Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13015Re: Rex Mundi film,

Expand Messages
  • teafourme
    Mar 1, 2007
      please forgive my ignorance of being new on this journey, I think I
      will just hang around and read for a while with out posting.
      Although sometimes I learn more by asking questions and expressing
      my feelings. But I will not subject myself to others who need to
      make their point by lashing out in sarcasms instead of trying to be
      a teacher to someone who obviously is in need of a better
      understanding.

      -- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, teafourme <no_reply@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > IMO anything that gets the general public open to Gnosis is a
      good
      > thing
      > >
      > > Dan Brown opened a lot of doors for many people, and in turn
      they have
      > > their eyes and minds open too much more.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Some people began asking more questions, taking what he had to
      say to
      > > another level, what ever that level might be to suite their own
      needs.
      > >
      > > Whether or not they get suck on this theory that is their own
      issue.
      > The
      > > fact that it has opened minds to new possibilities is what
      matters.
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > Okay, consider what I was discussing previously with Andrew. Do we
      > consider it "gnosis" that some people have a "need" to
      > support their racist agenda, and apparently claim to find such
      > substantiation within ancient texts?
      >
      > Or, take another look at that passage from Prof. Couliano that PMCV
      > quoted. Some people seem to have no difficulty picking and
      choosing
      > which portions of that essay they find relevant, all in order to
      come
      > away with the very understanding AGAINST which the author was
      writing.
      > Unless, of course, they actually DID read the whole thing and (more
      > disturbingly) think to themselves, "Hey, let's be gnostics like the
      > communists and nazis!"
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      > > I am not saying that one should agree with all he put in print
      and
      > > screen, but his action of getting it out there was HUGE and it
      has
      > > defiantly had an impact on the general public. People started
      taking
      > > this into their homes and communities and talked about it.
      > >
      > > "Talked about it", .. Isn't that great? People are talking!
      > >
      > > Getting the vibration out there.
      > >
      > > In the search of enlightenment the means that moves a person are
      vast
      > > and varied
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > No. Talking, in and of itself, is not necessarily a great thing.
      > I've known plenty of people with diarrhea of the mouth. If their
      > affliction spewed forth something of substance, even on occasion, I
      > might think differently. After the Matrix trilogy, there are some
      > people who are honestly convinced that we are living in a computer
      > program, and they faithfully await a savior to come and disrupt the
      > machinations so they can be released. I have seen "talk" of
      > this on the Net. "Great"? I'm not convinced.
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      > > The comic book has been around since the 1950's long before DB
      and
      > > the DVC. And if people can relate to this, how can that be bad?
      It may
      > > open a few more minds and ideas.
      > >
      > > Isn't that what it is all about, opening the mind and expanding
      > > Ideas?
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Through the centuries Gnosis has been handed down through art and
      > > literature, this is no different; one means of art might not
      appeal to
      > > one, but may enlighten another. So if someone has seen or heard
      of
      > this
      > > Comic, and thought not too much of it, and now they see it in a
      > > different form of media that may appeal to them more, than great,
      > > another open mind!
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Many people didn't like the fact that Tom Hanks was to the major
      > > roll in the DVC, but they wanted to know it was all about, so
      they
      > went
      > > anyway. I don't think the message that was meant to be sent out
      > > there was hindered at all by him playing the part.
      > >
      > > So, JD having a hand in this movie isn't such an awful thing. You
      > > are apparently not a big fan of his, but knew he was in
      Chocolate and
      > > you still went to see the movie and you got what you needed from
      that
      > > movie.
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > Actually, I missed Chocolat at the cinema. I'm not even sure that
      > it was ever released around these parts, but I did manage to catch
      it
      > numerous times on cable. I wasn't even aware that Johnny Depp was
      > in it until I was well into the film the first time. Despite the
      fact
      > that I find his personal notoriety to be a bit of a distraction, I
      was
      > able to take in the overall work (writing, direction, other
      fantastic
      > actors, etc.) and managed to appreciate varying levels of appeal.
      If I
      > had driven out of town when the movie first came out just to catch
      an
      > appearance of Lena Olin on the big screen because I think she's hot
      > … would I have gotten as much out of it? Who knows. The point is
      > that one would be more likely to come away with a broader
      appreciation
      > of the work if such preconceptions as "I hate Johnny Depp" or
      > "I love Lena Olin" were set aside at the start.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > > Take what you need and left the rest.
      > >
      > > What a great concept for all.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Peace,
      > >
      > >
      > > KP
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > This seems like a great concept for anyone who can be satisfied
      with an
      > exploration of profundity that may be limited to thrashing about
      in the
      > shallow end or simply swimming across the surface. Perhaps there's
      > more to the pool than we've considered. Have we pondered the
      tiles,
      > or the drain, or the filtration system? How about the source of
      the
      > water? Is it, in fact, meant merely for decoration or reflection?
      > Could it be intended for sacred or ritualistic purposes? If so,
      have we
      > already embarrassed ourselves by diving into it in the first
      place?
      > Even though we may be accustomed to seeing a bunch of water and
      thinking
      > to ourselves what a splashing good time might be had therein,
      perhaps it
      > would be a good thing to consider the context.
      >
      > Gerry
      >
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic