Dan Brown, Sex and Religion, Part 4 (of 4)
This post concludes a four day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about the relationship between sex and religion and specifically Christianity. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.
Conclusion
I have shown each of Dan Brown's assertions about sex and religion to be wrong. Early Christians did not use ritualistic sex to attain gnosis and to commune with God. Ancient religions did not believe that a woman became a goddess when she became pregnant and early Christian leaders did not demonize sex in order to control access to God. When we check the facts we find out that he seems to either make up things or parrott what he has heard from other uninformed people. In my humble opinion if he is going to write historical fiction he should at least make the historical setting accurate.
I really wonder about where Dan Brown is coming from. What is it that he wants? Does he really want to resurrect religious prostitution? That would be degrading to women and spread STDs. Does he want to justify having his own form of "sacred sex" with a consenting adult partner that sees it the same way he does? He and everyone else can do whatever they want to do in their private lives between consenting adults. But why distort history to justify it? Does he want to to be free from some kind of anti-sex conscience he got as a child from some church? Maybe he has done things for which he is, and ought to be, ashamed. He should come to God for forgiveness and a new life instead of dragging the unsuspecting public down with him.
He wrote,
Someone needs to inform Dan Brown that the sexual revolution did not work. The results have been disastrous for countless people, especially for the millions of unborn children that have been sacrificed on the altar of sexual freedom and the millions of people who have died from AIDS.
What do you think?
Conclusion
I have shown each of Dan Brown's assertions about sex and religion to be wrong. Early Christians did not use ritualistic sex to attain gnosis and to commune with God. Ancient religions did not believe that a woman became a goddess when she became pregnant and early Christian leaders did not demonize sex in order to control access to God. When we check the facts we find out that he seems to either make up things or parrott what he has heard from other uninformed people. In my humble opinion if he is going to write historical fiction he should at least make the historical setting accurate.
I really wonder about where Dan Brown is coming from. What is it that he wants? Does he really want to resurrect religious prostitution? That would be degrading to women and spread STDs. Does he want to justify having his own form of "sacred sex" with a consenting adult partner that sees it the same way he does? He and everyone else can do whatever they want to do in their private lives between consenting adults. But why distort history to justify it? Does he want to to be free from some kind of anti-sex conscience he got as a child from some church? Maybe he has done things for which he is, and ought to be, ashamed. He should come to God for forgiveness and a new life instead of dragging the unsuspecting public down with him.
He wrote,
Is it surprising we feel conflicted about sex? Our ancient heritage and our very physiologies tell us sex is natural—a cherished route to spiritual fulfillment—and yet modern religion decries it as shameful, teaching us to fear our sexual desire as the hand of the devil."
Someone needs to inform Dan Brown that the sexual revolution did not work. The results have been disastrous for countless people, especially for the millions of unborn children that have been sacrificed on the altar of sexual freedom and the millions of people who have died from AIDS.
What do you think?
posted by Gary Burger at 10:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home