王朝。
在这个传承中,OPUS DEI究竟扮演的是什么角色呢?他们所做的真是“上帝的工作”吗?

edward


Posted -
2004/10/12 下午 07:11:06

聽來大家對opus dei都沒有甚麼好感。

小弟對它的認識是始於閱讀施禮華的講道集。當中我找不出有何與違反信仰之處。

當然,沒有違反信仰,並非代表某人就是一個好人。他一樣可以是PD(personality disorder)。

這個組織其實有何問題呢?

sk2


Posted -
2004/10/12 下午 11:09:10

唉!我貼此文只是想知其他讀者的感受。

不如先講講自己的感受吧!

此書沒有像傳聞中一般出色,(對不起Julia還未看過),Dan Brown只不過是一個出色的story teller,故事也極其量用作像Raiders of the Lost Ark般的荷李活電影,所以Augustine不需用藝術角度去品評它。把它放在「文化藝術」欄不是研究其藝術價值,但卻可以看看俗世文化如何看基督宗教。

sk2


Posted -
2004/10/12 下午 11:43:50

至於Augustine對藝術的看法,自己”友”心照,當然明白千幾年來,藝術家都努力透過藝術表達真、善、美,就是為了光榮天主。反之,就是沒意義,更如Augustine所說,分分鐘是罪!

這看法本來並無不妥,更大可放諸生活上的一切。然而,作為基督徒是入世的,問題就來了:人家的藝術作品或處事的行為,只要是不是以光榮天主為目標,就難免被基督徒摒棄!這般品評他人的「藝術」,甚致他人的「生活」,如何能和世界交談?

至於此書,我認為作為一個對自己信仰有充分理解的基督徒,除了要正視blasphemy的問題,更重要的是要讓自己明白人家(非信徒)為何對基督信仰如此誤解!他們大概只接受能夠考證的事物,仿彿信仰也只能以歷史事實為基礎,以為證明eg.Shroud of Turin的面孔不是基督就能推翻耶穌的存在,又或是Da Vinci畫最後晚餐坐在耶穌旁的是Mary Magdalene就能令教會崩潰!他們好像是totally missed the point!

你們有多少人的信仰是以耶穌基督存在的史實為基礎呢?

Augustine


Posted -
2004/10/13 下午 06:44:51

How to convince the world of the Faith has always been the issue.

Misunderstandings by non-CHristians is always there, but sometimes malicious enemies of the Church took advantage of them, as Mitrophanes said. Such as the freemasons used this to overthrow the King, in the final attempt to overthrown the Church.

If popularity of a book is gained by provoking controversies (not just vs the Church, often there are books/memoirs vs certain political figures) solely for creating popular interest at the expense of other's honor. I think this is unacceptable let alone it is blasphemy against God.

------------------------------------------------------

Hello Mitrophanes:

I have heard about the relation "Templars-------Freemasons------Zionism-------Temple rebulid-----One World Religion and Government/ Anti-Christ"

I believe this is plausible. But how could we prove their relationship? Are there any indications from history, politics.....?

You know, this kind of "politically-incorrect" speculation would be easily dismissed as crazy/unfounded.

Augustine


Posted -
2004/10/13 下午 06:49:29

But I don't think Opus Dei really has any problem against the Faith. I am well impressed by the piety of a priest of the order to whom I go confess regularly.

Augustine


Posted -
2004/10/14 下午 05:11:14

Dr. Cheung:

(1) We need to distinguish between the act of just making a sculpture and the intention of making it for idolatry. I don't think Renaissance artists were making sculptures as idols to be adored, nor would they used them as instruments to glorify Greek false gods, they just create them for fun (whether they knew this could be dangerous or not).

Again it is hard to judge the conscience of each, since we have no clear idea about their intention or knowledge when they made them. Sometimes they don't know these images could be interpretated as glorification of Man above God(the theme of secular Humanism).

A scuplture could be "less beautiful/more ugly" (had it been used to glorify God it would be better), but the author didn't sin creating it.

When I said "I would say a piece of art sublimates because it is used to glorify God and not mere human appetite", I didn't mean any single author of art not for the purpose of glorifying God (with charity) is committing a sin.

What I meant was that the piece of art has less "beauty" than it could be. But the author himself was not sinning if he just create for human appetite, provided the piece is not contrary to the Law of God (e.g. No one could justify blasemphous portraits of our Lord in the public).

Augustine


Posted -
2004/10/14 下午 05:30:45

(3) We didn't create the females, God creates them, and whatever God creates is good (as least it exists and sharing the goodness of God).

So every single female is good (therefore beautiful), while they may seem more "good looking" to our eyes.

They are not pieces of art.

This is different from artists creating pieces of art. Because here we have the artists' free Will:
-He could will to create something to sin against God (like blasphemous art or Romans creating organs to kill or Greeks building a temple to worship false gods)

-He could will to create something merely for fun or to please the eyes, without sinning of course, like the Reneissance artists making pagan mythic characters.

-He could will to create something for the glory of God, inflamed with supernatural charity. In this sense I call these things "more beautiful".

edward


Posted -
2004/10/14 下午 07:34:43

就拿一個具體的例子來說。

設想主耶穌與Mary Magdalene有婚姻關係,是否就形成「褻瀆」呢?宣稱「主耶穌曾結過婚」這個觀念,是否就「違反」了信仰呢?教會何時譴責過這個命題呢?

為何我可以設想穿著西洋服飾的主耶穌和隆冬白雪的馬槽,而不可就其他的「accidental properties」,如人際關係,有另類的設想呢?

況且對沒有信德的一般人來說,基督只是一個在各方面與我們一樣的人。若人家真信祂是神的話,他們不早就成了基督徒了嗎?

既然人家並非明知亦非故意,他們的設想可說構成罪過嗎?他們在如斯意識形態下所創作的藝術品,極其量是否也只顯示了他們的無知吧?就有如兒童畫圖般,他們未必能對繪畫的對象有深刻的了解,卻不能排除真正藝術的可能。天主對待我們,不也像慈父般對待祂的子女嗎?

edward


Posted -
2004/10/14 下午 07:51:15

一些看似褻瀆的、煽動性的、引致他人對「信德真理」產生誤會的讀物或藝術著作,按其性質而言,可否亦看成是「小孩傑作」?

在著者當時人的角度看,固然應看其動機和對事情的認識程度,來評斷是否明知故犯。「小孩」所需要的,是教育和啟發。

若就觀眾或觀賞者而言,則多可歸類為「政治問題」。不同質素的人,會對不同的著作有各自的體會。

edward


Posted -
2004/10/14 下午 08:01:08

美的觀念,預設有視覺和感官的存在。

小弟以為:「內在美」的概念是類比和間接的,在現世生活中這是「委婉語」。對一位(「真正」)長得醜的女子說「妳真美」是一種侮辱。

「天主真美」與「蒼天有眼」的意義是類比或擬人的。這是形上學而不是藝術。

奧兄所言:
So every single female is good (therefore beautiful), while they may seem more "good looking" to our eyes.

悅目的女郎,是因為她們「好」,然後才「美」的嗎?小弟認為「美」與「善」,在這情況是不相關的,亦不含有實質上或認知上的因果關係。

天主創造的人,不可以「打扮」得更為美麗嗎?

edward


Posted -
2004/10/28 上午 07:38:31

為著這個討論,小弟最近亦買了本《Da Vinci Code》睇睇,都幾得意。

誠然當中有涉及信仰及個別天主教團體的部分。當中何者為事實、何者純屬虛構,要待看完全書才能恰當地加以評論。

不過,小弟倒想起以前的一套伊利沙白,當中亦有講及教廷和耶穌會計劃推翻新教女王的陰謀。

edward


Posted -
2004/12/28 下午 11:30:26

這本書現時讀了一半,越讀越好笑。

書中第五十九章所提到的新約偽經。大家也許可以幫手找找有沒有作者所指的引文。

The Gospel of Philip - The Nag Hammadi Library

The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene

頁:  1 | 2 回 應