http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=638772006
Never learn do they? If you want to ensure the success of a film try and persuade people not to go see it. You would think they would welcome anything that generates an interest in religon at all.
Boycott Da Vinci Code film - top Vatican official
Boycott Da Vinci Code film - top Vatican official
gmc wrote: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=638772006
Never learn do they? If you want to ensure the success of a film try and persuade people not to go see it. You would think they would welcome anything that generates an interest in religon at all.
Sadly, I think the Vatican are too narrow-minded to see it that way, gmc. They are too blinkered to see the wider implications!
Never learn do they? If you want to ensure the success of a film try and persuade people not to go see it. You would think they would welcome anything that generates an interest in religon at all.
Sadly, I think the Vatican are too narrow-minded to see it that way, gmc. They are too blinkered to see the wider implications!
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Boycott Da Vinci Code film - top Vatican official
At least they didn't say boycott the popcorn....................
Boycott Da Vinci Code film - top Vatican official
Diuretic wrote: I have to admit I didn't read the book. Years ago I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail and apart from reading about gnostics not much of it impressed me. I though it was good speculation but that was about it. And I don't even have any particular theological knowledge and I'm not a religious person so I wasn't anti their thesis on religious grounds. It just seemed a load of bunkum. So when the Da Vinci Code came out I just ignored it. More of the same. Then I started reading about the industry it created, people travelling to places to unravel the "mystery". Fair enough, up to them and since I haven't read the book I won't bother to see the film.
But boycotts do attract a backlash, some will see it just to spite the boycott.
I've read a couple of his books including the Da Vinci Code. Pulp fiction kind of writer instantly forgettable I borrowed a copy as like you it's not normally the type of book bother with.
Real life is always more unbelieveable than anything you can dream up-just look in to the borgia or medici popes to see what I mean.
Personally i don't see why JC wouldn't have been married but since I'm not particularly religious the idea doesn't raise any fundamental issues to worry about.
But boycotts do attract a backlash, some will see it just to spite the boycott.
I've read a couple of his books including the Da Vinci Code. Pulp fiction kind of writer instantly forgettable I borrowed a copy as like you it's not normally the type of book bother with.
Real life is always more unbelieveable than anything you can dream up-just look in to the borgia or medici popes to see what I mean.
Personally i don't see why JC wouldn't have been married but since I'm not particularly religious the idea doesn't raise any fundamental issues to worry about.
Boycott Da Vinci Code film - top Vatican official
chonsigirl wrote: At least they didn't say boycott the popcorn....................
:yh_rotfl ..
:yh_rotfl ..
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
Boycott Da Vinci Code film - top Vatican official
We discussed this briefly on another thread.
1. The cardinal is speaking only for himself and has the same right to his opinion as anyone.
2. To my knoweldge, Brown has never presented his book as anything but fiction. I can understand Opus Dei asking for a disclaimer because there are a lot of stupid people in the world who don't seem to understand the difference between fact and fiction, and the Card himself seems to acknowledge this: ...what he called "the extreme cultural poverty on the part of a good number of the Christian faithful." There may even be some people like that in the Vatican.
3. Nearly all of Brown's basic plot is adapted from earlier sources, some recent, some going all the way back to the Gnostics.
4. I haven't read the book but will probably see the film.gmc wrote: Personally i don't see why JC wouldn't have been married...You have a point in that unmarried rabbis were virtually unheard of then as now. Jesus Christ was, however, apparently the rare exception because there is absolutely NOTHING in either Church or secular history to suggest that He married, and in order to make such an assertion an author has to embrace the 'everything's part of a vast conspiracy' mindset. Once embraced, of course, that can be used to 'prove' almost anything.
1. The cardinal is speaking only for himself and has the same right to his opinion as anyone.
2. To my knoweldge, Brown has never presented his book as anything but fiction. I can understand Opus Dei asking for a disclaimer because there are a lot of stupid people in the world who don't seem to understand the difference between fact and fiction, and the Card himself seems to acknowledge this: ...what he called "the extreme cultural poverty on the part of a good number of the Christian faithful." There may even be some people like that in the Vatican.
3. Nearly all of Brown's basic plot is adapted from earlier sources, some recent, some going all the way back to the Gnostics.
4. I haven't read the book but will probably see the film.gmc wrote: Personally i don't see why JC wouldn't have been married...You have a point in that unmarried rabbis were virtually unheard of then as now. Jesus Christ was, however, apparently the rare exception because there is absolutely NOTHING in either Church or secular history to suggest that He married, and in order to make such an assertion an author has to embrace the 'everything's part of a vast conspiracy' mindset. Once embraced, of course, that can be used to 'prove' almost anything.
Boycott Da Vinci Code film - top Vatican official
posted by bronwen
You have a point in that unmarried rabbis were virtually unheard of then as now. Jesus Christ was, however, apparently the rare exception because there is absolutely NOTHING in either Church or secular history to suggest that He married, and in order to make such an assertion an author has to embrace the 'everything's part of a vast conspiracy' mindset. Once embraced, of course, that can be used to 'prove' almost anything.
Rabbi! You mean he wasn't a carpenter after all?
I can understand Opus Dei asking for a disclaimer because there are a lot of stupid people in the world who don't seem to understand the difference between fact and fiction, and the Card himself seems to acknowledge this:
So that would explain religious belief then (sorry couldn't resist, just pulling your leg)
You have a point in that unmarried rabbis were virtually unheard of then as now. Jesus Christ was, however, apparently the rare exception because there is absolutely NOTHING in either Church or secular history to suggest that He married, and in order to make such an assertion an author has to embrace the 'everything's part of a vast conspiracy' mindset. Once embraced, of course, that can be used to 'prove' almost anything.
Rabbi! You mean he wasn't a carpenter after all?
I can understand Opus Dei asking for a disclaimer because there are a lot of stupid people in the world who don't seem to understand the difference between fact and fiction, and the Card himself seems to acknowledge this:
So that would explain religious belief then (sorry couldn't resist, just pulling your leg)
Boycott Da Vinci Code film - top Vatican official
gmc wrote: So that would explain religious belief then (sorry couldn't resist, just pulling your leg)That's fine, and you can pull the other one whenever the urge sweeps over you.
Seriously, though, religious belief is not a matter of fact vs. fiction but of faith, and of the awareness of God's presence in one's life.
P.S. CNN International interviewed several Catholic priests and monsignors this morning regarding the film. Most of them said that they were looking forward to seeing it, and one even said that the book was one of the best works of fiction he'd ever read.
Seriously, though, religious belief is not a matter of fact vs. fiction but of faith, and of the awareness of God's presence in one's life.
P.S. CNN International interviewed several Catholic priests and monsignors this morning regarding the film. Most of them said that they were looking forward to seeing it, and one even said that the book was one of the best works of fiction he'd ever read.
Boycott Da Vinci Code film - top Vatican official
Bronwen wrote: Jesus Christ was, however, apparently the rare exception because there is absolutely NOTHING in either Church or secular history to suggest that He married, and in order to make such an assertion an author has to embrace the 'everything's part of a vast conspiracy' mindset.You know, that's the mistake, that "vast". You use "vast" and it immediately becomes a risible notion. Take away the "vast" and it reduces to a point where it can be discussed.
You know, for example, that Saint Paul got an arm-lock on the Jerusalem Church and won acquiescence with Gentile uncircumsised out-law Christianity, which ended up as Saint Peter's stomach-turning vision of the net from the sky. I think it's possible to use "conspiracy of silence", at least, of something that small and specific. I don't see how else the two churches co-existed without it.
You can certainly say that if there were initial conflict on who was to rule the Jerusalem Church, very few marks of it would be left in the Gospel record. That's another area where a very small "conspiracy of silence" would give all the appearence of what's visible today, including the heretic gospels.
So why "vast"?
You know, for example, that Saint Paul got an arm-lock on the Jerusalem Church and won acquiescence with Gentile uncircumsised out-law Christianity, which ended up as Saint Peter's stomach-turning vision of the net from the sky. I think it's possible to use "conspiracy of silence", at least, of something that small and specific. I don't see how else the two churches co-existed without it.
You can certainly say that if there were initial conflict on who was to rule the Jerusalem Church, very few marks of it would be left in the Gospel record. That's another area where a very small "conspiracy of silence" would give all the appearence of what's visible today, including the heretic gospels.
So why "vast"?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Boycott Da Vinci Code film - top Vatican official
spot wrote: So why "vast"?Well, OK then, 'half-vast'.
Boycott Da Vinci Code film - top Vatican official
I prefer Billy Connolly's take on the Da Vinci picture. (does anyone remember the crucifixion sketch) JC is holding on to the table to stop himself falling over (too much to drink) and the rest are pulling away from him because he has just passed wind.
No doubt some in the church would like to make irreverence a crime just as they would like to stop anyone questioning religious belief.
What the cardinbal has done is add fuel to the conspiracy myth-they want to stop it being shown so there must be something to it after all.
I might read holy blood holy grail now out of curiosity but Dan Brown is not that great a writer IMO.
Bit like Salman Rushdie, I bough a copy of the Satanic Verses as a matter of principle but couldn't be bothered getting past the first few pages-he's crap, worse it was pretentious crap.
No doubt some in the church would like to make irreverence a crime just as they would like to stop anyone questioning religious belief.
What the cardinbal has done is add fuel to the conspiracy myth-they want to stop it being shown so there must be something to it after all.
I might read holy blood holy grail now out of curiosity but Dan Brown is not that great a writer IMO.
Bit like Salman Rushdie, I bough a copy of the Satanic Verses as a matter of principle but couldn't be bothered getting past the first few pages-he's crap, worse it was pretentious crap.