Callistus Valerius Da Vinci Code

Quoted message said:

Callistus Valerius wrote:
Date: Sat, May 20 2006 5:07 pm
<<So far it looks like the Da Vinci code has ended the careers of:

Ron Howard
Tom Hanks
Ebert/Roeper (the only critics to like the film)

as being anti-Christian bigots.>>

LA TIMES:
EXCLUSIVE: Da Vinci Code Is 2nd Biggest Opening Weekend Of All Time
Worldwide With $224 Million; No. 1 International Opening Weekend with
$147 Mil; $77 Mil U.S. Opening Weekend

Well, at least Ron & Tom will "end their careers" with a lot of money
in their pockets!

Quoted message said:

Callistus Valerius wrote:
Date: Sat, May 20 2006 5:07 pm
<<So far it looks like the Da Vinci code has ended the careers of:

Ron Howard
Tom Hanks
Ebert/Roeper (the only critics to like the film)

as being anti-Christian bigots.>>

LA TIMES:
EXCLUSIVE: Da Vinci Code Is 2nd Biggest Opening Weekend Of All Time
Worldwide With $224 Million; No. 1 International Opening Weekend with
$147 Mil; $77 Mil U.S. Opening Weekend

Topset72

Funnily enough, referring to the HollywoodTrash invasion in nearby
Cannes, the Nice Matin newspaper reported that those who couldn't
get tickets were the lucky ones.

--
Amicablement
Slackrat
(Bill Henderson)

Quoted message said:

Callistus Valerius wrote:
Date: Sat, May 20 2006 5:07 pm
<<So far it looks like the Da Vinci code has ended the careers of:

Ron Howard
Tom Hanks
Ebert/Roeper (the only critics to like the film)

as being anti-Christian bigots.>>

From where I sit, it appears that only the Christian bigots will shun
the movie. I may actually buy a ticket, even though I can get in for
free. (I hadn't planned to go see it, but anything that has the
fundies frothing might be entertaining.)

Some of us understand the difference between fiction and fact. Worst
of all, however, is that some of us can *spot* fiction when we see it.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Uhhhhhhh... what does this have to do with the Giro????

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Callistus Valerius wrote:
Date: Sat, May 20 2006 5:07 pm
<<So far it looks like the Da Vinci code has ended the careers of:

Ron Howard
Tom Hanks
Ebert/Roeper (the only critics to like the film)

as being anti-Christian bigots.>>

LA TIMES:
EXCLUSIVE: Da Vinci Code Is 2nd Biggest Opening Weekend Of All Time
Worldwide With $224 Million; No. 1 International Opening Weekend with
$147 Mil; $77 Mil U.S. Opening Weekend

Topset72

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Callistus Valerius wrote:
Date: Sat, May 20 2006 5:07 pm
<<So far it looks like the Da Vinci code has ended the careers of:

Ron Howard
Tom Hanks
Ebert/Roeper (the only critics to like the film)

as being anti-Christian bigots.>>

LA TIMES:
EXCLUSIVE: Da Vinci Code Is 2nd Biggest Opening Weekend Of All Time
Worldwide With $224 Million; No. 1 International Opening Weekend with
$147 Mil; $77 Mil U.S. Opening Weekend

I read _Holy_Blood_Holy_Grail_ when it was published.
Thoroughly entertaining. Saw part of an interview with
Baigent looking very sheepish admitting it was a prank
that got out of hand. People _still_ believe it, or say
they do.

--
Michael Press

Basjan said:

"Werehatrack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Callistus Valerius wrote:
Date: Sat, May 20 2006 5:07 pm
<<So far it looks like the Da Vinci code has ended the careers of:

Ron Howard
Tom Hanks
Ebert/Roeper (the only critics to like the film)

as being anti-Christian bigots.>>

From where I sit, it appears that only the Christian bigots will shun
the movie. I may actually buy a ticket, even though I can get in for
free. (I hadn't planned to go see it, but anything that has the
fundies frothing might be entertaining.)

Some of us understand the difference between fiction and fact. Worst
of all, however, is that some of us can *spot* fiction when we see it.

Although not the forum for this discussion, it more than mildly agitates me
that your noted argument is used ad infinitum in this instance. Let us take
an example:

The statement to a person that "your mother is a [censored]" might be ABSOLUTE
fiction, but it still upsets something deep inside that person. Now take an
instance where the object of such fictitious slander is regarded as a
supremely holy Deity by someone, who regards this Deity as much, much more
important or holy than his own mother. ....Now try to understand why
something like this movie/book will upset that person. Just because someone
may be agnostic, does not give that person the freedom to curtail someone
else's freedom to believe in and demonstrate for the opposite. Or in this
case the latter person's freedom and right to demonstrate against something
that breaks down the fabric of his beliefs.

Soooo, to summarize, your use of "Christian bigots" and "...Some of us
understand the difference between fiction and fact..." more than shows me
where you come from in this instance, and actually makes you a stride more
ridiculous than that which you oppose.

Geez, then don't read the book, don't see the movie....Nobody is going
to change their mind about what they 'believe' because of a book or
movie...the 'Bible' included.

"Basjan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Werehatrack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Callistus Valerius wrote:
Date: Sat, May 20 2006 5:07 pm
<<So far it looks like the Da Vinci code has ended the careers of:

Ron Howard
Tom Hanks
Ebert/Roeper (the only critics to like the film)

as being anti-Christian bigots.>>

From where I sit, it appears that only the Christian bigots will shun
the movie. I may actually buy a ticket, even though I can get in for
free. (I hadn't planned to go see it, but anything that has the
fundies frothing might be entertaining.)

Some of us understand the difference between fiction and fact. Worst
of all, however, is that some of us can *spot* fiction when we see it.

Although not the forum for this discussion, it more than mildly agitates
me that your noted argument is used ad infinitum in this instance. Let us
take an example:

The statement to a person that "your mother is a [censored]" might be ABSOLUTE
fiction, but it still upsets something deep inside that person. Now take
an instance where the object of such fictitious slander is regarded as a
supremely holy Deity by someone, who regards this Deity as much, much more
important or holy than his own mother. ....Now try to understand why
something like this movie/book will upset that person. Just because
someone may be agnostic, does not give that person the freedom to curtail
someone else's freedom to believe in and demonstrate for the opposite.

Do tell us how the book or the movie has curtailed freedom for Christians to
believe , practice or otherwise demonstrate their religious beliefs.

Quoted message said:

Or in this case the latter person's freedom and right to demonstrate
against something that breaks down the fabric of his beliefs.

I haven't seen anyone turned away from protesting this film.

Quoted message said:

Soooo, to summarize, your use of "Christian bigots" and "...Some of us
understand the difference between fiction and fact..." more than shows me
where you come from in this instance, and actually makes you a stride more
ridiculous than that which you oppose.

Warm regards,

Basjan

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Michael Press said:

I read _Holy_Blood_Holy_Grail_ when it was published.
Thoroughly entertaining. Saw part of an interview with
Baigent looking very sheepish admitting it was a prank
that got out of hand. People _still_ believe it, or say
they do.

"Dianetics", the start of Scientology, was a synthetic religion cooked
up by two ScFi writers in the 50's. One of them rode it all the way
while the other dropped out.

How many beliefs people hold dear today were intentional hoaxes or
misrepresentations? Perhaps most of them.

-paul

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

....some discussion...

Quoted message said:

Geez, then don't read the book, don't see the movie....Nobody is going
to change their mind about what they 'believe' because of a book or
movie...the 'Bible' included.

Not the point at all... but then again, I am not here to argue, merely to
state my opinion regarding the much abused "it is fiction, not fact
argument" used by people who claim that Christians are overly sensitive in
this matter. If you do not wish to understand my argument, then you won´t. I
read an interesting article regarding the Muslim cartoon uprising recently,
which contained

" The main difference between Western culture and the culture of Islam is
the West holds nothing sacred anymore, and it's evident in their movies,
literature, referring to God as 'the guy upstairs', etc. Religion may be
something they indulge in once a week on a Sunday, but for a Muslim, there
is no separation between every day life and religion. Your religion
permeates and directs every aspect of your life."

There are many Christians who actually do hold some things sacred and fro
whom their religion also premeates their lives, hence their apprehension at
the Da Vinci issue.

Again, warm regards.

Basjan

"Allez1" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

....some discussion

Quoted message said:

I haven't seen anyone turned away from protesting this film.

Again not the point, which focused more on the fact that the "fiction vs.
fact" argument is being used to illustrate how Christians are non-tolerant
when opposing so-called fiction. All I ask is that enjoyers of the movie
realize why many Christians are upset about something that blasphemes a
critical aspect of what is holy central to their religion.

Keep well!

Basjan

In article <[email hidden]>, Werehatrack

() said:

Some of us understand the difference between fiction and fact. Worst
of all, however, is that some of us can *spot* fiction when we see it.

Especially if it's as poorly-researched and badly-written as the entire
output of Mr. Brown thus far...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Like Kant, it is my wish to create my own individual epistemology. But I
also wish to find out what is for pudding.

Basjan said:

There are many Christians who actually do hold some things sacred and fro
whom their religion also premeates their lives, hence their apprehension at
the Da Vinci issue.

And I regard them as being every bit as dangerous as the Muslim
extremists. (And yes, there *are* Muslims who do not hold that
blasphemous behavior merits any reaction; they tend to be ignored
because the other variety makes more noise.)
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Dave Larrington said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Werehatrack

() said:

Some of us understand the difference between fiction and fact. Worst
of all, however, is that some of us can *spot* fiction when we see it.

Especially if it's as poorly-researched and badly-written as the entire
output of Mr. Brown thus far...

It's not by Brown, but "The Eye of Argon" is one of the most
entertaining things I've ever read, precisely because it's so badly
written that the average person can't get through a paragraph of it
without breaking up. It's the stuff that's written in a reasonably
workmanlike manner but which fails to hold the interest - that vast
middle ground of mediocrity which may well include the subject line's
tome - where I tend to fall asleep. (That's if it's not just bad
enough to engage Parker's Evaluation, which The Return Of The King did
for me on the first several attempts at reading.)

Overall, I prefer Pratchett.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

"Werehatrack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Basjan said:

There are many Christians who actually do hold some things sacred and fro
whom their religion also premeates their lives, hence their apprehension
at
the Da Vinci issue.

And I regard them as being every bit as dangerous as the Muslim
extremists. (And yes, there *are* Muslims who do not hold that
blasphemous behavior merits any reaction; they tend to be ignored
because the other variety makes more noise.)

I think one has to be very careful to assume extremism when one encounters
someone whose beliefs "permeates" their lives. Someone who fully endorses a
belief-system might seem extreme to you, but might actually be normal in
terms of religious frameworks. On the contrary, another person´s religious
apathy, and associated actions and words, are *extreme* towards the other
end of the scale for some.

Basjan

Basjan said:

"Werehatrack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Basjan said:

There are many Christians who actually do hold some things sacred and fro
whom their religion also premeates their lives, hence their apprehension
at
the Da Vinci issue.

And I regard them as being every bit as dangerous as the Muslim
extremists. (And yes, there *are* Muslims who do not hold that
blasphemous behavior merits any reaction; they tend to be ignored
because the other variety makes more noise.)

I think one has to be very careful to assume extremism when one encounters
someone whose beliefs "permeates" their lives. Someone who fully endorses a
belief-system might seem extreme to you, but might actually be normal in
terms of religious frameworks. On the contrary, another person´s religious
apathy, and associated actions and words, are *extreme* towards the other
end of the scale for some.

Basjan

I think the problem begins with you, when you assume that because a
Christian lets their religion permeate their life, they would be
apprehensive about the Da Vinci Code. I know a fair number of
Christians that would qualify and they are in no way apprehensive. Its
been out there for a while and made no real dents in their life to
date.

The extremist label may not be fair based on the first part of your
description, but if they are 'apprehensive' for no better reason than
a poorly written book and an even worse movie, they just might be
dangerous...

If nothing else, the Da Vinci Code does start with the belief that the
issue of whether or not Christ had children and the line exists in the
present day is of significance: the issue is Christian and the concept
would be important in that context. For many of us, we aren't and it
isn't.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Nobody is going
to change their mind about what they 'believe' because of a book or
movie...the 'Bible' included.

Applies to "helmet studies", too <eg>

"Sorni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Nobody is going
to change their mind about what they 'believe' because of a book or
movie...the 'Bible' included.

Applies to "helmet studies", too <eg>

I wonder - why do you suppose that most of those that say that helmets
aren't the greatest safety device ever invented are engineers or scientists?

Do you believe that these people all started out hating helmets? Apparently
that's what you believe to be the ONLY possible motivation for ever saying
anything negative about helmets.

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:03:51 +0200, "Basjan" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think one has to be very careful to assume extremism when one encounters
someone whose beliefs "permeates" their lives. Someone who fully endorses
a
belief-system might seem extreme to you, but might actually be normal in
terms of religious frameworks. On the contrary, another person´s religious
apathy, and associated actions and words, are *extreme* towards the other
end of the scale for some.

Basjan

I think the problem begins with you, when you assume that because a
Christian lets their religion permeate their life, they would be
apprehensive about the Da Vinci Code. I know a fair number of
Christians that would qualify and they are in no way apprehensive. Its
been out there for a while and made no real dents in their life to
date.

To each his own; i.e., for some it is an issue, for others not. But the
attitute that the "problem begins with me" is in turn just as assuming or
generalizing. You will note that I have never implied that all "permeators"
are objecting or should object. The fact that I object to the book/movie
does not imply a "problem with me", but merely a viewpoint that might be
different from yours.

Quoted message said:

The extremist label may not be fair based on the first part of your
description, but if they are 'apprehensive' for no better reason than
a poorly written book and an even worse movie, they just might be
dangerous...

....which I imagine is largely NOT the case. In fact, I found the book
entertaining (albeit poorly written) but shocking, just as I find many poor
movies no-brain entertainment. My apprehension stems from the content and I
am dumbfounded that someone cannot accept that this is blasphemous in my
opinion, whether fact or fiction. Just as I should be able to say to anyone
that they should knock themselves out and enjoy, even though I do not agree
with the content or quality of this particular piece of entertainment, that
person should be able to say that he/she understands or accepts my
apprehension. Or at least say that they are willing to try and understand.

Quoted message said:

If nothing else, the Da Vinci Code does start with the belief that the
issue of whether or not Christ had children and the line exists in the
present day is of significance: the issue is Christian and the concept
would be important in that context. For many of us, we aren't and it
isn't.

....and for many of us, we are and it is. So in essence we ask for the same
inalienable right, to voice protest/concern/warning while allowing another´s
indifference. (I may warn me of a AMClassic´s dangerous seatpost design, but
you don´t have to listen!)

Basjan

Basjan said:

The statement to a person that "your mother is a [censored]" might be
ABSOLUTE fiction, but it still upsets something deep inside that
person. Now take an instance where the object of such fictitious
slander is regarded as a supremely holy Deity by someone, who regards
this Deity as much, much more important or holy than his own mother.
....Now try to understand why something like this movie/book will
upset that person. Just because someone may be agnostic, does not
give that person the freedom to curtail someone else's freedom to
believe in and demonstrate for the opposite. Or in this case the
latter person's freedom and right to demonstrate against something
that breaks down the fabric of his beliefs.

Very well said, but missing the obvious. In RB-T, at least, one is not
allowed to have one's own beliefs, opinions and sensibilities about /many/
subjects (politics, helmets, religion, greased tapers, etc. etc.). Assume
it's similar in RBR?

Next flame war: global warming.

Kreskin Bill