Okay since there is essentially political turmoil over the Da Vinci Code as well as hack theorists coming up with far fetched explanations, lets put this thing to rest. Okay now onto some of the fact we do have about our secret societies and what not:
- The Illuminati has existed in several diffrent time periods, each created by a diffrent group of people.
- The Bavarian Illuminati is what most people refer to, it did exist, until secret societies were banned, it is said that once this happened, the Illuminati infiltrated the Freemasons to keep their organization alive.
- The Catholic Church put a ban on its members joining the Freemasons as it suspected the Illuminati had infiltrated the Freemasons, only in recent years has it lifted the ex-communication ban.
- As an artist I have to say the whole thing about Leonardo Da Vinci putting Mary Magdalene in the last supper is BS, Leonardo ALWAYS painted John in a very feminine way, their is more than one painting of John and they all have him depicted in a very feminine way. Their is also the issue with the triangle buisness inbetween the Jesus and John, Leonardo was a classical painter, he knew a great deal about composition and the triangle is a way of composing a piece of artwork that has been used for centuries.
- There is more than one alleged link per say to the Illuminati, it ranges from the Trilateral commision and the Bildurberg group (both real) to ancient consiperatory groups. Along with this is other organizations like Skull and Bones, by the way the first thing president bush did when he was sworn into office is organize a dinner for Skull and Bones.
Anyways are these conspiracies true, false or somewhere inbetween?
Full Version: The Da Vinci Code, Conspiracies and the Illuminati
...you might want to read up on some of Rtb's posts before you delve into this one maxipad!
Alrighty.. you dont have a link to some of those do you Trippy?
mm twas a good read trip, anyways I have found a really good site that breaks the Da Vinci code down, piece by piece and then analyzes it http://www.religionfacts.com/da_vinci_code/list.htm
My wife and I just came back from seeing the movie which I call: "Leonardo--the-man-from-Vinci-Italy code". Thank GØD, I had read most of the book before we went...otherwise, I would have missed much of the story line.
Why do so many actors feel they have to mumble their words nowadays? People, with good hearing, to whom I spoke, including my wife, agreed: TDaVC was not a well-done movie. And I think some major critics say the same thing. One critic, Liam Lacey, described the dialogue as "rediculously awkward...at times confusing and never compelling...too much exposition." To this I will add: Too often, the dialogue was spoken, even by the main characters, including Tom Hanks, as if they had a CODE ID DUH DZOSE.
BACK TO THE BOOK
It seems to me that the message of the book is
1. that we need to beware of insidious fanaticism often spawned by powerful institutions, religious and otherwise. There is a long history of sacred and secular institutions which claim to have God and the truth on their side. In the book, the fanatic, Silas, the mad and murderous monk--is an egotist who worships what he has convinced himself is true. Over and over again he repeats the mantra: Pain is good--even as he inflicts it on others, as well as on himself. He belongs to Opus Die--a current and actual institution recognized as part of Catholicism--which serves his personal goals. Institutionalism is egotism writ large.
For your information, check the positive side of the story: http://www.opusdei.org/
I also find the following interesting http://www.legionofmary.org/ I happen to have a copy of the Manual of the LOM.
2. The book is about the value of, and wisdom in, acknowledging the sacred feminine--in partnership with the masculine--in all things.
As for the apparently anti-Christian stance of the story--focussing on Catholicism's role, historically speaking, in the persecution of non-conformists, including women--I believe that this opens the door for creative writers to write about all the important and historic religions. And about time. The sick and dark side of religious doctrines and practices ought to be exposed. But we should not neglect to point out that all religions have contributed much that is healthy and full of light.
The good news is: I have a feeling that this book and the movie will stimulate many curious readers to really take a good and critical look at the history of the great religions and why millions of people are drawn to them, even today, and agree to be molded by their doctrines. How come we believe--or do not believe--certain religious doctrines?
BTW, I took post graduate studies doing just that in 1954-1955, in Boston.
Currently, my wife and I, continuuing our education, are involved with
http://www.progressivechristianity.ca/ and in on the birth of a new UCC congregation in the Markham area http://www.pathwayschurch.ca/ It has one statement of FAITH: Love others--including planet earth and the cosmos--as they need to be loved.
This post has been edited by lgking: Yesterday, 10:23 AM
Why do so many actors feel they have to mumble their words nowadays? People, with good hearing, to whom I spoke, including my wife, agreed: TDaVC was not a well-done movie. And I think some major critics say the same thing. One critic, Liam Lacey, described the dialogue as "rediculously awkward...at times confusing and never compelling...too much exposition." To this I will add: Too often, the dialogue was spoken, even by the main characters, including Tom Hanks, as if they had a CODE ID DUH DZOSE.
BACK TO THE BOOK
It seems to me that the message of the book is
1. that we need to beware of insidious fanaticism often spawned by powerful institutions, religious and otherwise. There is a long history of sacred and secular institutions which claim to have God and the truth on their side. In the book, the fanatic, Silas, the mad and murderous monk--is an egotist who worships what he has convinced himself is true. Over and over again he repeats the mantra: Pain is good--even as he inflicts it on others, as well as on himself. He belongs to Opus Die--a current and actual institution recognized as part of Catholicism--which serves his personal goals. Institutionalism is egotism writ large.
For your information, check the positive side of the story: http://www.opusdei.org/
I also find the following interesting http://www.legionofmary.org/ I happen to have a copy of the Manual of the LOM.
2. The book is about the value of, and wisdom in, acknowledging the sacred feminine--in partnership with the masculine--in all things.
As for the apparently anti-Christian stance of the story--focussing on Catholicism's role, historically speaking, in the persecution of non-conformists, including women--I believe that this opens the door for creative writers to write about all the important and historic religions. And about time. The sick and dark side of religious doctrines and practices ought to be exposed. But we should not neglect to point out that all religions have contributed much that is healthy and full of light.
The good news is: I have a feeling that this book and the movie will stimulate many curious readers to really take a good and critical look at the history of the great religions and why millions of people are drawn to them, even today, and agree to be molded by their doctrines. How come we believe--or do not believe--certain religious doctrines?
BTW, I took post graduate studies doing just that in 1954-1955, in Boston.
Currently, my wife and I, continuuing our education, are involved with
http://www.progressivechristianity.ca/ and in on the birth of a new UCC congregation in the Markham area http://www.pathwayschurch.ca/ It has one statement of FAITH: Love others--including planet earth and the cosmos--as they need to be loved.
This post has been edited by lgking: Yesterday, 10:23 AM
QUOTE(Lindsay @ May 24, 01:27 AM) 
Why do so many actors feel they have to mumble their words nowadays? People, with good hearing, to whom I spoke, including my wife, agreed: TDaVC was not a well-done movie. And I think some major critics say the same thing. One critic, Liam Lacey, described the dialogue as "rediculously awkward...at times confusing and never compelling...too much exposition." To this I will add: Too often, the dialogue was spoken, even by the main characters, including Tom Hanks, as if they had a CODE ID DUH DZOSE.
Very good point. I have been wondering about this for some time now. In fact, this evening my wife and I just replayed Million Dollar Baby and said exactly the same thing. Obviously audio is not reviewed well enough during the filming process. Those involved with the film are not the ones who should be involved in this as they would know the dialogue. The music business have been getting away with this for decades. Hopefully the film industry will seek to find actors who can open their mouths to speak and still look cool! Do most of them actually know what they are saying?
QUOTE(Hey Hey @ May 24, 04:19 PM)
QUOTE(Lindsay @ May 24, 01:27 AM)
Why do so many actors feel they have to mumble their words nowadays? ...Too often, the dialogue was spoken, even by the main characters, including Tom Hanks, as if they had a CODE ID DUH DZOSE.
Very good point. I have been wondering about this for some time now....The music business have been getting away with this for decades. Hopefully the film industry will seek to find actors who can open their mouths to speak and still look cool! Do most of them actually know what they are saying?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.