The Da Vinci Delusion

solong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Posts
180
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Gender
Male
dong20 said:
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..:rolleyes:

Oh, you got it from me? No, you didn't. Again, like I said before dong-- you're a liar, and I don't have to throw stones. If you weren't already stoned when you wrote it, then a person who merely points things out is not a stone thrower. It's an insulter, a defamer, a name-caller like yourself. A person who uses adjectives to label a person with unfairly, without any intelligent objectsion, a dperson who contextualizes in order to belittle-- that's a stone-thrower.

And sad? Oh yes. It's sad that anyone would ahve to point these things out.

Now for everyone's benefit, let me quote again what I said in another thread and see if you can prove me wrong. I said

solong said:
If you dance with the devil, he's going to lead.

And you said, "I've changed it a little."

So dong, who's the liar? Glad you brought it up. Just keep giving me the nails and I'll bew happy to hammer 'em in.
 

solong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Posts
180
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Gender
Male
rob_just_rob said:
If I may - he is correct in saying that the correct formulation is "try to lead", not "try and lead".

Sorry, that's been bothering me for a couple of weeks now. :smile:

As my hero Ronald Reagan used to say, "Now there you go, again." And anybody who is interested can look it up. Obviously, you haven't a clue how to do that!
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
rob_just_rob said:
If I may - he is correct in saying that the correct formulation is "try to lead", not "try and lead".

Sorry, that's been bothering me for a couple of weeks now. :smile:

Lol...I know, I was just lazy and kept forgetting to correct it...
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
solong said:
Oh, you got it from me? No, you didn't. Again, like I said before dong-- you're a liar...

I took it from one of your posts, I posted to say I had, and the reason I don't put your name in it is because you didn't originate it. Yes I paraphrased it a little...so sue me..get some perspective please.

solong said:
If you weren't already stoned when you wrote it, then a person who merely points things out is not a stone thrower. It's an insulter, a defamer, a name-caller like yourself....

Coming from someone who just 'accused' me of being a drug taking liar that's highly amusing and a more than tad hypocritical methinks...:rolleyes:

FWIW
solong said:
Now for everyone's benefit, let me quote again what I said in another thread and see if you can prove me wrong. I said

"If you dance with the devil, he's going to lead"

Here's what you actually said..
solong said:
If you decide to dance with the devil, you gotta remember Madame Zora-- he's going to lead.

Liar Liar pants on fire...
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Solong, Try as I might I don't understand why you try and make this so personal. I made reasonable comments to your post and you come back with insults...I have no personal gripe with you...Can we at least try to play nice....:rolleyes:
 

solong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Posts
180
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Gender
Male
dong20 said:
Here's what you actually said..


Liar Liar pants on fire...

Gald you found it, dong. By golly, you DO know how to find those quotes, after all!

Now please note what I said in my first claim-- that you took that quote form me. That you also said, you'd like to borrow that quote, and you said "I changed it a little." So I told you here that the qoute is "He is going to lead." And you canged it to..."He's going to try and lead."

Now if you want to quibble over an 'and" in your sentence, be my guest. Howver, your lie is more explicit now, then ever. Like I just said, "Keep handing me nails and I'll keep hammering them in."

I realize you don't seem anymore to be able to help yourself. It just comes naturally.

If you dance with the devil, he is going to lead." That's MY saying. I was the first to say it, many years ago, and no, you won't find someone who said it earlier, because it's my axiom. I will say, however, that I have heard it, since. And now, here comes dong, who says "he will TRY and lead."

Hey, whatever floats your boat! (Oh, by the way, that's borrowed.)
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
solong said:
Now if you want to quibble over an 'and" in your sentence, be my guest.

Actually that wasn't me...

rob_just_rob said:
If I may - he is correct in saying that the correct formulation is "try to lead", not "try and lead"..

Maybe your anger got in the way of your reading ability?

Solong, I've removed 'your' quote from my signature...truly it's just not worth the hassle..:rolleyes:

rob_just_rob said:
You're both illiterate. :smile:

And remember, I'm a drug crazed lying messenger of the Devil as well. :biggrin1:

dong20 said:
...Can we at least try to play nice....:rolleyes:

I guess that's a NO then..:rolleyes:
 

DougRR

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Posts
43
Media
12
Likes
31
Points
163
Gender
Male
I saw the movie yesterday when it opened. Having heard what the critics said about it being boring, slow moving and too long, I must say I found none of this. It has lots of action, it's full of intrigue, it stretches your mind and the two hours and 45 minutes goes by quickly.
There are several line references in the film, said by Tom Hanks and others, that it all comes down to what you believe, what you want to believe and... faith.
I am not roman catholic but I do consider myself to be a christian and it does not bother me a great deal whether Christ was married or not.
Knowing a little of the history of the RC church it is entirely plausible or even possible and possibly likely that the two enemy groups, The Priory of Sion and Opus Dei actually have engaged or still do engage in secret activities to expose or protect the church.
In my opininon, it was a damn good movie...but is was a movie.
Doug
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
DougRR said:
In my opininon, it was a damn good movie...but is was a movie.
Doug

Doug, I'd say you hit the nail squarely on the head there....I think there is a need for perspective and the 'blasphemy hype' going on is just so much over reaction.

I'm glad you enjoyed the movie for what it was, a couple of hours of (potentially) thought provoking entertainment. I'll probably get round to watching it on DVD...:rolleyes:
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
solong said:
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? They're not beyond criticism. Take a hard look at the Roman Catholic's coverup of the pedophelia scandal (generations-old) here in Boston (and beyond) orchestrated by none other than Cardinal Law and the Vatican until the vast hew and cry of the victims and their families finally made that fucking institution as accountable as any other. High time I say. The rules apply to all or they ought to apply to none.

So while I am NOT a catholic...
Not much difference between a traditional R.C. and a fundamental Christian these days.:rolleyes:

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.
<---- See what I mean? What you fail to grasp is that many don't appear to subscribe to your sense of blind faith in that handbook of yours.

We are talking eternal death.
Your use of the first person plural here is disturbing. Perhaps "you are talking" here but this 'we' isn't.

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.
Dan Brown is an 'occultist'?? HUH?
He's simply a lapsed Protestant! Are you cracked dude? Who's feeding you this shit?? Damn! You'd have been a natural during the Salem Witch Hysteria of the 1690s here in Massachusetts. You'd been certain to have gained judge status at Goody Nourse's trial.:rolleyes: Hang the eighty year old heretic I say!

It was about politics in the 1690s and it's about politics today. Same beef - different century. TEDIOUS!!!!!!!!!

When you go strictly by its success at the box office you make a fatal error, because then you will judge everything that way--
Just like you do in all things?



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.
Then you truly don't need to appear so threatened by it do you?

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?
Then perhaps, just perhaps, they'll realize that Christianity is as flawed and open to speculation as all religions.

What about all the Muslims and their own rife opinions about Christians reinforced 100-fold?
They didn't need The DaVince Code to form those opinions. All they need do is look at Dubya pictured at prayer to know most Christians are fucked. (notice I said 'most')

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."
Yeah good for them thar Christians!! Poor things. They suffer so. I don't see Christians as 'gutless' I only see many as myopic.

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?
Where once does the book/movie call God or Christ liars? The rumors around Christ's relationship with Mary Magdalene have been swirling around for centuries. The town of Rennes-le-Chateau has been a pilgrimmage place for those who believe Christ has descendants for eons. This shit isn't "hot off the presses" of Dan Brown's imagination solely you know. He simply took the material and flew with it.

Fiction is never based against a religion--NOT EVER-- much less God Almighty, unless there's a far more sinister reason than entertainment.
Sure it is. Look what Mel Gibson did in his Passion of the Christ.

That horseshit (which is redolent with thinly-veiled anti-Semetisim) is only the opinion of its author.

I assume, therefore, Gibson's movie is heresey in your view too? :33:
 

Orlando_8

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Posts
29
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Age
65
Location
Orlando
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Isn't this a work of fiction based on a book of fiction? And hasn't it been interpreted to serve the needs of those who want to control others...



"I believe in God.. but I have problems with the earthly representatives..."
 

Orlando_8

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Posts
29
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Age
65
Location
Orlando
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
"There is otherwise NO OTHER REASON for publishing a bibliography in the book as references to justify the plot! "

Wasn't there just a trial about plagarism ???
 

solong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Posts
180
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Gender
Male
Orlando_8 said:
"There is otherwise NO OTHER REASON for publishing a bibliography in the book as references to justify the plot! "

Wasn't there just a trial about plagarism ???

Uh-- plagarism is just the opposite of publishing a bibliography. Plagarism is stealing someone else's material and pawning it off as your own. A reference section tends to justify ones conclusions on the basis of the references given.

OH, well!
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
DougRR said:
There are several line references in the film, said by Tom Hanks and others, that it all comes down to what you believe, what you want to believe and... faith.
I used to think this, too. It is something that resonates with our American culture of individualism and free-will. But when each of us are left to our own devices, we will always invent the God we want rather than the God that is. A good example of this is the avenging God of Pat Robertson who causes planes to fly into the World Trade Center because America is not completly intolerant to gay people. Since Pat and his followers are driven by fear and a need to control the world around them, they need a powerful vengeful God that dispenses worldly justice according to their criteria.

I think Martin Luther had it right when he said that it doesn't matter what we believe about God, rather it matters what we believe Jesus believed about God. Since our only source of knowledge about that comes from a very difficult and enigmatic book (the Bible, not the Da Vinci Code. hehe), it requires more than just our own reading and analysis. We really do need to draw on great bodies of church tradition to help us understand it. Unfortunately, when any of us Americans hear that, we instead hear the word "indoctrination". So we reject that notion and form yet another "church of one".

DougRR said:
I am not roman catholic but I do consider myself to be a christian and it does not bother me a great deal whether Christ was married or not.
Yes, this is not really such a big deal unless it is posed in a way that refutes the crucifixion and resurrection. There is a strain of Gnosticism in American Christianity that tends to want to keep Jesus as a perfect pure being separate from the corruption of the human condition, but that is not consistent with the New Testament's story of Jesus being born, living, dying a horrible and very human death, etc. I mean what more does a God have to do to deny Gnosticism? Anyway the bigger threat of Jesus being married is not to Christianity, but to Christianity's Book. Its too big of a thing to have been left out of the New Testament if it were really true.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
DougRR said:
Knowing a little of the history of the RC church it is entirely plausible or even possible and possibly likely that the two enemy groups, The Priory of Sion and Opus Dei actually have engaged or still do engage in secret activities to expose or protect the church.
Yes, and I used to think that the RC church wanted the Bible to be kept in Latin and people to be illiterate because they wanted to control the doctrine they transmitted to the congregation without interference from the inconvenient parts of the Bible that refuted it. But then look at the other extreme, where when you give everyone the Bible, they will go off and form wacky cults such as those guys who protest against gays at the funerals of fallen soldiers.

Maybe the RC church was right after all. It reminds me of Jack Nicholson saying "The truth! You can't handle the truth!".

I have concluded that this is a no-win situation. The RC church was right that people cannot interpret the Bible by themselves, but like any human institution, they abused the privilege of being the source of doctrine, by abusing the power it gave them.

Martin Luther saw that abuse and fought againts it, but in the end he grew to be very wary of what he loosed upon the world (to wit: the Thirty Years War).
 

solong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Posts
180
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Gender
Male
dong20 said:
Doug, I'd say you hit the nail squarely on the head there....I think there is a need for perspective and the 'blasphemy hype' going on is just so much over reaction.

I'm glad you enjoyed the movie for what it was, a couple of hours of (potentially) thought provoking entertainment. I'll probably get round to watching it on DVD...:rolleyes:

Dong, if you recall, you said in an earlier post that if the Catholics were to simply take the position that the movie was inane (as some critic dubbed it), that would be the correct position to take, rather than try to sue the producer.

If you recall also, I said this:

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.

Now you can see why I said it. Because value judgments are subjective, and to label the movie inane as a Catholic would also cause people to go and see it.

We have somebody who just loves it. We have somebody else who just hates it. Is that the definitive position? Hmm. Guess not. Maybe we should, in fact put our money where our mouth is, and if, in fact, we have a case, then sue 'em. I don't know of a better way to prove the point, once and for all.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
solong said:
Dong, if you recall, you said in an earlier post that if the Catholics were to simply take the position that the movie was inane (as some critic dubbed it), that would be the correct position to take, rather than try to sue the producer.

Solong, what I actually said what that the Church should say it was at variance with what they believe and leave it at that and allow people to make up their own minds. I made no reference whatever to whether the movie was inane or suggest the Church should say it was. For the record:

dong20 said:
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.

Please tell me, where is the word 'inane' or indeed any reference to the quality of the movie as opposed to the content? I wish you wouldn't keep putting words in my mouth.

solong said:
If you recall also, I said this:

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.

......

Now you can see why I said it. Because value judgments are subjective, and to label the movie inane as a Catholic would also cause people to go and see it.

But as I said, I didn't label the movie anything, how could I, I haven't see it. Neither did I advocate the Church doing so, I see your point (I think) but it doesn't apply to what I said and you did quote me. Do you think I'm more inclined to believe the story if the movie does well or less if it flops.....please.

solong said:
We have somebody who just loves it. We have somebody else who just hates it. Is that the definitive position? Hmm. Guess not. Maybe we should, in fact put our money where our mouth is, and if, in fact, we have a case, then sue 'em. I don't know of a better way to prove the point, once and for all.

I'd say the only definitive thing you can derive from your statement with any confidence is that it reflects two, largely subjective, personal opinions based on having watched a movie; both in terms of it's cinematic quality and, perhaps, the relevance of the narrative in the context of those two persons personal belief structures.

What I don't see is how one can use (in this case) movie reviews to extrapolate the viability (or not) of a potential law suit. Are you suggesting that the better the reviews the more the Church should be inclined to sue? To me, that smacks of sour grapes rather than sound legal judgement but then I'm not a lawyer.

If the church wants to sue, it has that right, we both know that. I fail to see in that sense how good the movie 'is' or not changes nothing, I don't see your point..:confused: