Callistus Valerius Da Vinci Code

[[email protected]]

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

 

[Bob]

On 21 May 2006 11:09:48 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>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!

 

[Davey Crockett]

[email protected] writes:

> 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)

 

[Werehatrack]

On 21 May 2006 11:09:48 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>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.

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

Davey Crockett wrote:
> 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.

Ha! That _is funny.

--
E. Dronkert

 

[Clint Torus]

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




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

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> 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]

"Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 21 May 2006 11:09:48 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>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 *****" 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.



Warm regards,



Basjan

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Basjan wrote:
> "Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On 21 May 2006 11:09:48 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>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 *****" 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.

 

[Allez1]

"Basjan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 21 May 2006 11:09:48 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>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 *****" 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.

>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.




>
>
>
> 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 =----

 

[Paul Cassel]

Michael Press wrote:


>
> 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

 

[Bob Martin]

in 505268 20060522 101444 "Basjan" <[email protected]> wrote:


>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.

And just because someone is a believer doesn't give him the freedom to preach
to non-believers, as I am constantly telling people on my doorstep.

 

[Basjan]

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

....some discussion...

> 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

 

[Basjan]

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

....some discussion

> 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

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, Werehatrack
([email protected]) wrote:

> 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.

 

[Werehatrack]

On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:33:48 +0200, "Basjan" <[email protected]> wrote:


>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.

 

[Werehatrack]

On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:11:07 +0100, Dave Larrington
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Werehatrack
>([email protected]) wrote:
>
>> 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.

 

[Basjan]

"Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:33:48 +0200, "Basjan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>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

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

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

>
>"Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 22 May 2006 15:33:48 +0200, "Basjan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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...

 

[Sorni]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> 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>