The Vatican Bans Filming of Angels and Demons

I have read the book years ago, and very much enjoyed it. In truth, I didn't find it blasphemous, I found it enlightening. Anyone who has read the book, knows that it is not anti church at all.

I find the quote below to be hypocritical

“It would be unacceptable to transform churches into film sets so that his blasphemous novels can be made into films in the name of business,” he said, adding that Brown’s work “wounds common religious feelings”.

SOURCE

What is the church afraid of? Do they realize that their slaving days are coming to an end?

One only need to look back in history to see the damage the church has done to culture. Many times using propaganda and differing forms of media. God bless Luther for taking a stand so long ago, using the printing press. Even though he created yet another brand of slavery.

The bible is the greatest example of propaganda. I wish it would get banned.

Why is the assumption that the church is afraid of something?

If you, for example, were written about in a book gone movie that is clearly fiction, but though it's fiction it still uses your name and all that you believe in and paints it as false, makes you into a huge villain, and whose intention is to make eye open doors someone that everyone who sees the movie or reads the book hates, would you open the doors of your home to let them film the movie there?

Would you say no because you were afraid the truth would get out, or because you don't want to bend over backwards to someone insulting you and everything you believe?

Why is the assumption that the church is afraid of something?

Because they are impeding the film, and using the excuse that the filming is for business. At least, it is obvious that the film is for business or profit. The church has been using prophets for profits for a very long time. Selling people faith and telling people they are the source.

Have you read the book? It doesn't insult at all. IMO it paints a possible good picture of the vatican.

Would you say no because you were afraid the truth would get out, or because you don't want to bend over backwards to someone insulting you and everything you believe?

The churches existence is a vast insult to many, let alone the way many of the organizations pyramid schemes employees (AKA the Faithful) walking around this planet with a feeling of over privileged , and righteousness. Most faithful don't even know or care IMO, how much they insult people with their statements.

God is on their sides right? So they can say and do anything, as long as it's in god's name. What is wrong with opening the eye to corruption? Jesus did that in the temple square when he threw the money about.

Luther did that when he revealed the hypocrisy of the fetishes, the selling of relics, and the pre-paying of sins for those that would murder for the church in their campaign to destroy culture and to rewrite history.

If they had nothing to hide, what harm would it do to open their doors and let them in?

reply to post by eye open doors


You dodged the question If you had nothing to hide, would you open your house to me filming a movie slandering you?

I admit, I have not read the book, but instead base my assumption on The DaVinci Code, which was a complete work of fiction painted in such a way as to make those who wanted to believe and/or those who didn't want to research anything about it to believe that it was a true account, a conspiracy theory with a lot of validity.

Again, you say if the church has nothing to hide, what harm could come from inviting the film crews with arms wide open? A lot. First, it gives the impression that the church supports the content of the movie. It would also give legitimacy to Brown. There is also the whole business thing, which you dismiss with the caveat that the church is a business. Somehow, I don't think that many of the Catholic Church's leaders think of the church as a business, though there may be some.

Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: I see no hypocracy in what was said (doesn't mean the church is not hypocritical!!) and state that if the people who want this movie made have enuff money to make a movie then they can afford to provide their own movies sets.

Personal Disclosure: I'm sorry but your O.P. sounds like you are personally wanting the church to be humiliated and happy about it at the same time. A Good Christian is taught to turn the other cheek but they are not taught to go out happily asking to be hit!

Become totally disillusioned and finally see everything for real. Think Globally Act Locally Feel Internally.DENY IGNORANCE 1st.

Originally posted by JunglejakeYou dodged the question

If you had nothing to hide, would you open your house to me filming a movie slandering you?

The book/movie is not a slander though. It's a book. Much like the bible. Just another story.

Originally posted by JunglejakeI admit, I have not read the book, but instead base my assumption on The DaVinci Code, which was a complete work of fiction painted in such a way as to make those who wanted to believe and/or those who didn't want to research anything about it to believe that it was a true account, a conspiracy theory with a lot of validity.

So what is the distinction between the bible and Dan Brown's work?

Originally posted by JunglejakeAgain, you say if the church has nothing to hide, what harm could come from inviting the film crews with arms wide open?

Once again, the book paints two pictures, but in the end the church ends up looking rosy.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Personal Disclosure: I'm sorry but your O.P. sounds like you are personally wanting the church to be humiliated and happy about it at the same time. A Good Christian is taught to turn the other cheek but they are not taught to go out happily asking to be hit!

Become totally disillusioned and finally see everything for real. Think Globally Act Locally Feel Internally.DENY IGNORANCE 1st.

first off, I'd like to say. Great post... very humorous. Yes, I would like to see the church humiliated. What comes around goes around. I am certain all the people who were claimed to have kissed the Devil's Anus were humiliated. Which was created out of the minds of the church officials to begin with.

I must admit, one of my indulgences and techniques to keep myself out of the fold is to make truthful jabs at a corrupt organization. Also, bringing awareness to the newly awakened and those that are mustering the courage to break their bindings.

Enough of that...

I really do not want to post any spoilers here. But the Book is not insulting to the church. It does express corruption, however it expresses the opposite as well. IMO, the churches lack of support to this, is an admittance of corruption. Much like the person who hides whatever they are doing. They hide it, because they know it is wrong.

[edit on 6/21/2008 by eye open doors]

A good friend of mine worked as a gaffer's assist while the movie business was discovering Austin, Texas.

His advice was NEVER NEVER NEVER let anyone film on your property, regardless of how much money they promise you, or how much they swear they will repair any damages and compensate for lost usage.

I visited him in Austin while they were filming a commercial for a bank. Here's what they did to the "set," a residence in Austin:

-The director thought the lawn was too brown in February, so film-hands spray-painted the grass green, killing the lawn.

-The director wanted BIG trees in the yard. The crew back-hoed holes, then rented some trees from nurseries, which the director rejected. They were not watered for a day or two, and probably suffered shock by being rammed in holes and then ripped back out 20 minutes later.

-The director made the crew steal trees from a public building downtown; they died in a few days from ill-treatment.

-The director thought the house needed a porch. The crew built a fake porch with a front and false steps, but no floor to walk on. They didn't remove the porch afterward, as called for in the contract.

-To get more electricity than their trucks could provide, the electrical crew re-wired the breaker box, then didn't change it back afterward.

-The whole crew of 128 people used the house's toilets and stopped them up. Then the crew started peeing in the kitchen sink.

- Most of the loose items in the home were stolen by the film crew, including winter coats from the closet when a cold front blew in.

For all the wreckage the owner endured, they received 10,000 usd. They were also sued by the city. Meanwhile, after the commercial was complete, the bank nixed the footage, due to the damage to the home making the local papers. The production company went out of business, so there was no one to sue for damages.


Knowing all this, why would anyone expect a religious organization to rent out their sacred space so it could be used this way, all for the sake of making millions for someone who want to portray them in a bad light anyway.

.

Argh...

Read the post

The book an likely the movie offer a good and bad light...

Peoples knee jerk reaction to Dan Brown is a little nerve wracking. If it challenges the church, it must be bad? Clearly the churches devices are deeply ingrained in the psyche of the people. Even those who are awakened.

Originally posted by eye open doors

Peoples knee jerk reaction to Dan Brown is a little nerve wracking. If it challenges the church, it must be bad?

No, but if it says on the first page that the history and facts portrayed are true, when they are clearly false, then I have a problem with that.

It's not his conclusions that are "bad," (although I disagree with them), it's that he "tells lies to make money."

the very thing you accused the wicked catholics of a few posts ago . . . .

I didn't think he what he was writing was true. I looked at it almost as an allegorical myth. The book was marketed as a story. Unlike the story of the bible. it's marketed as truth.

Also, are you talking about the Da Vinci Code? This is about Angels and Demons. Which is about Anti matter, that is not real. In the book the author writes about quantum physics and anti matter.

I don't know what you are going on about.

[edit on 6/22/2008 by eye open doors]

Your repeated comparisons of "Angels and Demons" to the Bible is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Vatican owns Vatican City, and they can do as they wish with it. Dan Brown is known to write 'racy' material with regards to the Church. Even in "Angels and Demons", there is a *SPOILER WARNING!!!*

pope with a kid
corrupt priesthood
evil priesthood
etc. (read it a long time ago, not remembering it all now)


*SPOILER ENDED!!!* Even if some of these things were/are true, they are still painting the Church in a negative light. Why should the Vatican agree to the filming of the movie? We are not losing out on anything by not being able to see Dan Browns most intellectual works being turned to film. It's not like CG and movie sets can't solve the problem either.

reply to post by eye open doors

Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: You state in your reply to me and I quote "Yes, I would like to see the church humiliated." and I thank you for disclosing this vital bit of information. I feel you could of disclosed this in your O.P. for obvious reasons of disambiguity.

2ndly You also state and I quote "I am certain all the people who were claimed to have kissed the Devil's Anus were humiliated." and I'm not so sure as If they actually did willingly kissed the devils anus it clearly shows they have no shame at all and therefor wont feel any humiliation at all! As to those who were presumably innocent of the claims the church made against them well they Failed to win the Meme war of that time and place and naturally caved in to the Darwinian pressures at play. Yes they were humiliated by their OWN failure to adapt, overcome and survive the situation at hand! This is a failure on their part (to deal effectively with the corruption) & not a failure of the Church (which by its nature is naturally corrupt and has no need to fight itself on this matter).

Personal Disclosure: I noticed you again failed to directly answer the following direct questions to you from other posters for eg. "Originally posted by Junglejake, You dodged the question If you had nothing to hide, would you open your house to me filming a movie slandering you?", Its a simple yes or no answer. Care to address it? Because if you don't IMO, your lack
of reply to this, is an admittance of corruption. Much like the person who hides whatever they are doing. They hide it, because they know it is wrong.

Become totally disillusioned and finally see everything for real. Think Globally Act Locally Feel Internally.DENY IGNORANCE 1st.