Contact
Subscribe

Angels and Demons

April 30, 2005
chemtrooper
Uncategorized

“Angels and Demons” was written by Dan Brown, author of “The Da Vinci Code”. Although I have yet to read Da Vinci Code, I was highly impressed with Angels and Demons.

The story begins with the main character, Robert Langdon, a professor at Harvard University and credible symbologist, is awakened by a phone call. The phone call leads Robert to a murdered physicist at CERN (a real research facility, I looked it up.) who has a strange “symbol” branded on his chest. What really grabbed my attention is Brown’s scientific aptitude that he included in the book. “Anti-matter” is described in great detail and logically probable. He didn’t “go off the deep-end” of science fiction (which I also read) and tied a lot of modern ideas into it. Also, many of the ideas in this book are not fiction: The Illuminati did exist at one time, Galileo, Newton and Copernicus were Illuminatus, much of the artwork described is real, conclave is conducted in the real world like it’s described in the book. (We’ve seen some of it on the news about the election of Pope Benedict XVI). The author also leaves room for speculation on the readers part.

I would not recommend this book to anyone under the age of 16 because it is highly probable that this age group would be confused with the plot and be forced to use a dictionary on every page. Brown’s use of language is intellectual, but not to the point of reading like a drug facts information sheet. I really liked this book because it doesn’t follow a typical plot line. For those of you who like a puzzler novel with lots of twists and turns, read this book!

67 Comments

67 Responses

  1. TEQUILACAT  •  May 1, 2005 @6:04 pm

    Sounds intriguing CT. I will look for it.(meaning, order it from the library!) I’m pretty sure the Illuminati still exist.

    Did you see “Final Cut?” I think I will write a review of it soon. Saw it today and recommend it.

    [edited Wednesday, 05.04.2005 at 9:05:22 PM]

  2. kelli  •  May 1, 2005 @8:04 pm

    i read both this one and davinci code–i enjoyed angels and demons much more than davinci. Both my husband and i enjoyed it, we always recommend it to people!

  3. LordHoopla  •  May 1, 2005 @10:09 pm

    I was 12 when I read the book, and I don’t think I had to look up anything. I enjoyed it immensely; I especially enjoyed the twist at the end, although Brown has used similar twists in his other books (which I have also read and recommend).

  4. crazyguy  •  May 1, 2005 @11:52 pm

    I was 13 when I read it. I thought it was truly an awesome book. It is my favorite of all the Dan Brown books. (having finished Digital Fortress just today.) Da Vinci Code would probably be second, followed by Deception Point, and then Digital Fortress. (That list was the of all the Dan Brown books in order from best to not the best.) Even though I ranked Digital Fortress last in the list, it doesn’t mean I don’t like it. I thought it was a great book. The only problem is that there is a huge demographic of people that wouldn’t even bother to finish both books. That demographic is the the devout christians. (Which there are a lot of.) The views that are expressed in those books (especially in Da Vinci Code) are very controversial and could be offensive to some people. And also they have some swearing. Especcially Digital Fortress.

    In fact Angels and Demons and Da Vinci code are so good, that when I went to the Russian store it was there, And not in english. They translated the book. My dad also heard about Da Vinci code on the Russian news.

    [edited Monday, 05.02.2005 at 5:01:54 PM]

  5. LordHoopla  •  May 2, 2005 @4:46 pm

    I don’t have a favorite Dan Brown book.

    Heh. Angles and Demons.

  6. Sarah  •  May 2, 2005 @7:32 pm

    I think angels and demons is a really good book. It is better than the Da Vinci code, which is also really good. And I read them when I was fifteen, but what can I say I’m gifted.

  7. zim  •  May 2, 2005 @7:50 pm

    I would rank the books like so:

    Angels and Demons
    Deception Point
    The Da Vinci Code
    Digital Fortress

    Although several devout christians would be offended at The Da Vinci code, I think that just because their devout christians doesn’t mean they wouldn’t read, or even enjoy it.

  8. LordHoopla  •  May 2, 2005 @7:51 pm

    Just because Dan Brown believes in the the theories discussed in DVC doesn’t mean the book is claiming anything. The book is, after all, a work of fiction.

  9. crazyguy  •  May 3, 2005 @12:21 am

    I understand that. I was just saying that some people could be offended at the mere suggestion of it. It’s just that Dan Brown makes the facts seem so real, that you can’t help but start wondering whether or not it is true.

    My mom used to work in a Baptist church, and she keeps in touch with some of her co-workers, and they all said they were offended by the book. they didn’t bother to finish it.

  10. LordHoopla  •  May 3, 2005 @10:16 pm

    I understand that.

    Never said you didn’t.

  11. LordHoopla  •  May 3, 2005 @10:19 pm

    Why is it that whenever zim, crazyguy, and I start posting in a thread, most people, at least for a while, stop commenting in it?

    No fair pointing out that we’re power-hungry cannibals bent on world domination.

    [edited Tuesday, 05.03.2005 at 10:21:15 PM]

  12. mattpeck  •  May 4, 2005 @10:48 am

    It’s because you’re oreo-hungry cannabis blunts. Word Dom Delouise!

  13. chemtrooper  •  May 4, 2005 @3:36 pm

    The church I attend openly “damed” the book saying that its implications about Christianity are “grotesque and ungodly”. However, most people (exluding myself and five others who will remain anonymous for safety purposes) at this church condemn the Catholic faith as “outdated and flat out wrong!” I’m one of these Christians who doesn’t believe everything he/she hears; even pertaining to arguments in the Bible.

    After hearing this extremely shallow attempt to “ban” this great work of FICTION, I pose an eternal question: If Adam and Eve are the parents of every human being on terra firma, then how did Cain find a wife so suddenly? Did he marry his sister? Their answer: “Don’t question God, that’s Satan talking!”

    These are the same people who would die for the belief that the Baptist Church has the original Bible.

    I don’t mean to go off on a tangent, just trying to re-establish conversation.

  14. LordHoopla  •  May 4, 2005 @4:34 pm

    That’s a good question; they were discussing it on the History Channel.

    [edited Wednesday, 05.04.2005 at 4:55:54 PM]

  15. Sarah  •  May 4, 2005 @5:04 pm

    Catholicism WHHHOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  16. LordHoopla  •  May 4, 2005 @5:10 pm

    Hu-WHA?

  17. Sarah  •  May 4, 2005 @7:04 pm

    Hu-WHA? What?

  18. bill_the_leprechaun  •  May 4, 2005 @8:09 pm

    I don’t think the question of earth’s second generation is that perplexing; nor does it throw a monkey wrench into the Biblical idea that Adam and Eve are the mother and father of all people. Of course they married their siblings. That’s that. Just because some may find it gross doesn’t mean it’s not possible. Hardly an “eternal” question.

    And it sucks that you went to a church that said “Don’t question God, that’s Satan talking!”. Someone should tell them that books don’t have a soul to be damned. I can’t stand people like that. People like that killed Jesus.

  19. JoshWay  •  May 4, 2005 @8:20 pm

    I thought I killed Jesus.

  20. bill_the_leprechaun  •  May 4, 2005 @8:34 pm

    lol. well, people killing Jesus is the best thing that ever happened to me…..

    in a weird sort of way.

  21. TEQUILACAT  •  May 4, 2005 @9:18 pm

    A lot of self-called Christians are threatened by stuff like this because they don’t know enough about their own faith and their Bibles to even answer their own questions, so it scares them. And then there are the Christians who worry that people will believe the fiction and never give the Biblical account a shot because of it-understandably.

    When even the Network talking heads plainly show The Da Vinci Code is full of inaccuracies and, well, fiction! It would be pretty sad if anyone put any stock in it’s historicalness (I just coined that-feel free to use it).

    I love how the Histoy channel and guys like Peter Jennings always have these pretend in depth reports and never seem to ask any theologians who know anything about the Bible or even believe it!

    In reference to your Baptist Bible comment: my husband always says, “If the King James Bible was good enough for the apostle Paul it’s good enough for me!” :p

  22. chemtrooper  •  May 5, 2005 @11:23 am

    Tequila Cat

    It is a historical fact that King James was a raging homosexual. I just took a History of Christianity class for my own purposes at our local college (it cost me an arm and a leg but well worth it). I am NOT saying that I am suddenly an expert on the subject; has anyone heard of the Apocrypha? Most protestant denominations do not even acknowledge its existence but was included in the Bible, including the original KJV 1611, for 1500 years! (not exact on that) The Apocrypha wasn’t removed from the protestant bible until the 16th century.

    This class really made me appreciate the uniqueness of Christianity, my faith.

  23. bill_the_leprechaun  •  May 5, 2005 @1:37 pm

    lol. King James as a “raging homosexual” is not historical fact! That rumor was started 25 years after his death by a guy named Anthony Weldon, a political enemy of James’. James was often condemned as being a liberal (afterall, he had the crazy notion that everyone should be able to understand the Bible!), which left him open to attacks like that. But those rumors were the kind of “crap” that’s fit for the National Inquirer or Fox News. :p

    Yay education!!

    p.s. – I think it’s interesting that the rumors were started by conservatives trying to damage someone’s reputation (a dead guy no less), but now the rumors are perpetuated by liberals trying to make a case for Christian homosexuality. In either case, they’re wrong. And regardless, I think you should ask for your money back from the college you got that information from.:wink:

  24. Laura  •  May 5, 2005 @2:38 pm

    I wish Protestant churches would address the Apocrypha–either yeah or neigh. And if “neigh” why it was tossed. I always wonder about that. What about this “gospel of Thomas” that was all over the place like a year ago. Anyone know what that was about.

    I guess this is where “faith” comes in–that all the important bits have been left in.

  25. Remly  •  May 5, 2005 @3:24 pm

    Laura, I don’t quite know what you mean by “neigh or yeah”, but I’m sure the Protestant church has gone with a “neigh” on this one.
    This whole “Gospel of Thomas” thing is not included in the canon because of the Gnostic background that it came from. If you read it, most of it is very misleading. It looks and sounds like the Gospels in the Bible, but the ideas are way off. In fact, towards the end of the book, Jesus tells his disciples that he will turn Mary into a man so that she could be with them. Now that’s just crazy!
    Even worse is the “Infant Gospel of Thomas” that talks about Jesus as a child. In one part, he makes pigeons out of clay and brings them to life.
    I think the funniest thing is that Thomas didn’t even write them. They were both written about 100 years after the canon Gospels (Matt., Mark, Luke, John).

    I know I messed up some of this info, so if you have better info than mine, please feel free to correct me. I took a class on this about two years ago. Speaking of which, I’m GRADUATING!!

  26. LordHoopla  •  May 5, 2005 @5:04 pm

    I haven’t read that the whole Bible, but I recall that incest is a sin mentioned in it. Is the (supposed) inter-marrying of Adam and Eve’s children considered a sin?

    [edited Thursday, 05.05.2005 at 5:09:51 PM]

  27. JoshWay  •  May 5, 2005 @5:48 pm

    Sin has a lot more to do with motives and context than it does with rules.

    I don’t have a direct answer to that question, but I will point out that they Mosaic Law had not been delivered at that point in history, and “sin” was a brand new phenomenon. Additionally, there are many places in the OT where outrageous sins on the part of people still manage to advance God’s will (see Abraham, Lot and his family, even Moses himself).

  28. JoshWay  •  May 5, 2005 @6:13 pm

    JoshWay wrote:

    Sin has a lot more to do with motives and context than it does with rules.

    I realize this sounds wishy-washy and “liberal” in the bad sense, but I don’t really mean it that way. I don’t view this notion as a means to justify all kinds of nasty stuff, but rather as a way to identify lots of things, like moods and biases that we don’t think typically think of as sin, as sin.

    Which is to say, with this rule applied, there’s a lot more sin around than there is without it.

  29. LordHoopla  •  May 5, 2005 @7:33 pm

    Sin has a lot more to do with motives and context than it does with rules.

    I agree, but it seems like a lot of people think it’s the other way around. I was just curious to see what everbody thought about it.

  30. TEQUILACAT  •  May 5, 2005 @8:01 pm

    When the first pair were created (you can trust me on this I was there) they were as is written “good”. No entrophy had set in, no death. Genetically there was no problem with marriage of brother and sister. And it was not “sin” (which is doing that which is bad for you- remember God only has your best interests at heart) until human kind became so physically corrupt as to produce defects. Hence the neccesity of a law to prohibit it.

    Yahweh will work around whatever stumbling about we do to bring about his purpose for His creation. We have a promise that “All things work together for those who love God and are called according to His purpose.” But there are consequences for sin, which is why He keeps trying to tell us not to! There are moral laws just like physical. You can’t break the law of gravity without consequences. Same with moral law.

  31. TEQUILACAT  •  May 5, 2005 @10:51 pm

    I meant to add concerning questioning: Jesus said, “Seek and you will find. ASK and it will be given to you.” So if the church you go to doesn’t allow questioning, then they are following the teachings of someone other than Jesus!

  32. bill_the_leprechaun  •  May 6, 2005 @2:19 am

    (sorry, I’m at it again…)
    Josh, I think you’re right when you said what you did about motive and context, and also when you said that that doesn’t make everything ok. The first sin was some people eating some fruit – hardly something we’d consider punishable by death nowadays! But they did it out of pride, thinking they knew better than God, and it brought death on everyone. But it wasn’t the fruit that held the sin; it was their disobedience.

    In Mark 2, Jesus talks about the 4th Commandment saying, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” And I think there’s a similar application for almost all of the quote-unquote “rules” in the Bible. So much of the law is just there for our own good (like that stuff about not doin’ your sister), and that’s all there is to it. I think God originally made us perfect. And he wants us to be made perfect again – the whole story of the Bible is of the fall of mankind and God’s restoration of it. God gave Moses the Law to help “parent” humanity and let us know how to live the most perfect lives possible. But… uh… that wasn’t working too great. So Jesus came and freed us from that, and in doing so also upped the ante.

    I kind of think of it like the Old Testament is when we were children, and God, as a good parent, held us under strict rules. But now, under the new covenant, it’s kind of like when you move out of your parents house, or whatever. There’s not the same direct rules you’re under, but there’s a new responsibility and maturity required. That’s not to say we’re out from under God’s wing, but I hope you know what I mean. It’s not about rules and laws anymore. In fact, it never was. There’s a greater level of spiritual maturity that’s expected of (and given to) us now. Things aren’t so rigid – just like the “real” world isn’t rigid. It’s not a “do” and “don’t” kind of deal (despite what some churches may try and tell you). That may be uncomfortable for some, but that’s maturity for ya!

    God wants us to have the best possible life. Sin is anything that detracts from that life. And the Bible is there to help us know what God’s idea of that life is.

    p.s. – The Gospel of Thomas is gay. Of all of the Apocryphal books, I don’t know how that’s the one that got faddish!! It’s retarded.

    [edited Friday, 05.06.2005 at 2:33:58 AM]

  33. JoshWay  •  May 6, 2005 @6:25 am

    p.s. – The Gospel of Thomas is gay. Of all of the Apocryphal books, I don’t know how that’s the one that got faddish!! It’s retarded.

    And there’s no place in Christendom for gay retards!

    (Watch: of all the tongue-in-cheek quotes on this web site, this is the one that will someday keep me from being appointed ambassador to the U.N.)

  34. bill_the_leprechaun  •  May 6, 2005 @10:57 am

    Well… not for the book of Thomas, anyway.:wink:

  35. LordHoopla  •  May 6, 2005 @5:05 pm

    p.s. – The Gospel of Thomas is gay. Of all of the Apocryphal books, I don’t know how that’s the one that got faddish!! It’s retarded.

    LOL.

  36. Laura  •  May 6, 2005 @7:29 pm

    I just realized I wrote “neigh” when I meant “nay.”

  37. ManicKitty  •  May 6, 2005 @11:28 pm

    I was apocryphal before you even knew what it meant. Indie scripture roxx!

  38. JoshWay  •  May 6, 2005 @11:41 pm

    LOL

  39. bill_the_leprechaun  •  May 7, 2005 @2:19 am

    To give a couple examples of how bizarre and weird the Gospel of Thomas is, I’ll throw 2 verses at you. They’re screwed up, and don’t really make sense. A lot of it is tied into the bizarities of gnosticism.

    Eric wasn’t kidding when he said the thing about it saying that Jesus was going to turn Mary into a man so that she could be with them. Actually, it’s even worse than that:

    (114) Simon Peter said to them, “Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “See, I am going to attract her to make her male so that she too might become a living spirit that resembles you males. For every female (element) that makes itself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”

    And this one’s really weird!

    (7) Jesus said, “Blessed is the lion that the human being will devour so that the lion becomes human. And cursed is the human being that the lion devours; and the lion will become human.”

    You can search around online for commentaries on what these passages might be trying to get at. :shake: But it certainly makes it apparent that, despite everything else, God was very present when they put together our Scriptural canon at the Counsil of Niscea.

  40. LordHoopla  •  May 7, 2005 @12:47 pm

    Tequilacat, what are you talking about? The History Channel has religious persons on all the time.

    (My brother likes to call it the “WWII and Bible Channel”.)

  41. JoshWay  •  May 7, 2005 @3:00 pm

    They have “Bible Experts” and “Religion Experts” on, but those are not necessarily the same as religious people. They’re usually secular scholars who know alot about religion.

  42. LordHoopla  •  May 7, 2005 @5:15 pm

    I’ve actually seen a lot of priests and rabbis on the shows involving religion.

  43. TEQUILACAT  •  May 7, 2005 @8:23 pm

    I haven’t seen the History channel very much, but on network television the “experts” are almost always (if not always) those who don’t believe the Bible, and comment from that perspective. It would just be nice to hear from someone who knows the Bible and believes it to be truth. There are ministers out there who do. I am sure there are even Rabbis out there who do as well, I have just NEVER seen them use one.

    The whole gnostic thing has resurfaced (even before the Da Vinci Code’s success), but it’s like the “New Age” religion, it just ain’t that new.They slap a new name on it, but it’s the same ole paganism.

  44. bill_the_leprechaun  •  May 7, 2005 @9:01 pm

    There are Bible-believing people on TV all the time. They go by the names of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, and Joel Osteen. You know… awesome people like that!

    sigh.:(

  45. JoshWay  •  May 7, 2005 @9:10 pm

    Hey, you want to know a Bible-believing cool person on TV? How about Mike Nelson from MST3K?

  46. bill_the_leprechaun  •  May 8, 2005 @3:09 am

    It’d be amazing to see him on the History Channel!! We should write in or something to let them know that we think it’s a good idea.

  47. JoshWay  •  May 8, 2005 @8:18 am

    Oh, and don’t forget Stephen Baldwin and Gary Busey! History Channel should totally interview them for their next doc on the Crusades.

    [edited Sunday, 05.08.2005 at 8:19:39 AM]

  48. LordHoopla  •  May 8, 2005 @5:21 pm

    Sorry, Josh. The only thing the History Channel is going to be showing for the next three months are reruns of documentaries about WWII.

    It’s okay, though. THEY’VE NEVER DONE THAT BEFORE.

  49. bill_the_leprechaun  •  May 10, 2005 @1:54 am

    I can see it now…

    “Tonight on the History Channel: burnout Stephen Baldwin and all around nutbag Gary Busey discuss the historical significance of Polycarp; a direct pupil of the Apostle John, a champion for truth, and martyr-saint of Christendom, examined under new light by two celebrities barely aware of what state they’re currently in.”

    Sorry, I can only make fun of Baldwin because he’s a really good friend of some really good friends of mine. He’s a great Christian, but really wrecked his mind on drugs before he converted. And Busey… well… did anyone ever watch I’m with Busey? That dude is fucking nuts!!

  50. stuforprez  •  May 12, 2005 @7:23 am

    Dan Brown’s books are all pretty good, I did enjoy Angel’s and Demons and Di Vinci Code the best . I was sadden to hear that Tom Hanks is going to play Robert Langdon in the Di Vinci Code movie.:(
    Can’t wait for the next Dan Brown book.

  51. LordHoopla  •  May 12, 2005 @4:39 pm

    Yeah, me too. It’s going to be called The Solomon Key, and it’s going to take place in Washington D.C.

  52. chemtrooper  •  May 17, 2005 @12:47 am

    I respect Tom Hanks as an actor; his best work was The Green Mile in my opinion. However, in the book I did not imagine a Tom Hanks looking kinda guy. Perhaps Liam Neeson would be a better fit. I really didn’t imagine any specific kind of actor during my reading. Vittoria has definitely got to be Angelina Jolie! She’s hot, but then again “I’m no George Clooney”. (Sorry about the movie quote).:wink:

  53. Ehmi  •  May 17, 2005 @7:50 pm

    Did someone say Angelina Jolie?

  54. Sarah  •  May 18, 2005 @10:20 am

    In the Da Vinci Code They said he looked like Garrison Ford. So I would have tried to get Him.

  55. crazyguy  •  May 18, 2005 @10:49 pm

    Wait… Garrison Ford?

  56. bill_the_leprechaun  •  May 19, 2005 @3:13 am

    Yes. He’s like Harrison Ford, except armed to the teeth!

  57. Laura  •  May 19, 2005 @9:06 am

    Lol, bill

  58. chemtrooper  •  May 20, 2005 @10:51 am

    Yes, Garrison Ford would be a good one; would he not be too “Indiana the Terminator Jones” though? Arnold Schwarzenegger with a college degree, wow!

    His alter ego Harrison Ford might make a good Robert Langdon.

  59. Ehmi  •  May 20, 2005 @4:22 pm

    Mmm…Harrison Ford is hooooottt……

  60. JoshWay  •  May 20, 2005 @4:26 pm

    He is rather hoot, but it’s not nice to make fun of old people!

  61. Sarah  •  May 20, 2005 @6:57 pm

    yeah i meant harrison but i’m not going to edit it becaue then people who didnt read it before dont get the joke.

  62. Ehmi  •  May 21, 2005 @11:39 am

    What joke?

  63. JoshWay  •  May 21, 2005 @1:39 pm

    bill_the_leprechaun wrote:

    Yes. He’s like Harrison Ford, except armed to the teeth!

  64. crazyguy  •  May 22, 2005 @2:29 am

    I wouldn’t have pointed it out, if I didn’t think that there was actually a celebrity by the name of Garrison Ford. I usually don’t like pointing out typing errors, and gramtical errors, because I make more of them then all of you combined.

    [edited Tuesday, 05.24.2005 at 12:07:20 AM]

  65. TEQUILACAT  •  May 23, 2005 @9:32 pm

    I’m with you crazyguy…by the way I put your last entry in spell check and everthing froze up and smoke came out of my PC. What does that mean?:wink:

  66. crazyguy  •  May 24, 2005 @12:12 am

    Oh yeah, that happens to me all of the time. It just means your computer is broken. It’s not because of my spelling, no…not at all…What? ….No, not my spelling.
    :notamused:

  67. Ehmi  •  May 24, 2005 @1:13 pm

    Josh, you don’t have to explain the joke to me. I knew what it was, and I was trying to make one of my own. Sheesh…

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>