davinci code protesters

[KennyJC]

Anyone see "The Da Vinci Code: Bloodlines" on the History Channel?

Josh Bernstein proved that the whole legend of the bloodline of Jesus carrying over into the Merovingian line was a hoax, as well as the so called society that claimed it.

As well as the DNA evidence of the Merovingian queen. Her DNA is "typical European" - no Mid-Eastern indications.

You mean you will believe anything that is in vague support of your irrational beliefs without realizing your beliefs are fucked up in the first place?

 

[one_raven]

I'm wondering how many people that liked and put any creedence into The Da Vinci Code or Holy Blood Holy Grail have read Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco.

 

[thedevilsreject]

to be honest though i do not see what the people who are protesting are hoping to gain from protesting. the big movie execs are not really going to care what a bunch of indian christians think and infact all they are doing is giving the film some good publicity

 

[charles cure]

I'm wondering how many people that liked and put any creedence into The Da Vinci Code or Holy Blood Holy Grail have read Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco.

i've read focault's pendulum and the name of the rose. eco is a great author. a bit too prolix for my taste, but excellent nonetheless. his stuff, much like the davinci code though, i have always taken to be fiction. HBHG or other books like it are not exactly the same thing as far as im concerned. although i do see your point.

 

[charles cure]

Anyone see "The Da Vinci Code: Bloodlines" on the History Channel?

Josh Bernstein proved that the whole legend of the bloodline of Jesus carrying over into the Merovingian line was a hoax, as well as the so called society that claimed it.

As well as the DNA evidence of the Merovingian queen. Her DNA is "typical European" - no Mid-Eastern indications.

really, that's interesting considering that the merovingian dynasty ended with a king. where did they get the queen's DNA from?

honestly, a lot of times i think the conclusions of any given show on the history channel are apt to contradict some other equally acceptable versions of events. after having read 5 or 6 biographies of Abraham Lincoln for example, and a slew of books on the civil war, i found their special on Lincoln to focus more on areas of wild speculation about his personality that have never been substantiated, instead of portraying him the way most people say he was. they do this in order to capitalize on the controversial aspects of history so that they can generate ratings. i wouldn't put all of your eggs in the history channel basket if i were you.

 

[ggazoo]

You mean you will believe anything that is in vague support of your irrational beliefs without realizing your beliefs are fucked up in the first place?

How old are you?

This is supposed to be a forum where we can debate. Saying my my beliefs are "fucked up" is not only insulting, but's uncalled for. Grow up.