|
Quote:
Spoiler:
|
Spoiler:
|
Quote:
Anyway, I listened to the BBC on the way to work this morning and the critics are just trashing it. Long, boring, no humor and laughable at the end. I've already got tickets, so it will be interesting, but it sure was funny to hear the various critics recapping the screening and analyzing the film to the last sprocket hole. Donna |
Nothing like fueling the fire.....
Bible should have a disclaimer saying "This is fiction." I guess no publicity is bad, but I think that comment might not go over too well. |
Nah, that's still good publicity for much of the audience this movie is aiming for. This comment will mostly offend evangelicals, who are probably not going to see it anyway. (Well, I'm sure a few of them will, just to report back to their friends, congregations and so on.)
|
I like Ian McKellen more and he has earned absolution for Last Action Hero.
Of course he goes a bit too far saying it should be labelled as fiction, it isn't fiction since it seriously claims to be true. It should be labelled as hoakum (just as Holy Blood, Holy Grail should be). In my library the Dewey Decimal System is: 000 - General 100 - Semi-hoakum 200 - Hoakum 300 - Academic-hoakum 400 - Languages 500 - Natural Sciences 600 - Technology 700 - Pretension 800 - Literature 900 - Geography and (revisionist) History |
Please tell me you don't put Dewey Decimal labels on your books at home.
(I'd place the Bible into the Cultural Mythology section, with the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Mahabarata and so on. That's if I had such a section. As it is, I have a couple of shelves of Bibles, biblical criticism, biblical archaeology and related. So, the Bible is clearly a topic of great importance to me, even if it is not an object of reverence.) I don't own a copy of Da Vinci Code. I borrowed someone else's. |
Quote:
|
KatieSue, I agree with you on the "bible as literal fact" thing. I think it's much more useful as mythology, as stories that illustrate something than as historical fact it could ever be. Not to mention like you said, translations, copies, and intentional errors in service to a particular political agenda. NA, I'm with you here that it *is* interesting that people want so desperately to believe. Personally, I find it quite plausible that Jesus married, had kids, etc, though I don't know that the line would be traceable today. The church suppressed a lot of writings, both at the time of Christ through today. There was a major purge around AD300? 600? Something like that. The bishops got together and literally decided yes or no to many writings, what would appear in the official new bible. Some of these writings were probably more favorable to women. I think there was a purge, because if women have power and influence (and were among the disciples) men would have less power and influence, and this new church was all about male power. Thus we get rules about women being unclean, about women speaking in church, rules about women not being allowed to teach others about the religious writings. As far as the movie goes, churches train their followers to believe uncritically in the church. Ok, fine. Now they see the movie, and will believe it uncritically. It's what they've been taught. I like the more rational members of the churches, who are holding discussion groups and speaking about what they actually believe. Let's cut the hype. |
When I say it, it has an a. It gives the word plausible deniability.
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.