Callistus Valerius Da Vinci Code

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

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)

On 21 May 2006 11:09:48 -0700, 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.

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




wrote in message
oups.com...
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
.com,
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

"Werehatrack" wrote in message
...
On 21 May 2006 11:09:48 -0700, 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 whore" 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

Basjan wrote:
"Werehatrack" wrote in message
...
On 21 May 2006 11:09:48 -0700, 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 whore" 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" wrote in message
...
"Werehatrack" wrote in message
...
On 21 May 2006 11:09:48 -0700, 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 whore" 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 =----

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

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote in message
oups.com...

....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