The DaVinci Code

“wanderer - Simple question. Try to comprehend it.

What is your point in throwing stones?

Can you answer without dodging? LOL!”

“Don't mis-lead people, Sarge. I was calling the people with signs outside the movie theatres jerks, NOT all Christians.

I highly resent that you have extraplolated my comment to be applicable to ALL Christians.

You are the scum of the earth to do so...

and I say that because, as all people of faith believe, it is time for us ALL TO COME TOGETHER.

You are driving people of faith apart. YOU are a negative, not a positive, influence upon Christianiaty.”

“So you won't answer the question. Instead you throw more stones as I simply ask you to explain yourself. I thought as much.



last edited: 5/22/06 7:46:41 PM”

“I'll answer any question you pose, you a$$hole, just be specific so I know what the questions is. Until it is, stop with your vague: "I won't answer the question" crap.”

“Don't mis-lead people, Sarge. I was calling the people with signs outside the movie theatres jerks, NOT all Christians.

I didn't say which ones. You were calling CHRISTIAN PROTESTORS jerks. Whether they are outside with signs or not, they are Christians, and you called them jerks. You also called them "small-minded people". You called Christian protestors names, like I said. How very "Christian" of you.

I highly resent that you have extraplolated my comment to be applicable to ALL Christians.

I didn't. I said (and I quote) "guess who this is calling Christian protestors a name". By your logic, based on your original comment, you called any Christian who protests (even silently) a jerk. I protested by not going to the movie (among other things), so you called me a jerk. This before I had even addressed you.

You are the scum of the earth to do so...

(no comment necessary)

and I say that because, as all people of faith believe, it is time for us ALL TO COME TOGETHER.

That's a meaningless statement. As you admitted earlier on this thread, it's all made up. It means nothing except what you want it to mean. Come together for what? A multitude of mixed-up faiths which don't agree? Faith in yourself!? Good luck with that.

You are driving people of faith apart. YOU are a negative, not a positive, influence upon Christianiaty.

I'll take "What a hypocrite would say for $800 Alex." Not that you care, since the books of Christianity are meaningless according to you.

I resent you claiming to be a Christian when you admit you don't subscribe to the religion.”

““I'll answer any question you pose, you a$$hole, just be specific so I know what the questions is. Until it is, stop with your vague: "I won't answer the question" crap." - wanderer

More name calling. Surprise surprise.

One more time since you're don't seem to understand question marks.

“wanderer - Simple question. Try to comprehend it.

What is your point in throwing stones?

Can you answer without dodging? LOL!” <- you don't have to answer that. We've already answered that.
last edited: 5/22/06 8:01:26 PM”

“wanderer, are you starting to feel like this?

”

“more personal insults ...

So, anybody want to talk about the davinci code like we were before wanderer and hyway came along to make their personal insults?”

“hyway, so far you've made 3 points. Tell me which one of them came from somebody who is not a dummy.

1. You have people on ignore.
2. You recieved a bribe to learn scripture.
3. I (Sarge) do not debate the subject at hand.

#3 is the most ironic, I find, and of course, hypocritical.”

“A: I don't proclaim to be a Christian.. not sure where you got that?

B: Your responses are so "way-out-there" with some references to this, some to that, etc., that I've gotta' say I don't have the time to look it all up to respond to you.

C: It's increasingly apparant that your comments aren't worth responding to... ie., very few people take you seriously!

Sorry Sarge... maybe you should take some "human interaction" courses so that you can potentially learn the basics of how to communicate with others without alinateing them via your obstinate, arrogant manner.

You do really come across as a jerk... you certainly know that by now, don't you? It makes it hard to have any kind of debate with you, whether it's religeon (this thread) or any other subject... you just donb't want to hear any other perspective... it's like:

"This is what I think, I'm Sarge, and I KNOW EVERYTHING so don't even dare question me."

Well, sorry, but I question you. I won't let you get away with that cr$p.

But... I've also come to believe you may not even know that you come across that way. So... giving you the benefit of the doubt... let's keep communicating.”

“A. I know you didn't proclaim that. What you did say is: "and I say that because, as all people of faith believe, it is time for us ALL TO COME TOGETHER" That's a meaningless statement. You didn't catch that the other time I said it? You are pretending to know what I (and anyone else of faith) believes, so you must think you are one of us.

B. My responses are "so way out there" because you are commenting on things you have no history of. You obviously haven't followed the thread, yet you think you can comment to the point of telling me what I think and believe. You're making a fool of yourself. I wasn't evangelizing. I was talking about the history that is written about in the book. You missed that point which I made MANY MANY MANY times.

C. People were responding to me earlier today, and will continue to do so. It wasn't until a small few (you, hyway (who added nothing to this discussion by the way) and Sassafras made comments about me. Somehow my words with Nigal and lipstick hiker went right by you.

Your comments about me not wanting to hear other points of view PROVES you didn't read this thread.

You still haven't answered my question. (Please don't make me write it a 3rd time)
last edited: 5/22/06 8:28:50 PM”

“PS - I really have no interest in discussing anything with you. It's not because of your views (I don't even know what you think about this - you've mostly commented on what you think of me) ... I disagree with Nigal and I look forward to discussing this more with him. I just don't like how you go around name calling and pointing fingers. You called my friends jerks and I don't appreciate it. It's not going to get to me, but it puts me in a position where I have no interest in engaging in any kind of resolution process with you. So, you said once you were putting me on ignore. Let's just leave it at that. If you have further name calling to do to me, start another thread. Otherwise, this is not the first thread you've mucked up a thread by making a point to bash me specifically, so let's not make a habit of that. I don't even mind you going around name calling. It reflects on you, not me. Just do it on your own thread, ok? No offense, let's just *not* keep communicating? Ok? Good.
last edited: 5/22/06 8:34:13 PM”

“Sarge, I'm busy, so can't research all your BS accusations & false claims, so you just keep on posting all your crap, but just be aware that some people don't respond / reply because they actually have lives to live.

And I'm sure I can understand why you have no interest in discussing anything with me... I actually use logic & data to back-up my positions, whereas you... well... we'll leave that to you to justify.”

“PPS - Just to make sure, wanderer, I set my "date range" back a month and looked at the posts. Nigal, Crash and I were nicely discussing about the historical accuracy of the book. Instead of "evangelizing", like you claim, I was talking about how the historical accuracy should be scrutinized here. It was then that you stepped in and called my friends (Christian protestors) "jerks". I explained why they were doing it, and you went on in the next post to say they are "arrogant" and "outrageous" for expressing their beliefs. You then claimed I was wrong in what they were trying to do (even though I have attended training classes for said events), oh, and then you finished by calling them "small minded". I tried to bring the conversation back by telling you we were talking about the "history" lessons in the book before your name calling, but you bugged out after that until now when you returned to tell me that I'm evangelizing and my opinion should be kept to myself.

Thought you might like a recap. Feel free to look back at the thread yourself. You won't, but that's on you.
last edited: 5/22/06 8:49:44 PM”

“"wanderer, are you starting to feel like this?"



What are you saying? Sarge has his hand up wanderer’s ass? LOL!


And now a word from our sponcers...

”

“I thought the DaVinci Code was a great piece of fiction.

More thought provoking, IMHO, was the "DaVinci Code Explained" or "Secrets of the Code".”

“Nigal is that J. Peterman?!”

“Nope, that's the farting preacher.”

“Well I finally got round to reading it, I've avoided it cos everyone else had - Then I was delighted to read on Metro this morning that Sophie Neveu studied at the "elite" Royal Holloway College - my old school - woo hoo!”

“Sarge, I don't know if the movie made good points to go around expousing them. I was brought up a Catholic and I don't challenge the beliefs of my religion as it was taught to me.”

“I'm glad we live in a free country where someone can make up a fictional story about the core of a religious belief (or even believe it to be fact) without those in the religion of topic setting off car bombs and cutting off people's heads and blowing up families in restaurants in vile protest. Personally, I have no problem with people thinking Jesus really might have had children, or was merely a man, or didn't even exist at all. I am just sincerely thankful beyond measure that I know the truth. I'm too happy to be pissed off at what others think about the truth.”

“I am just sincerely thankful beyond measure that I know the truth

That's just the point - you don't. I have no doubt you've deluded yourself into thinking so, however. It's sad, and though you're living in a hollow happiness, I pity you nonetheless.”

“Mutt, it's cool, no worries! Life is good®.”

“My point is made. Thanks.”

“THE TRASHING OF THE CHRIST
Contrasts In Media Treatment of The DaVinci Code and The Passion

Good point by point on liberal media bias.

http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2006/report052306_p1.asp



Also, from their Executive Summary...
■ The DaVinci Code received more of a publicity push from the networks than The Passion of the Christ. The number of segments devoted to the movies in the year before their cinematic release was 99 for The DaVinci Code to 66 for The Passion. Most of those came on morning shows. By far, the biggest Code promoter was NBC’s Today, which more provided more stories (38) than the other two network morning shows combined (29). By contrast, NBC was in third-place in Passion segments (11).

■ The Passion of the Christ was treated as a social problem – the biggest TV anti-Semitism story of that year – while The DaVinci Code was presented more often as an "intriguing" theory rather than threatening or offensive to Christians. Nearly every one of the 66 network segments on The Passion on ABC, CBS, and NBC touched on those complaints. But only 27 of the 99 Code segments focused on Christian and Catholic protests.

■ While the faith of millions of Americans, Christianity, is singled out for criticism, with one "fascinating" fictional detail after another, the networks either refused to air or barely aired mild Mohammed cartoons out of great sensitivity to American Muslims. At the same time that Christianity is questioned as a false religion in The DaVinci Code, the networks demonstrated an exquisite sensitivity to American Muslims on the sensitive subject of threatened violence against mostly mild Danish cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad. ABC aired a glance at one cartoon on two programs. CBS and NBC declared they would censor the images.

■ In their push to promote The DaVinci Code, the networks routinely failed to address how the book most offended Christian sensitivities: that Christianity itself is a lie. The networks showed their lack of belief or interest in religion as they almost always failed to examine Brown’s most contentious charge: that Jesus was not the Son of God. While many noted the scandalous claim of a sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, only six stories explained the Code’s denial of the divinity of Jesus.

■ While Mel Gibson was attacked and even psychoanalyzed for his religious beliefs, DaVinci Code author Dan Brown and filmmakers Ron Howard and Brian Grazer were never personally examined or challenged about their personal religious beliefs, their willingness to milk controversy, play fast and loose with facts, and offend Christians for personal gain. Whenever the networks decided to address fact and fiction in The DaVinci Code, they almost always found it was stuffed with falsehoods. But they never focused on the idea that Brown, Grazer, or Howard should be criticized for being too casual with the truth.

■ The networks also bought into the DaVinci Code craze by picking up and publicizing other Code-related books attacking Christianity and the Catholic Church, but their standard of evidence was hardly an example of what a skeptical journalist would apply. Authors of new books like The Jesus Papers and The Jesus Dynasty were offered publicity forums, even though the network journalists pronounced the evidence behind the claims was flimsy, even non-existent. So why did the networks promote them?”

“I had thought the Da Vinci Code was meant to be fiction, and that people who are upset are thinking it was meant to be true. As I said before, I just considered it to be entertainment, nothing more.

I would suppose Dan Brown and everyone associated with the movie and book are enjoying all of the controversy as the movie was said to have equaled sales of the last Star Wars movie.”

“and that people who are upset are thinking it was meant to be true.

No, that's not why they're upset. They know the intent is that it's fiction. People who read it, knowing it's fiction, come away with ideas that they think are historical truths, but they are not. It's the mixing of truth and fiction in such a way as Brown has done (even so much as saying at the beginning of the book that things are "FACT" in the book, when they clearly are not, and he knows they are not, as a disclaimer to the book!?) that has people upset, or at least concerned enough to get out and make sure people realize the truth. Saying it's fiction is one thing, but the book/movie is written in such a way that people are believing it as fact. It's not like a normal mystery novel. It's intended to deceive the reader, and entertain. The two should be mutually exclusive.”

“Sarge, I an not up on how the movie was being presented by Dan Brown et al, but I agree that he should not represent the movie as fact. We're talking about messing with the belief of millions of people. I agree, they should not deceive people and his doing so was only to gain controversy and create a big box office hit.

People like Dan Brown and Opie can make a movie like this because no one of the same ilk in which they travel will chastize them, so they have pockets full of money and no one to answer to that will impact their life.

I think Ron Howard and Dan Brown are planning to make Angels and Demons into a movie now. I don't know if it's just gossip at this point. I haven't listened to any of the rhetoric surrounding this movie or what's coming up.”

“The premise that Christ fathered children and they are the royal line of kings and queens is a conspiracy theory that has been around for eons. Brown did not make all this up on his own, he just put his own twists on it and wrote a novel about it. It doesn't threaten my faith one bit. It is prophesied in the Bible that there will be theories like this to tickle our ears, and more will come that would fool even those who are well-grounded if that were possible. If someone's faith is shaken by this tired conspiracy of old, then they needed their faith shaken. For some authorities in the Catholic Church (mostly other countries) to suggest a ban on this movie makes it seem like they have something to fear, and hide. I have spoken.”

“But I am curious what Andy Griffith thinks of this flick.”

“I think Andy would say "no comment". Opie is like his kid and in his old age, why rock the boat. Friends tend to stand behind friends even if they are wrong.”

“The 'Elite" Royal Holloway College ..... lol”

“Buck - since I seem to be the only one saying anything negative about this movie, let me be clear. If you read my posts throughout, you'll note that my argument against this book/movie is not about the shaking of ones faith.”

“Whenever a Christian gets all cranky about Brown getting their religious facts straight I tell them to remember that next time they are trying to tell a Jew they’re wrong about Judaism. Nyuck nyuck!”

“This was cool.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/01/davinci.feature.reut/index.html”

“Some people are still passing a fat one around on the grassy knoll.”

“finally rented and watched the movie. Good movie that could cause you to question things but so did the X-Files.”

“The book was even better. His earlier book angels and Demons is awesome too and is in production to be a movie.”