BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom

Subject: Folklore: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,Bastard child of Jesus & Mary
Date: 13 May 06 - 09:42 PM

So, "Christians" are getting VERY up in arms about the premiere this week of the film "Da Vinci Code".

Not just the Vatican, mind. But Megachurch Christendom. TVangelical Christendom. Xtian archaeologists, apologists, you name it, they are ready to sing their Battle Hymn for the Fundamental Right to a Xtian Republic.

I mean, how could anyone have a bad word to say about Opus Dei? That just PROVES Dan Brown wrong, does it not?

Subject: RE: Folklore: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST
Date: 13 May 06 - 09:47 PM

And isn't it wonderful that you can go watch it in spite of them all?

Subject: RE: Folklore: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,BC
Date: 13 May 06 - 10:02 PM

It is. The Fisher Kings as feminists should be a real hoot.

Talk about the grandaddy of urban legends.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,BC
Date: 13 May 06 - 10:07 PM

Another thing. How does Kryptos figure in to Hooker Gate? Does only W know?

It's all kinda ironic-like ain't it?

Like Princess Di taking Heather's leg, and then her going on to marry Rock Royalty, Sir Paul.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 13 May 06 - 11:27 PM

Can someone put this garbage in BS.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 May 06 - 11:53 PM

Yeah, I can't figure out what this subject has to do with folklore, and it certainly doesn't belong in the music section - so I changed the thread category to "BS."
I get riled up by some of my fellow Christians and how they go crazy in their opposition to "Da Vinci Code." I heard one Catholic talking head say the success of Da Vinci Code was all the fault of liberal Catholics and other liberal Christians who had not been steadfast in their faith. On the other hand, the book does seem to legitimize anti-Christian bigotry, and to give credence to a lot of anti-Christian stuff that just isn't true.
So, I don't know what to think - but I sure know it ain't folklore. So, who are Ron & Tom?
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 May 06 - 12:12 AM

Ron Howard - director

Tom Hanks - actor

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,BC
Date: 14 May 06 - 12:37 AM

All religion is folklore, and if you weren't so obviously ignorant of the subject, you would have left it alone.

Yet, since Joe Offer is God around here, when He sayeth it is BS, BS it shall be.

Power over others means not having to please anyone but yourself, eh Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 May 06 - 03:30 AM

I had to smile at your first sentence, GUEST,BS - clearly you are unaware of Joe's background. Your second and third sentence say more about yourself anyway.

As for the Code story: I read the book late in the game and found Dan Brown's writing style crude and boring - John Le Carre or Patricia Cornwell he definitely isn't. Even Tom Clancy's writing is better than Brown's. So he took an interesting urban myth and turned it to mush, as far as I am concerned. As for the plot, after the third iteration of "you think you cracked it, ah but here comes another bit" it got so samey in structure that I really had to try hard to keep an interest till the end of the book. So: good story, crap writer.

After that I lost interest, and will not be watching the film. Shame, because Tom Hanks is my all time favourite actor (Tim Robbins a close second); but as I found the original book annoying, I cannot imagine that the film-of-the-book will grip me.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 14 May 06 - 07:02 AM

GUEST,BC. before you star slagging off well respected people on this forum, you should give some thought as to why you and your friendly contributors remain anonymous, when most members know who Joe Offer, katlaughing, El Greko and myself are, you are the ones who are hiding your identities.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,J&MBC
Date: 14 May 06 - 10:27 AM

Oh, I'm not supposed to know he is a conservative Catholic, for instance, which is why he can't handle the very premise that all religion is folklore?

The book is based on centuries old folklore about Mary Magdalene. But in Joe Offer's world, that makes it BS.

And BTW, I don't respect Joe Offer, largely because of his petty tyrannical behavior like changing the prefix from Folklore to BS. I don't care it was moved below the line (when you use the Folklore prefix to start threads, the thread automatically goes above the line, just as it does with the OBIT and TECH prefixes). But to change the prefix to BS from Folklore is a political act of censorship, based upon Joe Offer's conservative Catholic beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 14 May 06 - 10:38 AM

You talking out of your arse makes it BS, and I asked for it to be moved.

Why don't you come out of the closet and tell us WHO you really are ?
anf WHY you post here which is mainly a MUSIC site.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 06 - 10:39 AM

Damn. Usually I get reported to the bishop for being a liberal.

And yes, I have taught classes on the folklore in religion, and I've done a lot of study of religious folklore - particularly all the fascinating and fantastic folklore surrounding the lives of the saints, and the folklore that is part of both the Old and New Testaments. And I've had lots of bad words to say about Opus Dei. Many of us "liberal" Christians do.

But major aspects of the Da Vinci Code are fakelore and bigotry - a horse of a different color.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,BC
Date: 14 May 06 - 11:33 AM

No Joe, you don't get it.

I'm not talking about the folklore IN religion.

What I am saying is ALL religious belief is mythology and folklore.

What I am saying is YOUR religion is fakelore.

YOUR religion is bigoted.

But then, that's the part of disagreement you won't tolerate here, right Mr. I'm In Charge Here?

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 May 06 - 12:08 PM

"So, "Christians" are getting VERY up in arms about"

Who cares what they get up in arms about.....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 May 06 - 01:03 PM

Here we go once more:
"Over the rickety rackety bridge!"

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 May 06 - 01:51 PM

Some Christians are getting up in arms over this book and movie--most aren't.   Some--probably most-- see it for what it is--historical fiction. And in fact Dan Brown makes no other claim for it--even if others might. The Christians that are up in arms are probably in the Catholic wing of the Christian Right. Which, as you know, is neither.

But there are a lot of Christians not on the Right.

But evidently some non-Christians have never heard this--or of live and let live.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 14 May 06 - 01:53 PM

Yes, GUEST BC, you're absolutly right. Mudcat is a vast conspiricy, that has been running for 2000 years, and contains many strange people with mysterious and ancient knowledge, and many dire weapons ( insert banjo/bodhran joke here...)

Joe Offer is the head of us on earth, whilst Max decreed 'Let there be servers' and the was Mudcat, although many people regard that as a load of superstitions and nonsense.

Now we'll see if they're American, or if they understand sarcasm....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 06 - 02:10 PM

"Another thing. How does Kryptos figure in to Hooker Gate? Does only W know?"

Anyone who has read the book, followed the trilogy, and has even a superficial knowledge of US current evnts should easily "get" the above statement.

Kryptos = CIA folklore mentioned in the book

Hooker Gate = latest CIA scandal

Does only W know?

W = Dubya

a word play on the WW "secret" codes & messages on the book's jacket, and linked to what is on the author's website

Also, the book is based upon another work (that is what the lawsuit was about), which drew liberally from Gnostic works.

Ask Joe if he "gets it" now.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 06 - 02:12 PM

Nah. On second thought, Joe won't ever get it. Too cryptex for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 May 06 - 02:15 PM

Some Americans have heard of sarcasm. But, of course, not me.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 May 06 - 04:01 PM

You fail to understand. Joe is the mastermind behind all the curtains. He has been implanting secret messages in Mudcat since Day One.   If you turn your computer sideways and look at it in a blue light it says:

WILL WE TALK ABOUT THE BLACK BIRD?

(it all has to do with the Knights of Malta.....)

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 06 - 05:07 PM

Well, I gotta say the Da Vinci Code puts us liberal Christians in a bit of a quandary. The fundamentalists have driven us nuts forever with all the stuff they read into Scripture and religious tradition with their so-called "literal" interpretation - what they do with the Book of Revelation in the Left Behind series is pretty frightening.

Generally, I feel far more comfortable with atheists and pagans and agnostics, but now some of them being just as looney as the fundamentalists and reading all sorts of things into the history of Christianity, that just aren't there. In a different way, they are just as addicted to demagoguery as the Christian fundamentalists, and both sides are scary.

Certainly, religious beliefs have strong roots in mythology - but there can be profound goodness and truth in myth. It's a way of reaching into mysteries that cannot be defined or completely understood. Yes, those beliefs can be twisted into horrible injustices - but they can also lead to extraordinary good.

I'm open to seeing what comes of Da Vinci Code, and I'm not ready to condemn it. I do see that it has inspired some pretty nasty and unfair anti-Christian bigotry - bigotry that "Bastard Child" has expressed so clearly.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,the real me
Date: 14 May 06 - 05:29 PM

Isn't it time someone put out a fatwa on someone here? (Just trying to be helpful).

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,PEDUNT
Date: 14 May 06 - 05:43 PM

(Just trying to be helpful).

The period belongs inside the closing parenthesis: (Just trying to be helpful.).

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 06 - 05:54 PM

It is a thriller novel, Joe. A whodunnit that incorporates all the sexy stuff: Gnosticism, Arthurian legend, contemporary women studies pablum of the "sacred feminine" sort.

But bottom line, it's a trashy novel, good enough for a page turner you can leave at the beach when you come home book.

The fatwa has already been put on Dan Brown, Rushdie style, by the fundies.

PeterT, damn, and I thought it was a Kabbalah code, fed to Joe Offer by M.L. Ciccone (I heard he was a card carrying member of the Poison Penn Secret Admiration Society).

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 06 - 10:01 PM

Yeah, and I understand it's a very good novel. The premises are a bit shaky, from what I understand - but I don't particularly object to that. What I object to, is when people take those premises as fact, and use them as an excuse for bigotry. And yeah, that's exactly what fundamentalists do on the other side of the coin - but I don't like them, either.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST
Date: 15 May 06 - 10:04 AM

Right, but if the book challenged the supremacy of Pythagoras by doing some historical revision, I sincerely doubt you'd give a shit.

But the hysteria mongering around the challenges to the supremacy of the Official Catholic History (tm)is just another chance for you to claim victim status for being Catholic.

Which is completely bogus. You aren't discriminated against for being Catholic by any measure. To claim such just denigrates the Catholics in the world who ARE discriminated against all the time, in ways that cost them their homes, their livelihoods, and their lives.

Get a grip.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 06 - 11:10 AM

You are soooooo nasty, Guest. Joe made no such claim. So you are lashing out at some imaginary target. O)r someone else from your own past.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: alf ackoffshalla
Date: 15 May 06 - 11:23 AM

paparindi lucu, fides mundum vincit
I came looking for tunes but what do i get.
I hear penguins i feel birch
no dont touch your penis.
there lies madness i tell you
Bastards!

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 15 May 06 - 03:21 PM

There has been a lot of stuff, on UK TV, recently, about the background to the 'Da Vinci Code'.
There was also a programme about Leonardo Da Vinci's 'wall-painting' (I think that the programme stated that it wasn't, strictly speaking, a 'fresco') of 'The Last Supper'. It seemed pretty obvious to me that the figure to Jesus's left is a woman. Many critics and 'Art Historians' (gissa job - I could do that!) lined up to state "rubbish - it's a man" - but it isn't a man, is it? Perhaps Dan Brown (whose other books I'm definitely not going to read!) has got a point ...

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,Peter T.
Date: 15 May 06 - 04:31 PM

I would have thought that one of the main reasons why the Da Vinci Code is so popular is the general resurgent of the suppression of women in the early church. The DVC is pretty looney and horribly written, but I personally have always thought that Mary Magdalene and the rest of the women got a raw deal (and are still getting a raw deal).

I presume that people assume the figure to Jesus' left is a woman, so as to avoid the obvious fact that it represents John, and John was the one Jesus loved with a special love, which (given Leonardo's proclivities) tells its own tale.

The only people who really saw Jesus' empty tomb were the women. The rest of the courageous menfolk had fled. It is reasonably clear that St. Peter was patched on later so as to give the story some credibility, as who could believe a bunch of women.

Queen Victoria: "And when they found the Grail, Lord Tennyson, what were they going to do with it?"

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: freda underhill
Date: 15 May 06 - 05:39 PM

In Sydney, a lot of churches have taken the opportunity to have private screenings for up to 200 people at a sitting. They figure that anything that makes people interested in Jesus and the origins of the Church has its advantages, and are using the film to generate discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST
Date: 15 May 06 - 08:24 PM

Same thing being done in the states as freda mentions. Was also done with that Mel Gibson religious masterpiece, 'Passion of the Christ'.

Still surpised Mel didn't cast himself as Christ in that one, wouldn't have been much of a stretch for him at all.

The loonies are the people who flock to this shit, or take any of it seriously.

It is ALL folklore.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 15 May 06 - 10:50 PM

So guest - why do you care what other folks believe ? The majority of the worlds population believe in a higher power of some sort or other. So why not live and let live ? In what way do the beliefs of others interfear with your life ? Has someone been draging you to church on Sunday morning against your will ?

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: harpmolly
Date: 15 May 06 - 10:58 PM

I had a lot of fun reading DVC. I also had a lot of fun reading its prequel, "Angels & Demons". More religious conspiracy, drama, antimatter, people jumping out of airplanes without parachutes. Wheee. That's no call to *take it seriously*. Good grief, people! Although the fact that Dan Brown tends to list some rather specious things at the beginning of the books and write "FACT:" in big bold letters next to them is a bit off-putting. If it weren't for that, I think a lot of this breast-beating and hand-wringing could have been avoided.

Ummmm...I think our Guest needs to stock up on his dried frog pills. He(?) seems to be having both sides of the same conversation with himself. And Joe, well done for knowing when to ignore such obvious and clumsy trolling. But then, you've probably had lots of practice. Sigh.

Cheers,

Molly

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Donuel
Date: 15 May 06 - 11:56 PM

unseen out takes

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/passionparo1.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/passionparo2.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 May 06 - 02:55 AM

I guess the main cause of distress for me is that the fundamentalists are cashing in on Da Vinci Code as a rallying point. This book and movie are adding millions to their coffers, and they'll use it all on right-wing propaganda. I guess it's kind of like Mudcat - it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion of the book and movie because the loonies on both sides get in a feeding frenzy over it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 16 May 06 - 04:39 AM

When the film ' The Exorcist ' was released in the UK, cinemas were picketed by catholic priests thereby guaranteeing it a success, the same thing is happenning with the Da Vinci Code [ Bishop of Birmingham decrys it ] can't they see, the more they protest, the bigger the success it will be.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST
Date: 16 May 06 - 08:02 AM

The reason for me expressing disgust with Joe Offer, is the fact he hijacked the thread right off the bat.

If I, as the thread originator, had wanted to discuss the book & movie in the context of the fundamentalist manufactured controversy, I would have started a BS thread about it.

However, that wasn't my interest. My interest was in discussing the folklore in the book, and what folklore the film might take from book.

It should be readily apparent, but isn't to most Mudcatters, that this sort of thread hijacking being practiced by Joe & the clones through their subjective editing, is causing some consternation among the people who post here.

A lot of people are dissatisfied with the hijacking of threads that goes on around here, and feel it is out of control. But people get especially upset when the thread is hijacked by petty tyrants with admin privleges.

What harm would there have been with just leaving the FOLKLORE prefix alone, and moving the thread to the BS section?

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST
Date: 16 May 06 - 08:11 AM

And the fact that Joe doesn't even know what the folklore in the book is about, speaks volumes. Or that posters didn't get the tongue in cheek guest name I originated the thread with means they likely haven't even read the damn book?

Why oh why do so many people think that the people with Mudcat admin privleges should be allowed to arbitrarily and subjectively judge/edit CONTENT they know nothing about?

Was the original post to this thread a personal attack on anyone?

No.

Was it in the music section when it belonged in BS?

Yes, but through no fault of the thread originator. All threads started with a FOLKLORE prefix automatically show up above the line.

Did the thread being above the line require action by a clone?

Yes, but all that was required was it be moved below the line, without the clone (Joe in this case) making commentary about it.

As many others have noted here recently, passing judgment on posters/content while you make simple, basic, no remarks required admin changes is just plain bad moderating.

Joe Offer is probably the worst moderator of the bunch, because he can't keep his damn mouth shut when he edits.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 16 May 06 - 08:12 AM

Just because this is your opinion doesn't neccessarily make it correct, or can't you see that also ?

What is or isn't folklore is subjective.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST
Date: 16 May 06 - 08:17 AM

No, what is or isn't folklore isn't subjective, people's beliefs are subjective. What is or isn't folklore is actually very easy to discern if you know anything at all about it.

And while any asshole has an opinion, it doesn't mean that the moderators should be standing in judgment on posters and/or their choices of subject matter, and expressing those judgments when doing simple edit changes.

Bad moderating is bad moderating. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 May 06 - 08:18 AM

that previous comment could be seen as hijacking the thread to pursue an anti-JO comment.

Meanwhile, back at the film, I won't be able to see it til I get back to Sydney in June. I look forward to seeing it and to thinking about the whole thing again. Despite all the critics complaints, I was fascinated to read the book, having read the Holy Blood & the Holy Grail years earlier.

I think both books are a bit like the Paradise Papers, (published in the US as 'When God was a Woman') a book by Merlin Stone which writes about an earlier time in the history of Judaism and sister ancient religions, when a Goddess was the principal deity.

Academics and historians didnt like the book because it didnt conform to academic standards, particularly among those academics who would not consider art history to be "real" history

Pierre Plantard, supposed descendent of Jesus and head of the line of the Priory of Sion confessed in 1993 that the Priory of Sion was a hoax and that he had developed a long pseudohistory about the organisation and had never taken it seriously.

In 2005, UK TV archaeologist Tony Robinson edited and narrated a detailed rebuttal of the main arguments of Dan Brown and those of Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, "The Real Da Vinci Code", shown on Channel 4. The programme featured lengthy interviews with many of the main protagonists. Arnaud de Sède, son of Gérard de Sède, stated categorically that his father and Plantard had made up the existence of the Prieuré de Sion. The programme also cast severe doubt on the alleged expatriation of Mary Magdalene to France.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST
Date: 16 May 06 - 08:27 AM

Sorry freda, but I'll be blunt. The suggestion I posted just to offend Joe Offer to hijack a thread I started myself is just plain stupid.

I refuse to get into some idiotic tit for tat flame war with those of you who stalk threads, flamethrowers at the ready.

Nice try trying to suddenly bring the thread back on topic so Joe won't look bad, but it's too little, too late.

Go argue with yourselves, I'm outta here.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: jacqui.c
Date: 16 May 06 - 08:53 AM

Freda - I read the book and am looking forward to seeing what they do with the film.

Whether or not the premise of the book has any basis in fact or whether it can be considered as a good or bad novel it has generated a lot of discussion. anything that makes people start examining the reasons for their thinking can't be all bad.

Up to the time I read the book I had not given much thought to religion but this book made me start thinking about my own beliefs and about the basis for those beliefs. That makes the book important to me even if it is purely fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 May 06 - 08:57 AM

that's exactly the effect it had on me, Jacqui.
I look forward to posts from people when they've seen it.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 May 06 - 11:42 AM

Comment to the Minnesota Monster. I find it hilarious and ironic that you would complain about thread hijacking. I have seen you hijack so many threads, for exactly the reason that you now complain about. Shall we talk Veterans and Memorial Day "Thank You" threads? As ye sow, and all that.

I think the clergy makes much ado about nothing. They actually are assisting with the success of this film, just as those that protested against the brutality of Gibson's film helped turn it into such a success.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 May 06 - 11:54 AM

Mick, I am sure you do not mean to make a blanket statement about clergy, as I assume you would not mean one about any group of human beings.

In our parish, "the clergy" (your fellow Mudcatter and sometime host, Hardiman the Fiddler) is arranging an evening to talk about the film-- a place of peace and calm where people who feel there is some controversy can meet together to reflect on their thoughts and feelings about the film and the upsets people are having over it.

Hardi is one of "the clergy" in our Episcopal Diocese who is recognized for Scripture and Church History expertise as well as conflict reduction.

I imagine that once Hardi has facilitated and listened to the group discussion, he will offer his perspective about how the film's premise, promotion, and controversies stack up against the living faith of our congregation and the bases for this faith that we share.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 06 - 01:00 PM

As I recall, the core of the book hinges on the notion that a certain young lady is descended from a prophet who wandered the earth 2000 years back, who was always thought to have been single, but who is now discovered to have gotten married and had a child. To me this is about as world-shaking as the fate of the Blue Meanies in Smurfville, or the zipcode of Oscar's home can. (How does he get his mail, anyway?)

I guess some folks will make a controversy out of anything at all -- including the M.M. cited above.

What I really enjoy about folk music -- among other things -- is that even at its most bitter, it seeks, by its nature, an aesthetic balance. There's a lot to be said for going to the trouble of making songs out of your diatribes!! Rap notwithstanding.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 May 06 - 01:10 PM

Fair enough, susan, the generalization might have been a bit broad. I guess I should have said "those" clergy who make a big deal.

My main point stands. Those that make a big public deal out of a novel only contribute to the destruction of their own church.

And those that seek to belittle the belief system of others, especially when doing so in a manner that makes the others seem foolish, just show their own arrogance. Amos is an example of one who has very publicly stated HIS beliefs on the matter without belittling those of us who have a different view. I have always respected his views, and admit that he has challenged my own faith. And if my faith is blind, if it cannot stand being challenged, then it is not much of a faith. Thus I actually feel an appreciation for his criticism. On the other hand you have our bitter and arrogant GUEST from the great North who just attacks and tries to act like the intellectual giant afield with mental midgets. This person challenges no ones belief structure to examination, s/he just comes off as someone angry at some slight along the way.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 May 06 - 01:21 PM

Thanks for those ideas Mick. I asked our guest earlier about their anger and they chose not to respond. I have a hard time understanding the animosity toward people of faith here. I'm not trying to convert our guest or anyone else for that matter - just wondering where the anger comes from and why it would be of any concern what beliefs others hold. Unless I'm knocking down your door on Sunday morning and dragging you to church - why be upset if I choose to go ??

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 May 06 - 01:22 PM

Check out this church when you have a chance.

Testing

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 May 06 - 01:24 PM

Yahoo - my first blue clicky thing worked. Praise Jesus !!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 May 06 - 01:30 PM

Hey peeps, it's a story. It's made up. It's "what if Jesus and Mary M had a baby". It's not true. It's fiction. It's like Lord of the Rings. Or Winnie the Pooh. So they've made a film about it for our entertainment. Great. The book is total bollocks, but if people enjoy it, fantastic. it contributes to the gaiety of nations. What is there to argue about?

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 16 May 06 - 01:37 PM

"why be upset if I choose to go ??"

Medieval superstition holds everyone back....   Cause involved in that, you also want equal time for your mythology in a science class...   Or you want your mythology to influence what laws are made and how they are applied to people who do NOT believe what you do....   You want your invisible man in the sky to be able to tell a scientist what cells he can or cannot work with.... You want to deny, to denigrate the achievement of millions of years of human evolution and trade it in for a few thousand years of ghost-story.... When there isn't a single shred of evidence to even suggest that your invisible man in the sky, your ghost exists at all....

These may no apply to YOU directly, but they sure apply to quite a lot of your 'ilk'

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 May 06 - 01:43 PM

Your ignorance an bias shines through with that statement, Clinton. Who is of my "ilk"? Can you name a group or person? Am "I" a liberal Catholic? Or a Conservative Catholic? Am "I" a Lutheran?   What synod? Am "I" a fundie Baptist? Or am "I" Quaker? Am "I" a Latter Day Saint, or am "I" Episcopalean? You are guilty of the same thing that Susan correctly pointed out that I was earlier.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 16 May 06 - 02:06 PM

Put it this way....

I have no issue with "God"... it's his fan club that scares the shit outa me....

"the generalization might have been a bit broad"
How else is one to speak generally?

"Can you name a group or person?"
Ya... religious people.....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Anonny Mouse
Date: 16 May 06 - 02:22 PM

This is just "old" stuff in many ways. In the late 60's-early 70's this novel called "The Passover Plot." While not about some marriage and bastard child, it went over much the same turf. Frankly, it's easier to believe the Gospel accounts than books like this, or Dan Brown's.

Even the so-called Gnostic gospels (like "The Gospel of Thomas") or other pseudopigrypha (The "infancy Narratives of Jesus" where he stretches boards in Joe's carpentry shop, or takes a single grain of wheat and grows enough to fill a whole village's stomachs, etc.) have little credibility among serious Biblical and Biblical archaeology experts.

Finally, FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD!! IT'S A STORY--A FICTION--NOT SOME HISTORICAL "truth." The "fundies" tried the boycott thing with the "Last Temptation of Christ," totally MISSING the point of the movie-but who cares...don't even watch it, and then condemn it from ignorance! Between the radical Catholic right, and the radical Fundy left and right, it is a black eye to all Christians, who--for the most part--are more intelligent than their zealot leaders give them credit for. I'm kinda with Joe Offer on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 16 May 06 - 02:26 PM

" IT'S A STORY--A FICTION--NOT SOME HISTORICAL "truth."

Ya... but so's The Bible, and look how seriously they take that one....

and just to be pedantic, history is about fact, not truth... if it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tryees philosophy class is right down the hall....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 16 May 06 - 02:51 PM

Just got back from a week staying in Rosslyn Castle coutesy of the Landmark Trust. Felt superior, sweeping past the gawking tourists who wander up to the castle ruins after viewing the chapel and producing the key and going into the habitable bit!!! Glad for the restoration fund that there are lots of paying tourist but glad I saw round the chapel peacefully a couple of years ago after seeing it mentioned in Dorothy Dunnet's "Niccolo" series.
Opposite the castle is a farm with a sign : "Da Vinci Manure, 50p a bag" ! Sheila & others of our party went to the Sunday service at the chapel, the vicar preached against all the superstitious nonsense of "that book". He didn't call it Da Vinci Manure though!

RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 16 May 06 - 02:54 PM

"the vicar preached against all the superstitious nonsense of "that book"

That's pretty rich

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 May 06 - 03:42 PM

What I find interesting is the propensity to massively complicate and conspirify (I just made that word up) the world, as if it were some great maleficent crossword puzzle.   It must be some trait that is natural to some people.   Here you have a religion that couldn't be simpler -- do unto others as you would have them do unto you -- and everything about it is turned into this massively complicated, and to some people, suspiciously conspirified world.      

It is an interesting phenomenon.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 16 May 06 - 03:50 PM

"What I find interesting is the propensity to massively complicate and conspirify the world"

The verb your looking for is "Roswell".... as in, "The government didn't want the people to know what really happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd, 1963, so by using techniques like planting fake evidence, employing misdirection and discrediting witnesses they Roswelled the whole thing to hell and back. The events have been so Roswelled that it's unlikely we'll ever know exactly what happened."

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 May 06 - 04:21 PM

I am reading it as this thread goes on. Interesting to read everyone's "take" on it. I looked at the Last Supper last night and thought I saw TWO women!!:-)

If anyone is interested in some of the women's issues rasied in the book,e sp. those concerning the "Church," I highly recommend Barbara G. Walker's book, Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets:

The answers to these and countless other intriguing questions are given in this compulsively readable, feminist encyclopedia. Twenty-five years in preparation, this unique, comprehensive sourcebook focuses on mythology anthropology, religion, and sexuality to uncover precisely what other encyclopedias leave out or misrepresent. The Woman's Encyclopedia presents the fascinating stories behind word origins, legends, superstitions, and customs. A browser's delight and an indispensable resource, it offers 1,350 entries on magic, witchcraft, fairies, elves, giants, goddesses, gods, and psychological anomalies such as demonic possession; the mystical meanings of sun, moon, earth, sea, time, and space; ideas of the soul, reincarnation, creation and doomsday; ancient and modern attitudes toward sex, prostitution, romance, rape, warfare, death and sin, and more.

Tracing these concepts to their prepatriarchal origins, Barbara G. Walker explores a "thousand hidden pockets of history and custom in addition to the valuable material recovered by archaeologists, orientalists, and other scholars."

Not only a compendium of fascinating lore and scholarship, The Woman's Encyclopedia is a revolutionary book that offers a rare opportunity for both women and men to see our cultural heritage in a fresh light, and draw upon the past for a more humane future.

Can't really stand Brown's writing; why does EVERY chapter have to end in such an overly-dramatic way, but it is entertaining.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST
Date: 16 May 06 - 05:40 PM

Get the Cliff's Notes version.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 06 - 06:33 PM

Mick:

The last thing I want to do is challenge your faith and your keeping of it, old friend. I do have my own issues with the derivative symbology that has accrued since those long ago days when it all started up, though! :D But, as you recognize, that's just me, and it is well known that I have a strong grumpy bias!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 May 06 - 06:54 PM

Sorry for the confusion with the thread tag change. No insult or control or anything like that was intended - it was just an indexing action. If you wanted to ensure that this was a discussion of the folklore of Da Vinci Code, perhaps you could have titled it "Folklore of Da Vinci Code." Other than the use of the "folklore" tag, nothing in the thread title or the initial message gave any indication that this was intended to be a folklore discussion. People use that "folklore" tag in many confusing ways, and we routinely correct it to what works best in our indexing system.
So, is this a discussion of the movie and the folklore thereof, or a lame excuse to attack what the anonymously self -righteous thread initiator (mistakenly) assumes to be Joe Offer's bigoted religious belief? If you want to talk about the movie, talk about it. If you want to attack Joe's religious beliefs, wait until he says something and then discuss what he says, in the thread where he says it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST
Date: 16 May 06 - 07:02 PM

Well duh, Joe. If there is a tag that says "folklore" you don't suppose the person intends to discuss it? Or they are only allowed to discuss it, if YOU can discern what the folklore thread is about?

And like I said, it is many peoples belief (some even dared express it in this thread!) that they view ALL religion as folklore and myth.

But apparently, we just aren't allowed to discuss it in any context related to YOUR religion, maybe?

So again, what harm would be done to anyone to leave the tag alone? Just because you don't get it doesn't mean no one else will.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 May 06 - 07:14 PM

So, you don't want to discuss the movie or the folklore of the movie, do you?
If you want to discuss it, discuss it. Leave your assumption of my religious beliefs out of it. I got nailed to the cross by a bunch of Catholic fundamentalists when I was teaching a class last night, and it really pisses me off to have some know-nothing bigot lump me in a class with those bastards.
So, shut up and talk about the movie, willya?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 May 06 - 09:52 PM

So, Tom and Ron are experts on folklore now?

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: harpmolly
Date: 16 May 06 - 10:12 PM

Er...Guest? What happened to "I'm outta here!"? Stalking off in a huff of self-righteous indignation only works properly if you go off somewhere and sulk by yourself. Skulking around the edges of the discussion, waiting to find an opening to get another zinger in, just makes you look a bit silly.

And while we're on the subject of your looking silly (a subject we could explore all day, alas) you really don't have a leg to stand on. You titled a thread "Folklore" and then opened it by gleefully crowing about "Christians" being upset about the movie. I don't think your sarcastic reference to Opus Dei quite qualifies as an opening to a deep and well-thought out discussion of the folklore of the film/book. (Go on, diagram that sentence, I dare you. ;))

Yes, JO made a judgment call and re-categorized the thread. That's what moderators do. Now have a shot of whiskey, take a bong hit, I really don't care, just get over yourself.

OK, now, about the actual FILM: I must confess I never really saw Tom Hanks in the role, though I'm sure he'll do a fine job. I always have a problem with films of books I've read multiple times (yes, I admit it ;)) because I visualize the characters so thoroughly that I can't get over seeing someone so completely different from my mental picture. I remember being totally, completely, over-the-moon thrilled when I saw Miranda Otto in LOTR, because she absolutely embodied the Eowyn that I'd always imagined (and Eowyn being my favorite character, I had a large emotional stake in her casting.)

Audrey Tautou is also quite different from what I expected, but I like her. And Jean Reno and Ian McKellen! Excellent!

Oh, wait, was I supposed to talk about deep philosophical topics? ;) Next post, I promise. I've already blathered enough on this one.

Cheers,

Molly

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 May 06 - 10:19 PM

Molly, I think I love you. hahahahaha. Great post!!!

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: harpmolly
Date: 16 May 06 - 10:20 PM

P.S. OK, maybe I'm not quite done. GUEST, if you want respect you have to give a little. While I tend to agree with the "all religions are humanity's way of dealing with what we don't understand" philosophy, I try to be as respectful as I can about it--after all, I don't have all the answers either. Perhaps you do?

Opening a thread about the Da Vinci Code and titling it "Folklore" JUST because you want to make the point that "Christianity is folklore and nothing more" is what I would consider trolling. And since you, as I pointed out earlier, made a point of ridiculing the Christians who are upset by the movie (and took JO's initial remarks COMPLETELY out of context as an excuse to attack him) instead of actually discussing HOW it relates to folklore, I don't want to hear any more bitching (though I doubt I'll get my wish). As far as I'm concerned, "BS" is the perfect title for this thread.

Sorry guys, it's been a long day, and tuning three hammered dulcimers in the middle of a serious temperature/humidity fluctuation tends to make me a bit fractious. Where was that whiskey I was talking about? ;)

Molly

"She was a vixen when she went to school,
And though she be but little, she is fierce."
--Midsummer Night's Dream

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: harpmolly
Date: 16 May 06 - 10:21 PM

Oops, Mick, you spoke too soon. *grin*

Molly

(I'm really a very nice girl. Really. ;))

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 May 06 - 10:24 PM

Nothing you said in the second post changes my mind. Well thought out stuff, presented in a direct way.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 16 May 06 - 11:03 PM

I think I would like to read the book before seeing the movie. It sounds interesting. As Freda and other here have said, I heard the same about it. If it gets people discussing religion they are at least thinking about religion and Jesus.
I understand the book is labeled fiction, but I don't think it's entirely impossible for Jesus to have had a child. He may have even had a legitimate child for all I would know for sure. What were the laws of marriage in those days?

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: jacqui.c
Date: 17 May 06 - 09:36 AM

It is my understanding that it would have been very unusual for a young Jewish man to remain a batchelor at that time so it is possible that Jesus would have had a wife.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,Peter T.
Date: 17 May 06 - 10:25 AM

"making bookshelves, fishing, tramping around, when is that boy going to get married? I take him to weddings, introduce him to nice girls all of whom have his mother's name, and nothing! Nothing! What is a mother to do?"

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 May 06 - 10:54 AM

Musing here... If Jesus was unmarried and it was uncommon for a young man in his time to be unmarried, one would think that the Gospels would have mentioned it, possibly as a promotional point.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 May 06 - 10:59 AM

Well, Eb, before long St. Paul chimes in with recommendations on clergy marriage, saying that one should remain as one is when one gets the "call" to ministry. If married and called, stay married and minister as a married person. If single, stay single and minister as a single.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 06 - 11:13 AM

But there were more than four gospels.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 06 - 11:19 AM

I realize of course that other gospels--some of which likely predate the traditional M,M,L and J--have not been given the blessing of the BIG churches. That said, as historical writings they deserve consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 May 06 - 11:39 AM

I'm familiar with Paul's writngs, WYSI. My point is that if Jesus was single, it would seem that it would have been stressed. Even if it were just Paul saying 'Remain single as Jesus did'.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 May 06 - 12:51 PM

"as historical writings they deserve consideration"

Only as much as the rest of it deserves 'historical consideration'.... which is to say not at all...

There's that whole lack of evidence again.....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Wesley S
Date: 17 May 06 - 01:01 PM

Live and let live Clinton. You've made your point for the 437th time. Some beleive - some don't. What's it to ya, eh ?

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 06 - 01:03 PM

"There's that whole lack of evidence again....."

There's that whole lack of evidence about most things in the past, Clinton. Recall however that it was a close reading of the Iliad that led to the discovery of the location of Troy.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Wesley S
Date: 17 May 06 - 01:08 PM

Actually I haven't seen any evidence that Clinton exists except for some words on my computer screen. And that can be faked too. I think Joe Offer made him up.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 May 06 - 01:09 PM

NO INSULTING JOE!

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 May 06 - 01:17 PM

"Recall however that it was a close reading of the Iliad that led to the discovery of the location of Troy"

Sure.... only because there was corroborating evidence.... unlike the Bible, and this whole Jesus myth....


"What's it to ya, eh ?"

As I've already said.... Medieval superstition holds everyone back....   Cause involved in that, you also want equal time for your mythology in a science class...   Or you want your mythology to influence what laws are made and how they are applied to people who do NOT believe what you do....   You want your invisible man in the sky to be able to tell a scientist what cells he can or cannot work with.... You want to deny, to denigrate the achievement of millions of years of human evolution and trade it in for a few thousand years of ghost-story.... When there isn't a single shred of evidence to even suggest that your invisible man in the sky, your ghost exists at all....

"I haven't seen any evidence that Clinton exists"
That's a good way to get bit on the leg Wesley! LOL Would that be evidence enough for you? *spot the book reference*

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 May 06 - 01:25 PM

The Gospel of Thomas is an expecially interesting example of the "apocryphal" gospels, and it's a very interesting read. Many of the stories in Thomas are also found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; and it's interesting to read them from a new perspective.

For my money, the most colorful folklore in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) is to be found in the Book of Jonah and in the first two and last chapters of Job. These are vivid descriptions with great plots, and with a nice touch of humor. Those three chapters of the Book of Job may well be older than Abraham.

But yes, I think there is folklore in almost all the stories of the Bible - these stories follow the folk process exactly, handed down orally from generation to generation before being finally written down.

What I can't understand why some folkies can love folk music and folk tales and the folk process. They can even accept that profound truths can be conveyed by secular folklore, but they think it's a terrible thing when these same elements are contained in religious writing, and they sometimes even label the religious writings "propaganda" and "brainwashing." They can accept and excuse and understand male chauvinism in folklore from recent centuries, but they can't accept it in religious writings that come from far more primitive times.

I also think it's interesting to see the anachronistic way some people talk about how the Christian Church "suppressed" non-canonical writings during the second and third centuries, describing the Church and its structure as if it were the powerful medieval monarchy and bureaucracy it became a millenium later. The Church was quite primitive in those first couple centuries. Yes, it had a power structure back then, but certainly it was not as rigidly organized and powerful at that time, as its detractors would have you believe. Yes, some writings were declared heretical and were no longer used in the Church because they were thought to be inconsistent with the faith, but is that wrong? The Church did preserve many of the "apocryphal" writings that were not included in the canon of scripture, even some writings that were considered heretical.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 06 - 01:26 PM

"Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}"

The evidence for Jesus (Kristos, Christ) is definitely there, Clinton. The other conclusions as to his divinity--I think that's the issue with you. Fine by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 May 06 - 01:37 PM

And your source for that is what?

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 May 06 - 01:44 PM

From "Did a historical Jesus exist?" by Jim Walker




"Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the worship of the infant Jesus. Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?"

"Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.)."

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts."


So no... I'm not even at the point where I question his Divinity.... Cause I as yet find no evidence for even his existance...

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 May 06 - 02:22 PM

Medieval superstition holds everyone back....

DAMN them Greek and Roman myths, too! Shouldda known they'd lead to no good! :~)

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 May 06 - 02:31 PM

ESPECIALLY them!

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 17 May 06 - 02:54 PM

www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ ftrials/jesus/nonchristianaccounts.html

Source there, Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 May 06 - 03:39 PM

"The page cannot be found"

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,Peter T.
Date: 17 May 06 - 04:18 PM

Not being remotely a Christian, and having suffered from Christianity in a number of ways, it does strike me that consider the whole Christian story as a fable is absurd. Something did happen of a monumental kind: the Gospels and the apocryphal gospels and whatever record something like one of the great human earthquakes of all time. Jesus is like an explosion. I don't know about the resurrection, but an unbiased reader reading the Gospels surely must think that one is in the presence of something both amazing and weirdly concrete at the same time. I have read the mythologies of the world from the Bhagavad Gita to the Mayan Popul Vuh, and there is nothing comparable. If there wasn't a Jesus, then there was someone who was easily the most amazing writer of all time living an obscure life in Palestine who invented him, and I would sure like to know who he was!

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 May 06 - 04:22 PM

"Something did happen of a monumental kind"

You mean like what inspired Scientology? Or Mormons? Or the Moonies?

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 May 06 - 08:32 PM

So apparently the first reviews of this movie are not flattering at all....

That's too bad....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 06 - 08:53 PM

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/nonchristianaccounts.html

Clinton, here ya go.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 May 06 - 09:02 PM

Those 2 examples fall under what I've already quoted above....

"All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings."

And if you will go one to read more Walker he does in fact "... use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts."

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 06 - 09:08 PM

"Yes, it had a power structure back then, but certainly it was not as rigidly organized and powerful at that time, as its detractors would have you believe."

As Joe mentioned, the 'Church' wasn't the institution it is today back then. People would do well to think of the power that Constantine held and his decision to deal with Christians more fairly than they had been dealt with in Rome. The Councils (Nicea, 325 CE) demonstrate clearly that the Church was not at all powerful then, other than the 'haven' it provided for Christians to participate in worship together; to support each other. It was Constantine who so heavily influenced the votes of the Bishops who attended the First Council.

The question of Jesus (Yeshua) having existed at all has really been put to rest by most historians. The assorted other attributes come under argument, but to argue he never lived makes no sense. He's accepted by three major Holy Books--(Bible, Koran, Talmud). What is not agreed on are other things about him. That is another argument for another time--and it's been dealt with often on Mudcat. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 06 - 09:22 PM

Clinton, with that reasoning, we should discount also Solomon, David, Herod, Pilate, etc. Absolute proof for anything to do with history is almost impossible. You know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 May 06 - 09:52 PM

ALMOST is the key word....

Finding SOME evidence helps... in the case of Jesus, there is NONE....

Yet....

"He's accepted by three major Holy Books--(Bible, Koran, Talmud)."
Don't those three also accept something as ludicrous as a global flood?

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 May 06 - 09:58 PM

I have the evidence! He had a baby with a lady of his times called Mary! Mary had a baby!

Mary had a baby! (Oh LORD!)
Mary had a baby! (Oh my LORD!!!)
Mary had a baby! (Oh LORD!)
The people keep coming (!!!) but the train done gone!

What did she name him? (Oh LORD!)
What did she name him? (Oh! "My LORD"!!!)
What did she name him?! (Oh-- "LORD"!)
The people keep coming (!!!) but the train done gone!

Named him Gray Ull! (Oh LORD!)
Named him Gray Ull! (Oh....! "My LORD"!!!)
Named him Gray Ull! (Oh LORD!)
The people keep coming (!!!) but the train done gone!


Ipso Dipso, people talk about Ole Gray Ull alla dese years, must been a Jesus or Ull (the pore lil thing) is a bastard. It's in Folk Music, so it MUST be so.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 06 - 10:14 PM

The notion of a 'global' flood is argued by geologists, clerics, and us. If you search, you will find evidence for and against in the scientific community, and mostly for in the religious community.

Of more interest to me is the existence of a great flood in the stories, legends and tales (oral or written literature) of almost every culture on Earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 17 May 06 - 11:00 PM

D'uh... that's easy.... one does not develop culture until one has AGRIculture.... And where is the best place to develop agriculture?

a flood-plain....

Operative word, flood....

So of course the origin tale you invent is going to contain a pretty important flood.....


"find evidence for and against in the scientific community"
MOSTLY against....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 06 - 11:26 PM

Agriculture is a relatively recent 'invention', Clinton. As to the interpretation of what was meant (is meant) by the term "Great Flood", heck, who knows. It's likely that the Black sea was created by an influx of salt water: something made it rise rapidly. There are deposits of freshwater creatures that died as a result of an increase in salinity. That would take one big salt shaker.

As to what would make one say "Global Flood", I don't know. When yer upto yer arse in alligators, ya tend to think the whole world is a swamp. If your known world is the Mediterranean area, it might seem global to a writer/observer there.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 May 06 - 12:00 AM

"As to what would make one say "Global Flood"

Delusion, ignorance and/or blind faith....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 May 06 - 12:48 AM

archeology.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 May 06 - 01:06 AM

There is NO evidence accepted by any reputable geologist or archaeologist to support the idea that Planet Earth was ever completely covered in water to the height of the highest mountains

And there is PLENTY of evidence against the idea....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 May 06 - 03:57 AM

A Catholica women's organisation in Australia has commented that the book is truthful in one regard: it reveals the extent of the church's suppression of women.

(excerpts from article follow):

Women played an essential role in the early church and until the early ninth century it ordained women as priests, according to Marilyn Hatton, president of the Ordination of Catholic Women in Australia. "At [ The Da Vinci Code's] heart there is a profound truth: that the church suppresses the feminine," Ms Hatton said. "This suppression has extended even to re-writing the church's own history - that is, the current ecclesiastical spin that claims the church has only ever ordained men."

The Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, has described the fictional work is a "crude fantasy" and a "lowbrow read".

Ms Hatton said archaelogists had recently discovered several images of early church women dressed in priestly vestments. One mosaic uncovered in the Church of St Praxedis in Rome showed a woman wearing the same kind of cross that bishops wear today. The Catholic Church's Biblical Commission found in 1976 there was no scriptural reason to exclude women from ordained ministry. It was overruled by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he was elected Pope, Ms Hatton said.

" The Da Vinci Code gives us an opportunity to reconsider the church's exclusion of women, and the justification it gave to reduce women's rights and freedoms."

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peter T.
Date: 18 May 06 - 06:19 AM

Speaking from within another tradition, we have zero evidence, zero, of the kind you seem to want for the existence of the Buddha. We have no fingerprints, no archeology that says the Buddha was buried here, no "non-Buddhist" historian of record, nothing. What we have is an oral tradition that was not written down for two hundred years after the Buddha's passing (and even that date is contested).   The first real dates we have are in Asoka's time, because we have some pillars. Most of early Indian history is dated by the wobbly dates we have for the Buddha!

We actually have far more trace of Jesus (at least we can date the gospels within about 50-100 years of his life).

Did the Buddha exist? Yes. On balance, I would say yes. That is what you have to do with ancient history and oral traditions. It is awash in folklore (yes), and myth (yes), and wishful thinking (yes). But there is more. Something was going on, to which we can give the name the Buddha.


yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 06 - 07:23 AM

It's blatantly obvious most of the people posting to this thread are pontificating, haven't read the book, and therefore haven't a clue as to what actual folklore the book is based upon.

Good job blowing up a thread just to pontificate amongst yourselves about how good and evil plays itself out in this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Grab
Date: 18 May 06 - 08:00 AM

Re the Koran, IIRC Mohammed lived in the 7th century AD. So any Jesus-related content in there can only have been inherited from existing written works or oral tradition.

Peace, agriculture is a recent "invention", but it certainly predates Jesus.

For myself, I reckon it's pretty certain Jesus existed. His divinity or otherwise is a matter of faith and can't be proved. And since the scriptures didn't get written until much later, there's definitely a whole bunch of fiction bound up in it too. The stories about his birth, for example - all those shepherds and wise men, and the Herod thing - are almost certainly fiction. But without Jesus existing, it's difficult to see how Christianity could come about. It's not like Judaism which is simply the folk traditions of one particular nomad tribe - this is a from-scratch creation in a world where every tribe already had their own religions, and you simply can't do that without a charismatic leader (or leaders) to drive it. Since Clinton mentioned the Mormons, I'd say it's rather like denying the existence of Joseph Smith. Peter and his mates were almost certainly the charismatic leaders who made it go somewhere rather than fizzle out, but even then it's difficult to see how they could have made it happen without a real original crucified Jesus whose name/reputation they could draw on.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 May 06 - 09:42 AM

Scientology is based on total fiction, why not X-tianity?

Works for the Moonies too...

and for the Mormons.....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peter T.
Date: 18 May 06 - 09:52 AM

So was George Bush's invasion of Iraq, come to that........

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peace
Date: 18 May 06 - 10:23 AM

Grab,

My statement that agriculture is a recent invention (10000-7000 years old) means I know it predates Jesus. The time of "The Flood" hasn't been discussed. And, please see the remark that 'global' would likely refer to a large local area. The whole idea of 'global' is only 1000 years old at most.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 May 06 - 10:27 AM

"The time of "The Flood" hasn't been discussed."

Well according to the 'fundies' it can't be more than 6000 years ago....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peace
Date: 18 May 06 - 10:30 AM

Who believes them?

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 May 06 - 10:33 AM

Lots of their fellow fundies....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Desdemona
Date: 18 May 06 - 11:17 AM

I read two paragraphs of the wretched thing back when everyone was talking about it and hurled it across the room. The writing is absolutely abysmal; if my 8th grade son produced anything that bad (to say nothing of the prodigal use of italics; enough, already, we get it, this is meant to be important!) I'd expect his English teacher to flunk him.

The fact that it's been at the top of the NY Times best-seller list for some shocking length of time merely adds to my growing despair at what appears to be the steadily shrinking IQ of my native country as a whole (as if the 2004 election wasn't enough!).

~D

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 May 06 - 11:20 AM

Ya... whatever......

So you do better then....

How many books have YOU had on the best seller list?!?!

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Desdemona
Date: 18 May 06 - 11:22 AM

Oh for heaven's sakes; "I'm rubber, you're glue"!

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 May 06 - 11:27 AM

Hey... you started with the childishness... I only followed suit.....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Desdemona
Date: 18 May 06 - 11:38 AM

Correct me if I'nm wrong, but according to what I'm interpreting to be your thinking (again, apologies if I'm off the mark), the fact that one hasn't written a best-seller precludes one's right to have an opinion about one. To carry on with this line of reasoning, anyone who hasn't written a symphony is disqualified from commenting on one, those who haven't designed buildings shouldn't make statements regarding architecture, and...oh, my!...anyone who hasn't been a major success as a folk musician shouldn't be making any remarks about folk music!

Henceforth restricting myself to matters related to Medieval and Early Modern English studies ONLY,

~D

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 06 - 11:45 AM

Desdemona is absolutely correct about the quality of the writing; it is cheap potboiler stuff, lots of nice plot twists, but it peters out like an old bishop in the sack in the last fifth of the book and ends up signifying nuffink.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 May 06 - 11:57 AM

"restricting myself to matters related..."
Is that a promise?

"it is cheap potboiler stuff"
1)Where does it ever claim to be otherwise?!?!
2)What's wrong with that?

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peter T.
Date: 18 May 06 - 12:03 PM

To return to the original controversy. It is perhaps worth pointing out that one of the characteristics of Jesus (or the stories about Jesus) is that he does the opposite of the folktale, in fact he often destroys the whole premise of the folktale.   The folktale works horizontally, either through a journey or a challenge or a test or some such, which often sets out problems and mysteries and paradoxes which are to be solved, and thereby entertain and instruct the audience (this is standard folklore theory). There are lots of examples. The true religious story 'cracks open' the folktale. Jesus is often shown in what appear to be folklore situations which he deconstructs, or to put it more metaphorically, where he stops or wrecks the folktale momentum. An example from another tradition is the Bhagavad Gita in Hinduism, which is part of the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata is many, many volumes of folktales, exciting stories one after the other, wars, battles, love stories, you name it. At one point all the armies of the world meet together on one battlefield, and the big massacre is about to begin. Suddenly, the warrior Arjuna says hold it, why are we fighting, and his charioteer, the disguised god Krishna, then shows him the entire universe, how and why the world works, and why Krishna should be worshipped, and that though the universe should be destroyed, one must do one's duty. This is nothing like a folktale!

There is an interesting comparison of folktale vs. religion in the Bible. In the Old Testament, there is the story of Solomon and the dispute over the baby. The cunning ruling by Solomon that the baby should be cut in half, thus flushing out the false mother from the true, is a classic of the folktale. We are amused and touched by the story.

In the New Testament, we have the story of the woman taken in adultery. It has everything a folktale does -- adultery, the watching crowd, the wise man asked to decide, and so on.   We are waiting for the husband or the boyfriend or some other element of the adultery story to be revealed, or to have something folkloric happen. And Jesus says, 'Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone.' This cracks the story wide open, sends it 'vertical' -- it questions the entire structure of the story, and, more importantly, it is not a cute story, a neat and touching solution. It blows up in our faces. Jesus' gaze is turned directly onto the reader. 'LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN AMONG YOU CAST THE FIRST STONE!' Are we that person? ARE WE THAT PERSON? We can say no, no, I am not without sin -- but then is the woman to go free, is she to get away with it? So sin is to go unpunished? Who are we to punish? Is there to be no punishment in the world? Have we committed adultery? Can only the pure condemn? What is forgiveness? And so on. We are on a writhing hook which will not let us free. You can spend your whole life wrestling with that one sentence. People have.

This is religious writing, and not folktales.   Religious writing is a terrible thing to encounter. If it does not cause you some fear and trembling, and challenge your beliefs and standing in the world, it is not religious. Much of the world's so-called religious writing is nothing of the kind. With great respect to any Mormons in the crowd, or Scientologists, both of whose writings I have read, there is nothing in their writings that is remotely like true religious writing. It is pseudo-religious writing, a simulacrum of religious writing. Like the simulacra of religious politicians and others who go around spreading their hypocrisies about God.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Desdemona
Date: 18 May 06 - 12:25 PM

Well, I think Chaucer would consider it crap!

~D

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 May 06 - 12:37 PM

Thread #91477   Message #1742993
Posted By: GUEST
18-May-06 - 07:23 AM
Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom

It's blatantly obvious most of the people posting to this thread are pontificating, haven't read the book, and therefore haven't a clue as to what actual folklore the book is based upon.
Good job blowing up a thread just to pontificate amongst yourselves about how good and evil plays itself out in this forum.

---

So, can you tell us about the "actual folklore the book is based upon," please? This would be a really good topic for discussion. We need information, not condemnation.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 May 06 - 12:38 PM

I found it an enjoyable read, and it was invigorating to read about the church's suppression of women, and to know that this was being read by millions around the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 May 06 - 12:44 PM

Bully for Chaucer.....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Peace
Date: 18 May 06 - 01:04 PM

Further to Freda Underhill's remark: IMO, it is about not only the supression of women, but also the suppression of men. You can't hold a person down without being down with that person.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 May 06 - 01:35 PM

It's about the supression of the whole human race... of thought control and manipulation

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,MrMr
Date: 18 May 06 - 02:15 PM

As PeterT correctly points out, religious writing isn't the same thing as folklore, but people in this thread do seem to be confusing the two.

The main controversy surrounding the book & film (besides the suggestion that Jesus & Mary were conjugally related & had a female child), is the folklore regarding Mary Magdalene founding a 'bloodline' in France, which has been protected by secret Christian societies.

Religious writing doesn't have anything to say about the 'French connection' because it has nothing to do with religious texts, and everything to do with local folklore about Christian belief.

Everyone here keeps talking about religious writing as if it were interchangeable with local folklore. It isn't, and it appears that is where this thread went astray.

Oh, wait--the thread also strayed in other directions too (condemnation of bad writing, fundamentalist backlash, etc), but that is another kettle of fish.


That part of the book/film is based upon local folklore of several regions (who claim said fame also) of Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,MrMr
Date: 18 May 06 - 02:17 PM

Sorry, forgot to mention the 2,000 year old conspiracy theory thing about Jesus and Mary would be a genre different than religious writing--it would be heretical writing.

Speaking of different kettles, fish, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 06 - 02:20 PM

I think the two (folk tales and religious writing) are surely intersecting sets, despite Peter's brilliant comaprison of some kinds of each. Nordic tales of the gods, and Greek, both inform life very much the way folk tales do. Messing about with heros or slapping down the hubristic are very folk-tale elements.

The common denominators are myuthological creativity and moral and/or strategic themes.

The book in question has none of these, however, and is just a potboiler borrowing iconic characters.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 19 May 06 - 07:02 PM

Uh, that was a joke, son.

;~)

D

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 06 - 08:15 PM

I haven't read through this whole thread (God knows, who could!??), but I've read enough to get the gist of the thing. Gee, some folks can get snotty, can't they?

Once again, the greatest question of our age rises up to confront us:   "Why are there so many more horses asses than there are horses?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: robomatic
Date: 19 May 06 - 09:14 PM

I listened to "Duh Vinci" Code on tape, and thought it was pretty lackluster, as a radio commentator remarked this morning re the movie:
"A Shaggy Grail" story.

El Greko's comments near the top of the thread match my take on the book. Not being a Christian, I think I can say that Christianity and Catholocism are not under threat, although it is a money making opportunity for the usual foamentators, as well as a laughing all the way to the bank for Mr. Brown, whose earlier work: "Digital Fortress" was a similar treasure hunt of a book which violated the laws of physics in order to advance the thin plot and made me long for the mental depth of "Where's Waldo?"

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 May 06 - 10:03 AM

Saw the movie last night... I enjoyed it well enough for what it was.... a sorta cerebral spy-kinda thriller

Ian McKellen's performance was inspired... Paul Bettany and Alfred Molina were PERFECT.... so were Audrey Tautou and Jean Reno

When there's a special edition DVD with some cool commentaries, I'll own it

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 20 May 06 - 02:13 PM

I'm sure the following point has been raised before, but I would be interested to hear how it is countered by Christians: If Jesus was the true Messiah - whose coming is foretold in the Old Testament, and whose coming would in some way liberate the Jews, how come he seems to have failed in his mission i.e. he was not recognised as the Messiah by the Jews - or impacted on their lives. If he was the true Messiah, something somewhere seems to have gone dreadfully wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: robomatic
Date: 20 May 06 - 03:26 PM

As for the historical existence of Jesus, I'm under the impression there is no historical proof. Jesus is not a historical character such as Mohammed, although the belief in Jesus certainly has great historical ramifications.

As for the "Messiah" idea, I'm not aware of its origin. Where it appears in the first five books of Moses, The Torah, it's Moses. The books end with his death.

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 06 - 04:59 AM

Movie very enjoyable.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 May 06 - 11:06 AM

"I'm under the impression there is no historical proof."

You are under the correct impression

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 06 - 12:57 PM

Film was good - Quite surprisd they managed to get everything in. Lots of bits of the conspiricy theory are poor but if you look at it as a decent-ish old fasioned thriller.

I am learning something here - I always thought that the historical figure of Jesus was pretty much taken as read. I fully understand that what he may or may not have been is questionable but surely there is some evidence that someone called Jesus existed in that era and drummed up a following. Isn't there?

Not arguing here - genuinely interested. Can anyone point me at anything that proves or disproves that the historical character existed? Doesn't the Roman census that is discussed show anything? Are there any contemporary accounts? Anything that is not a pro or anti conspiracy theory of course!
Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 May 06 - 01:06 PM

"Anything that is not a pro or anti conspiracy theory"

Everything has an adjenda....

"Are there any contemporary accounts?"
No....

One place to start
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 06 - 01:25 PM

Thanks, Clinton. Interesting article and I can well see where you are coming from. Nice to see alternative history - Pretty much like Dan Browns book:-) I think I will still treat both sides as two differing views of history though and choose a third route somewhere in between!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 May 06 - 01:36 PM

"Nice to see alternative history"

That's actually a term I reject... There's no such thing.... there's history and there's imagination/fiction.... They are not interchangeable....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 06 - 03:14 PM

Sorry Clinton - Must disagree.

The rail network in the UK was brought to a halt today.

The rail network in the UK was brought to a halt today because union leaders rejected the managements latest pay offer.

The rail network in the UK was brought to a halt today because management refused to acceed to the pay request by union leaders.

All three of the above statements could be correct. The first is true but rather bland. The second is true but biased in favour of management. The third is true but biased in favour of the workforce. They are all history. None of them are fiction or imagination. They are interchangeable. These are what I see as alternative histories.

Surely the longer ago the event was the more clouded it becomes. The more alternatives are open? Which is why I say I think I will choose a middle route. Perhaps because I do not fully believe any of them?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 May 06 - 03:17 PM

"The more alternatives are open?"
Just because there are alternatives doesn't make them all equal possibilities.....

"I will choose a middle route."
Choose what you will....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 06 - 06:03 PM

Very true, Clinton. There are indeed very few equal possibilities but that is a far cry from there's history and there's imagination/fiction.... They are not interchangeable....

The former does accept that there are alternative possibilities even if some are more possible than others. The latter seems to indicate that there is only one possibilty and all else is false. Sorry if I mis-interpreted that last statement, which of course you made, but it does seem to indicate that history is black or white. It is not. All events are based on someones interpretation, as you yourself have said in the past.

Coming back to the Da Vinci code, Dan Brown has made mega bucks out of his interpretation of certain 'facts'. This has happened all throughout history. I am sure it happened with the Bible, both the old and new bits. Equaly someone has interpreted the 'facts' as Jesus did not exist for their own agenda.

By steering a middle course we can keep our eyes on both banks. Maybe steering closer to one when we see too many perils on the other but only pulling into port when we are sure it is safe!

I will indeed choose what I will, as I am sure you will, but to say there is no such thing as alternative history is either a very poor choice of words or a very naive view of historians.

On a lighter note, Ted Edwards, singer, writer and explorer as well as a good friend of mine, made what I thought was a most asture comment about this whole subject. I said to him, with reference to the Da Vinci code, that I thought it was OK but found it ludicrous that some people believed it was the complete truth.

"Why not," said Ted, "People have beleived the Bible is the whole truth for a lot longer."

He is the same guy who started his first publicly performed poem after a serious stroke with "God. Yer a bastard!" :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 May 06 - 08:14 PM

"People have beleived the Bible is the whole truth for a lot longer."

Doesn't make it any less of a fiction than The DV Code.....

In the same way that believing that the world is flat won't make it so.....

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 21 May 06 - 08:32 PM

I have read the book---thought it a great thriller and page turner. Saw the film---true to the book and a big bore. Sleep was imminent.

The Church should stop its invectives since it just gives it more publicity. It is a "thriller"---no more than that. And, frankly, a rather boring one.   Hanks is a bore, the only excitment is in the many car chases---better done elsewhere.

As to theology---why bother. It is billed as fiction. It is that. Perhaps the entire theology is, but we know not and this is not different than other stories based on the bible---from Red Sea to Walking On Water and all the rest.

Dan Brown wrote a great mystery, made a fortune, and now makes another from this really boring film. But, credit SONY for great marketing of a film that, I believe, was a bomb, and kept up the suspense and did not allow critics a view prior to the Cannes showing. Where it--and Hanks---were resoundly panned.


Read the book---really a good thriller. Thoughts that do not translate to the screen well.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Da Code According to Ron & Tom
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 May 06 - 02:09 AM

That was the point, Clinton, but thanks for explaining it in case anyone didn't realise:-)

Cheers

DtG