The Da Vinci Delusion

[rawbone8]

Hey Bartender, gimme a double of whatever that other gentleman ordered, straight up.:tongue:

 

[B_Stronzo]

Oh please... the whole thing was fabricated by Bushco, as a cover up to 9/11. The number of brown shades used in the Last Supper is 11, and the number of blue shades is 9. "analysts" and "reports" show the color shades of each to be no more than 6 prior to 9/11. A new "report" details how Halliburton, via a no-bid contract, won the bid from Bushco in altering the picture to be used as code to let terrorists know when to hijack the planes, so as to coordinate with a 2 seater Cessna repelte with 1,500 lbs of explosives dumping into the pentagon.

Dan Brown's phone was wiretipped 3 times in 2002.

Just ask Zora and Stronzo... they'll tell ya so!

I think you must have been spoon fed as an infant. Time for big boy meals.

 

[Skull Mason]

think jesus pe'd?

 

[palicao]

the Da Vinci Code is obviously based on a older book, an essay on the graal (i can't remember the author maybe was John Matthews but i'm not sure). i read that book many years ago and was a very nice reading.

so when i read the Da Vinci Code, nothing surprised me. is not an excellent book wich just had the winning idea to put the old story of the "real graal" in a thriller way.

the problem is that the book and the film are undergoing a new witch hunt done by the church.
here in italy there is a huge anti-davincicode campaign through newspaper and tv shows too.[SIZE=-1]

that make me very sad
not the qualitiy of the book or the film (wich is, in my humble opinion not so high. but is just a matter of tastes)
[/SIZE]

 

[Wonderboy]

I think its possible that a man called 'Jesus', hailed either in his time or after it as being somehow supernatural and all that jazz, had a child/children.

There was no contraception back then, males have strong sex drives and it the society he lived in didn't desuade people from having sex.

The idea of a Jesus bloodline is a lot more plausible than the story that he was the son of God, and that there will be a second cumming.

The book the Da Vinci Code was based on was called 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'...

My thoughts on the matter, it doesn't bother me either way.

 

[solong]

Oh for the love of Hutton Gibson "solong".

I think Freddie's on to you big time . Either you're the world's biggest redneck moron or you just like yanking chains.

Fuck The Passion of the Mel and its not-so-thinly-veiled anti-humanist sentiments and vengeful God wagging finger overtones and fuck organized Christianity for that matter. The Passion of the Christ was overt propaganda. That columnist you quote is a looney tune.

anti-humanist is exactly right. I take it then that you happen to be a humanist? The New humanism is based on atheism and is a registered religion.

Anyone who adheres to Christianity in its present adulterated form (and I give it a capital "C" only in the historical sense) buys into the subervience of women, homos are bad, and sex is only for procreation.

Stupid, blind, and just a dumb label, right? I'd be amazed that anybody in this forum would make such a statement and then claim that I endorse looney tunes and yank people's chains. Guess it takes one to know one. Saying this, stronzo, makes you "stronzo the lesser." I mean, less than most.

Dude? WRONG BOARD! Stuff that thinking right along side with those airplane photos of the Pentagon post airplane impact.

If nothing else The DaVinci Code will make people aware that man and especially Roman Catholic man has been playing with the story of Christ since its inception. Makes one wonder what the real historical Jesus really had as His intent... One thing is certain; can't be this shit.

That, in fact, is true, and NOT to their credit. The vast majority of people calling themselves "Christian" are not, nor do they have any desire to change that! But you aren't the first implying it. Christ-- you know? That Guy you make fun of? Well, He agrees with you. He made it clear in a number of places (not just one) that the few will be saved and the majority will perish. The reason is, God will NOT be mocked, and that goes double for people who take His name in their mouths but don't do the things He tells them. As you say, they have been playing with His Word since He said them!

Beyond that it's just fun to speculate.

".... there's more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

and you can take that to the bank.

Absolutely, and let me be the first here to agree! However, whenever you point a finger, the one who designed the hand fixed it so there would be 3 pointing back. Good luck changing that one!

 

[B_Stronzo]

anti-humanist is exactly right. I take it then that you happen to be a humanist? The New humanism is based on atheism and is a registered religion.

Oh good. I think I'll not join.

Stupid, blind, and just a dumb label, right? I'd be amazed that anybody in this forum would make such a statement and then claim that I endorse looney tunes and yank people's chains. Guess it takes one to know one. Saying this, stronzo, makes you "stronzo the lesser." I mean, less than most.

I love that I 'amaze' you...:tongue:

That, in fact, is true, and NOT to their credit. The vast majority of people calling themselves "Christian" are not, nor do they have any desire to change that! But you aren't the first implying it. Christ-- you know? That Guy you make fun of? Well, He agrees with you. He made it clear in a number of places (not just one) that the few will be saved and the majority will perish. The reason is, God will NOT be mocked, and that goes double for people who take His name in their mouths but don't do the things He tells them. As you say, they have been playing with His Word since He said them!

Dude. Didn't make fun of Christ. Made fun of the corruption surrounding his written history. Now please review your homework over again and there will be a quiz in tomorrow's class.

Absolutely, and let me be the first here to agree! However, whenever you point a finger, the one who designed the hand fixed it so there would be 3 pointing back. Good luck changing that one!

And who, pray tell, would that be? You assume to much religionist.

** I think I just heard someone bleat.

 

[palicao]

sorry solong but where do you live?

you don't live here, where Christianity has its stronghold...

in this matters is not possible to make a general comments, because there are a lot of things in motion and every person is different.

but i can assure you that here, where Christianity grow and battle, I'm sometimes shocked of the news and the public comments that Cardinals and Church man do on things like women or the sex tastes.

I can understand that the Pope take a major attention on spiritual things, is of course a matter of faith and spirit to be christian and to be the vessel of the Christianity on earth. what i can't forgot is what he and other cardinals wrote about women, wich must stay in home to grow children and to be humble because their is the blame of the orginal sin, or declaration about homosexuality wich is a disease and must be avoided in any circumstance because homosexuals are evil.

i'm talking about written things (i don't know the term but in italian is "encicliche") done by high priest of the church, showing a hate for the things that are changing in the world i cannot afford.

you don't see how in television this matter are treated, you don't have any idea on the propaganda i saw, every church or priest and even the Pope asking to people to NOT GO TO VOTE (wich is STRICTLY forbidden by the Italian Constitution)

for me there is a very BIG difference between a matter of faith (the teaching of Christ or the faith in one God) and the political birth of the roman Church. a very BIG difference.
and i'm absolutly sure that even Christ is not liking what his Church done or is doing right now...

there is a thing i like to say to show the difference between faith and religion and the construction of the church... and is the Virgin Mary.
the virginity of Mary was stated as a law in the Council of Nicea. It wasn't Christ who declare it, nor Mary herself, but just a bunch of medieval prelates who make this council and decide that, yes, Mary was Virgin...

there is God and faith in him wich i respect, then there is man and how man build things on spiritual matter, making everything what is it now: a matter of power.

 

[solong]

sorry solong but where do you live?

you don't live here, where Christianity has its stronghold...

in this matters is not possible to make a general comments, because there are a lot of things in motion and every person is different.

but i can assure you that here, where Christianity grow and battle, I'm sometimes shocked of the news and the public comments that Cardinals and Church man do on things like women or the sex tastes.

I can understand that the Pope take a major attention on spiritual things, is of course a matter of faith and spirit to be christian and to be the vessel of the Christianity on earth. what i can't forgot is what he and other cardinals wrote about women, wich must stay in home to grow children and to be humble because their is the blame of the orginal sin, or declaration about homosexuality wich is a disease and must be avoided in any circumstance because homosexuals are evil.

i'm talking about written things (i don't know the term but in italian is "encicliche") done by high priest of the church, showing a hate for the things that are changing in the world i cannot afford.

you don't see how in television this matter are treated, you don't have any idea on the propaganda i saw, every church or priest and even the Pope asking to people to NOT GO TO VOTE (wich is STRICTLY forbidden by the Italian Constitution)

for me there is a very BIG difference between a matter of faith (the teaching of Christ or the faith in one God) and the political birth of the roman Church. a very BIG difference.
and i'm absolutly sure that even Christ is not liking what his Church done or is doing right now...

there is a thing i like to say to show the difference between faith and religion and the construction of the church... and is the Virgin Mary.
the virginity of Mary was stated as a law in the Council of Nicea. It wasn't Christ who declare it, nor Mary herself, but just a bunch of medieval prelates who make this council and decide that, yes, Mary was Virgin...

there is God and faith in him wich i respect, then there is man and how man build things on spiritual matter, making everything what is it now: a matter of power.

Not to doubt your beliefs at all! i was just quoting Jesus Christ, who said, "MAT 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Now this isn't the only place He says this. He speaks not to people who don't know the way, who have never heard the truth, or who have decided on their brand of "Churchianity" versus the scriptures. Instead, He speaks to those only who are listening. Who have the opportunity at least-- to listen.

Are you listening?

 

[dong20]

...Now this isn't the only place He says this. He speaks not to people who don't know the way, who have never heard the truth, or who have decided on their brand of "Churchianity" versus the scriptures. Instead, He speaks to those only who are listening. Who have the opportunity at least-- to listen.

I suppose I shouldn't say this not even having read the book but my views on 'Orthodox' Christianity were formed well before Mr Brown put finger to keyboard.

I think that Matthew 7.1/2 is also relevant:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged...and For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

That's not directed at anyone, but the righteous indignation of the RC church, and others for anyone challenging their 'true version of events'. Given their reprehensible actions 'in the name of Jesus' over past centuries and indeed today, this is the worst kind of hypocrisy.

I bet the walls of St Peters' are echoing to the cries of "That Dan Brown; heretic, burn him at the stake now!!" As a previous poster said I think the established church can survive a populist novel and a (no doubt) cheesy movie, all they need to do is say (if they need to say anything at all) is that is doesn't co-incide with orthodox belief and then shut up and move on!

Trying to 'ban' it and launching a smear campaign just gives it publicity and more credence than it deserves. Same effect as banning songs, guaranteed #1 and instant own goal. My Mother used to say: If you can't improve on silence keep your mouth shut.

As I said in another thread (and I have nothing against 'Christians' of any flavour I just don't really share their faith) the RC 'Establishment' has it coming. Let them squirm...

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

My personal take is that there is more fiction in the Bible than in the "Da Vinci Code", and I'm sure the Catholic church can take care of itself in the face of conspiricy theories.

If it can't, then there is obviously an element of truth to them...

 

[jay_too]

I thought the Da Vinci Code was really poorly written. The chapters were like three pages long and every chapter ended with a cliff-hanging question. I could imagine that the author was a prize pupil of a weekend "How to Write a Novel" workshop. Formulaic oh yea! Literature? It ain't.

I think that 80% or more of the "mystery" surrounding the legend of the Christ was fully discussed in a few postings by DMW. And "No, the thread was not in a discussion of the book."

 

[dong20]

Some quotes to amuse:

Catholic League president Bill Donohue, who went to see the film Friday said it was "one of the most inane films" he has ever seen.

"Had the movie been a success, the effect would have been troubling," he said. "But because it fails to persuade, this is one movie practicing Christians have nothing to worry about."

That's the approach the Catholic church should have adopted but what do they do:

The Vatican has labelled the story blasphemous and launched its own public relations offensive against the film.

A Catholic lay organisation, the American Society for the Defence of Tradition, Family and Property, took out full-page ads in USA Today calling for worshipers to stage prayer vigils outside at least 1,000 theatres nationwide on Friday.

"In all 50 states, we have organisers," said Francis Slobodnik, who is coordinating the campaign for the Pennsylvania-based group and called the film "an insult directed towards God."

Mass hysteria...coming to a cinema/church/stake near you...soon. :biggrin1:

One educational group, the Westminster Theological Seminary, with campuses in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Texas, combined its campaign against the movie with a swipe at American conservatives' favorite bete noire, France.

"If you believe 'The Da Vinci Code,' then you better start worshipping the French," the group said in a full-page advert in Friday's edition of USA Today.

Worshipping the French!...I'm all in favour of religous freedom but....you have to draw a line somewhere..:tongue:

 

[Gisella]

I think the guy who wrotes the Da Vinci Code is a perfect idiot...

My opinion about his research and etc is like that...his book is ficction.

I will not spend my money to buy his stuff or interpretation of his writtings at all..

Today i'm on fighting mood do not want to be annoyed with crap. (Others or my own...)

Thanks!

 

[solong]

Some quotes to amuse:

Catholic League president Bill Donohue, who went to see the film Friday said it was "one of the most inane films" he has ever seen.

"Had the movie been a success, the effect would have been troubling," he said. "But because it fails to persuade, this is one movie practicing Christians have nothing to worry about."

That's the approach the Catholic church should have adopted but what do they do:

The Vatican has labelled the story blasphemous and launched its own public relations offensive against the film.

A Catholic lay organisation, the American Society for the Defence of Tradition, Family and Property, took out full-page ads in USA Today calling for worshipers to stage prayer vigils outside at least 1,000 theatres nationwide on Friday.

"In all 50 states, we have organisers," said Francis Slobodnik, who is coordinating the campaign for the Pennsylvania-based group and called the film "an insult directed towards God."

I really strongly disagree that the catholic church should have taken another approach. The Da Vinci Code was written as fiction for the purpose ONLY of "getting away with dissing Christ and Christianity." There is otherwise NO OTHER REASON for publishing a bibliography in the book as references to justify the plot!

So while I am NOT a catholic, I applaud them for taking measures. The Bible clearly states that any who offend a babe in Christ, it is better for that person that he was never born. We are talking eternal death. So this book is not true. It is a lousy book. The references are just to impress you and make you think there's substance to it, but the authors are mostly occultists.

When you go strictly by its success at the box office you make a fatal error, because then you will judge everything that way-- the outward apperarance. How many people who read the book are saying, "I don't have to see the movie-- I read the book?"

Mass hysteria...coming to a cinema/church/stake near you...soon. :biggrin1:

One educational group, the Westminster Theological Seminary, with campuses in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Texas, combined its campaign against the movie with a swipe at American conservatives' favorite bete noire, France.

"If you believe 'The Da Vinci Code,' then you better start worshipping the French," the group said in a full-page advert in Friday's edition of USA Today.

Worshipping the French!...I'm all in favour of religous freedom but....you have to draw a line somewhere..:tongue:

All of this is interesting, but will not change anybody's mind who in fact was swayed by the "Code." It isn't a dangerous book to a well-grounded Christian, at all! And that's the exact point I intend to make. What about the tens of millions of people who know nothing at all about Christianity but after having seen Da Vinci Code, will want nothing more to do with it? What about all the Muslims and their own rife opinions about Christians reinforced 100-fold?

And if no church ever stood up for their beliefs, we all would be saying, "Typical gutless Christians. They don't have the balls to even stand up for what they believe in, even when this book is obviously written to discredit them and slander the Catholic faith at the same time."

Fiction? Of course! What does that have to do with anything, when you base your work on blasphemy, and call Christ and God the Father liars? Fiction is never based against a religion--NOT EVER-- much less God Almighty, unless there's a far more sinister reason than entertainment.

 

[dong20]

I really strongly disagree that the catholic church should have taken another approach...

Well we must agree to disagree. I think I already said that I though they should have said "We disagree...but make your own mind up" and credit people with the intelligence (misplaced or not) to do just that.

When you go strictly by its success at the box office you make a fatal error, because then you will judge everything that way-- the outward apperarance. How many people who read the book are saying, "I don't have to see the movie-- I read the book?"

I'm sure much if not most of the commerical success of the book and no doubt the movie will be a direct result of the overreaction of the established Churche. If left to stand on their its own Brown well have been treated like Von Daniken, or at best been a commerical flop.

What about all the Muslims and their own rife opinions about Christians reinforced 100-fold?

I bet many Muslims are laughing their asses off as the Christian church kicks its own. Given they press they get from the 'Christian' media they deserve the break.

And if no church ever stood up for their beliefs, we all would be saying, "Typical gutless Christians. They don't have the balls to even stand up for what they believe in, even when this book is obviously written to discredit them and slander the Catholic faith at the same time."

Agreed but there's a difference between standing up for your beliefs and hysterical ranting. It's not like Christianity was 'invented' last week and is a new brand fighting for market share. If you believe then this book will make no difference, if you don't then it at worst all it will do is confirm that view; either way nothing changes.

But standing on a box and shouting 'blasphemy' just makes the RC et al look like historical anachronisms. I feel sorry for them, damned (pun intended) if they do, damned if you don't.

 

[solong]

Quote:
Originally Posted by solong
What about all the Muslims and their own rife opinions about Christians reinforced 100-fold?


I bet many Muslims are laughing their asses off as the Christian church kicks its own. Given they press they get from the 'Christian' media they deserve the break.[/quote]

And your contrary point is...? In the first place, we have just the opposite of a "Christian media." And if you are instead speaking of the Religious Christian media (there IS a difference, you know), they are not apparently "kicking their own." So the whole premise is just baloney, to begin with.


Quote:
Originally Posted by solong
And if no church ever stood up for their beliefs, we all would be saying, "Typical gutless Christians. They don't have the balls to even stand up for what they believe in, even when this book is obviously written to discredit them and slander the Catholic faith at the same time."

Agreed but there's a difference between standing up for your beliefs and hysterical ranting. It's not like Christianity was 'invented' last week and is a new brand fighting for market share. If you believe then this book will make no difference, if you don't then it at worst all it will do is confirm that view; either way nothing changes.

But standing on a box and shouting 'blasphemy' just makes the RC et al look like historical anachronisms. I feel sorry for them, damned (pun intended) if they do, damned if you don't.

Well, you either stand with Christ, or you are against Him. And if you want to ridicule blasphemy, then you stand against Him, and that happens not to be my problem anymore. That's yours. And when you do so in writing, then you have not only made it your problem, but you say to everybody, "Hey-- look-it me! See how open-minded I am!" But you tell us something else, too.

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (MAT 12:30 )

Your savior said also something else that you might want to recall, someday:

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."

So don't tell me that I am threatening you. I am the messenger. I just quote the Boss! But don't worry-- you are going to hear these words again, some day. So get all your jeering in while you can. God is not mocked, and if you think you can, then I'll bet you your eternal life you are wrong. And all it takes is a word. Not a book!

 

[dong20]

And your contrary point is...? In the first place, we have just the opposite of a "Christian media." And if you are instead speaking of the Religious Christian media (there IS a difference, you know), they are not apparently "kicking their own." So the whole premise is just baloney, to begin with.

I was speaking in broad terms, The Christian church being unable to deal with dissent without resort to rhetoric and accusations of Blasphemy must be amusing for many Moslems, after all Christianity is all about tolerance isn't it.

Well, you either stand with Christ, or you are against Him. And if you want to ridicule blasphemy, then you stand against Him, and that happens not to be my problem anymore. That's yours. And when you do so in writing, then you have not only made it your problem, but you say to everybody, "Hey-- look-it me! See how open-minded I am!" But you tell us something else, too.

I think that's a rather parochial view, I merely said I believed there was a degree of overreaction. What's the "Hey-- look-it me! See how open-minded I am!" about? I'm as entitled to my opinion as you and I excersied that right.

So don't tell me that I am threatening you. I am the messenger. I just quote the Boss! But don't worry-- you are going to hear these words again, some day. So get all your jeering in while you can. God is not mocked, and if you think you can, then I'll bet you your eternal life you are wrong. And all it takes is a word. Not a book!

Now you're Gods messenger!!!..Wow a promotion indeed.

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (MAT 12:30 )

Your savior said also something else that you might want to recall, someday:

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."

Don't quote scripture to me solong if I want that I can get it from a professional.

If I'm damned then I'm damned; but I'll be damned if I'll be damned on false pretences by pretending to believe something I don't. Keep your sermonising to yourself. This thread is about a book and a movie not my eternal soul about which you are in NO position to make judgements.

 

[solong]

You know, dong, your sig. says it all. "If you dance with the devil, he is going to try to lead."

And folks, only dong can prevent that! The original saying is precisely correct, which is, "If you dance with the devil, he's going to lead." So I would just ask anybody with any sense, which of you will put your own powers up agfainst the devil? Provided you believe in him to begin with (obviously anybody with such a sig. does). And what kind of person would change an idomatic absolutism to sound as though he can mock the devil and get away with it, because he is far more powerful than the Person whom God vouches is the Prince of the Power of the Air?

Just a suggestion as to whom we are listening, and why?

And my suggestion, dong, as that you get off your "hysterical insinuation kick," stop ripping comments, be honest, intellectually, and when you say crap like "So you are now God's messenger, ho-ho-ho" you prove to us all that you are a liar (mainly to yourself) by not having pasted the scripture I included in my comment, that shows I didn't say it. Christ said it. I am the messenger, just like you are a messenger-- for the other side. Now let's see your fandango!

 

[dong20]

You know, dong, your sig. says it all. "If you dance with the devil, he is going to try to lead."

And folks, only dong can prevent that! The original saying is precisely correct, which is, "If you dance with the devil, he's going to lead." So I would just ask anybody with any sense, which of you will put your own powers up agfainst the devil? Provided you believe in him to begin with (obviously anybody with such a sig. does). And what kind of person would change an idomatic absolutism to sound as though he can mock the devil and get away with it, because he is far more powerful than the Person whom God vouches is the Prince of the Power of the Air?

Just a suggestion as to whom we are listening, and why?

And my suggestion, dong, as that you get off your "hysterical insinuation kick," stop ripping comments, be honest, intellectually, and when you say crap like "So you are now God's messenger, ho-ho-ho" you prove to us all that you are a liar (mainly to yourself) by not having pasted the scripture I included in my comment, that shows I didn't say it. Christ said it. I am the messenger, just like you are a messenger-- for the other side. Now let's see your fandango!

Calling me a liar is truly,truly sad...I think there is something in the Bible about throwing stones I could cite...but you'll no doubt just accuse me of something else.

It always amuses me solong that anyone who dares to hold or worse state a different view to you or correct your meaningless drivel is 'attacking' you and all you can do is respond with......well would someone like to translate what you just posted above because I didn't study gibberish at school..:smile:

Beelzibub is my Brother in law....didn't you know? And as for the sig...I got it from you...from your farcial discourse with Zora..