Last night, as I pushed into the early hours of the morning, I frantically finished my latest book The Last Templar. The need to rush was created by two factors - 1) the book was lagging and I wanted to finish and 2) I just needed to know how the author would handle the religious controversy.
Without getting into the meat of the book summary (or giving it away) I'll give an overview of the crux of the conflict (that's like a summary in a nutshell). The book focuses on the shrouded Knights Templar, whose real history is difficult to extract from all the myths. It obviously discusses the conspiracy theories - throwing the New World Order nuts into the light as obvious lunatics (that is that the Knights Templar became Masons and they are out to kill everyone and take over the world through the UN, etc. etc.) (As Charlie's father put it in So I Married an Axe Murderer "The queen. The vatican. The Getty's. The Rothschilds. AND Colonel Sanders before he went heads up! Oh, I hated the Colonel with his wee BEADY eyes! and that smug look on his face, 'Oh! You're gonna buy my chicken, OHHH!"Charlie: "Dad, how can you hate...the Colonel?"Charlie's Father: "Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly, smart $#@!")
But that aside, the book brings the real controversy into its story with the talk of the hidden Templar treasure. National Treasure makes this a real find ($$trillions). In the book it is supposed to be some proof that Jesus is not the Son of God. And that this information held the Catholic Church hostage until the Knights were wiped out. The book obviously comes from the same line as Da Vinci Code, and the new pseudo-science of disproving organized religion (well Christianity). Now I'm not going to use this as a platform to be a Christian Apologist - but as a side note - all the 'facts' about Christ being just an ordinary man don't necessarily point in that direction. In fact the more I read the better I feel about the Mormon position.
That being said, Khoury, poses an interesting question. Even if Christianity - or most religions - were based on a lie, isn't it better to let that lie propogate for the benefit of faith? The con side is gigantic - wars, murders, terrorists, power struggles and crimes all commited for religion. Difficult to disagree with that. They suggest that if we can get past religion we can all be better. But I disagree. There is power in faith. And religions (even if false) bring humanity, mercy, kindness, love, concern and strength. They allow people to get through the day. People behave, are better, manage grief, etc.
Now the interesting thought here is that about faith. Most will say that regardless of religion, faith is powerful in that it is self-realizing. I think this is true...it's a universal truth that faith self-empowers. But there is more. Most religions are based on fundamental truths - in God, or in the least, true virtues. God will endow with power those who place their faith in correct principles - basic eternal laws - regardless of creed. It's only the extent of that power that differs based on dogmas or facts (however you look at it). (i.e. the Priesthood, etc.)
Just my 2 cents on the book. (By-the-way: a decent read...a little slow in the middle, some contrivance and flat characters, but fun. And I do like the last page!)
HRP
No comments:
Post a Comment