Callistus Valerius Da Vinci Code

"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:03:51 +0200, "Basjan" wrote:


I think one has to be very careful to assume extremism when one encounters
someone whose beliefs "permeates" their lives. Someone who fully endorses
a
belief-system might seem extreme to you, but might actually be normal in
terms of religious frameworks. On the contrary, another person´s religious
apathy, and associated actions and words, are *extreme* towards the other
end of the scale for some.

Basjan

I think the problem begins with you, when you assume that because a
Christian lets their religion permeate their life, they would be
apprehensive about the Da Vinci Code. I know a fair number of
Christians that would qualify and they are in no way apprehensive. Its
been out there for a while and made no real dents in their life to
date.

To each his own; i.e., for some it is an issue, for others not. But the
attitute that the "problem begins with me" is in turn just as assuming or
generalizing. You will note that I have never implied that all "permeators"
are objecting or should object. The fact that I object to the book/movie
does not imply a "problem with me", but merely a viewpoint that might be
different from yours.

The extremist label may not be fair based on the first part of your
description, but if they are 'apprehensive' for no better reason than
a poorly written book and an even worse movie, they just might be
dangerous...

....which I imagine is largely NOT the case. In fact, I found the book
entertaining (albeit poorly written) but shocking, just as I find many poor
movies no-brain entertainment. My apprehension stems from the content and I
am dumbfounded that someone cannot accept that this is blasphemous in my
opinion, whether fact or fiction. Just as I should be able to say to anyone
that they should knock themselves out and enjoy, even though I do not agree
with the content or quality of this particular piece of entertainment, that
person should be able to say that he/she understands or accepts my
apprehension. Or at least say that they are willing to try and understand.

If nothing else, the Da Vinci Code does start with the belief that the
issue of whether or not Christ had children and the line exists in the
present day is of significance: the issue is Christian and the concept
would be important in that context. For many of us, we aren't and it
isn't.

....and for many of us, we are and it is. So in essence we ask for the same
inalienable right, to voice protest/concern/warning while allowing another´s
indifference. (I may warn me of a AMClassic´s dangerous seatpost design, but
you don´t have to listen!)

Basjan

Basjan wrote:

The statement to a person that "your mother is a whore" might be
ABSOLUTE fiction, but it still upsets something deep inside that
person. Now take an instance where the object of such fictitious
slander is regarded as a supremely holy Deity by someone, who regards
this Deity as much, much more important or holy than his own mother.
....Now try to understand why something like this movie/book will
upset that person. Just because someone may be agnostic, does not
give that person the freedom to curtail someone else's freedom to
believe in and demonstrate for the opposite. Or in this case the
latter person's freedom and right to demonstrate against something
that breaks down the fabric of his beliefs.


Very well said, but missing the obvious. In RB-T, at least, one is not
allowed to have one's own beliefs, opinions and sensibilities about /many/
subjects (politics, helmets, religion, greased tapers, etc. etc.). Assume
it's similar in RBR?

Next flame war: global warming.

Kreskin Bill

Curtis L. Russell wrote:


If nothing else, the Da Vinci Code does start with the belief that the
issue of whether or not Christ had children and the line exists in the
present day is of significance: the issue is Christian and the concept
would be important in that context. For many of us, we aren't and it
isn't.



There are many varieties of religions who recognize Christ as a
historical figure and are not particularly threatened by the book or the
movie for whatever reason. One thing that I have found completely true
about the book or the movie is that those connected with either one are
probably going to make a ton of money off of the controversy. As for
me, I will probably just wait until the movie comes on cable to see it
but I am not interested enough to go see it in a theater.

Basjan wrote:
...I read an interesting article regarding the
Muslim cartoon uprising recently, which contained

" The main difference between Western culture and the culture of
Islam is the West holds nothing sacred anymore, and it's evident in
their movies, literature, referring to God as 'the guy upstairs',
etc. Religion may be something they indulge in once a week on a
Sunday, but for a Muslim, there is no separation between every day
life and religion. Your religion permeates and directs every aspect
of your life."

And yet the West would /never/ support any work of art or act that derided,
say, the Muslim religion; or attempted to tear down, say, a Star of David
the way public crosses are being challenged as unconstitutional. (DAGS on
Soledad Cross, for example.)

So apparently /some/ things are still sacred here -- as long as the number
offended is small enough.

On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:03:51 +0200, "Basjan" wrote:

I think one has to be very careful to assume extremism when one encounters
someone whose beliefs "permeates" their lives. Someone who fully endorses a
belief-system might seem extreme to you, but might actually be normal in
terms of religious frameworks. On the contrary, another person´s religious
apathy, and associated actions and words, are *extreme* towards the other
end of the scale for some.

I love it when fanatics (be they religious, political, or whatever)
try to sound like reasonable intellectuals.

The problem starts with the fanatic's assumptions: that they have a
complete monopoly on "Truth." Hence, by definition, they are right,
everyone else is wrong, end of discussion. Hence, those who are
"wrong (do not subscribe to the believer's belief)" may be
marginalized as "sinners," infidels," non-believers," and ignored,
belittled, murdered (e.g. abortion doctors), blown up (e.g. innocent
Israelis and Iraqis), left behind, etc.

Nobody, however, has a monopoly on religious "Truth." Unlike, say,
mathematics, no such belief can, by definition, universally be true.
It may be true for the individual, but it is subjective and relative
and does not exhaust or explain whatever it is that "is", is
(apologies to Bill Clinton.) The notion that one religion can
exhaust, explain, or wholly contain an axiomatically infinite God is a
contradiction. As are the notions that one religion can be "better",
"more true," "more evolved", or indeed, catholic and universal.

In a pluralistic society and a true democracy, religion should remain
personal and stay out of politics and public opinion. If your
religious beliefs are solid and sound, criticisms by others can't
touch you. If you are insecure and psychotically unbalanced, then you
tend to have a sick need to proselytize, impose and or even legislate
your beliefs upon others. A fanatically a priori true religious
belief is incompatible with democracy, because in a democracy the
majority may disagree with the religion, but the religion will reject
the majority. Abortion, anyone?

You want to convert me to your version of the "Truth"? Simple,
practice what you preach, and teach by example. Indeed, don't preach
at all, just be the embodiment of all you supposedly believe in.

What a concept! A Christian who actually acts like Jesus Christ! A
Muslim who actually acts like Mohammed!

I see so few examples in everyday life it is pathetic.

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Sorni" wrote in message
...
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

Nobody is going
to change their mind about what they 'believe' because of a book or
movie...the 'Bible' included.

Applies to "helmet studies", too eg

I wonder - why do you suppose that most of those that say that helmets
aren't the greatest safety device ever invented are engineers or
scientists?

Wait. I'll say it. Helmets aren't the greatest safety device ever
invented. I'll even go further. Helmets aren't the greatest safety device
ever invented...for cycling! (Not sure what is, however. Anyone?) And I
ain't no engineer or scientist; just ask Frank!

Do you believe that these people all started out hating helmets?
Apparently that's what you believe to be the ONLY possible motivation
for ever saying anything negative about helmets.

Ridiculous. Many of 'em have /ended up/ "hating" (your word) anyone who's
pro-lid, but no one (certainly not I) ever said they all /started out/
"hating" helmets.

There's plenty of contention already; no reason to just make stuff up.

HTH, BS

"Basjan" wrote in message
...

"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:03:51 +0200, "Basjan" wrote:


I think one has to be very careful to assume extremism when one
encounters
someone whose beliefs "permeates" their lives. Someone who fully endorses
a
belief-system might seem extreme to you, but might actually be normal in
terms of religious frameworks. On the contrary, another person´s
religious
apathy, and associated actions and words, are *extreme* towards the other
end of the scale for some.

Basjan

I think the problem begins with you, when you assume that because a
Christian lets their religion permeate their life, they would be
apprehensive about the Da Vinci Code. I know a fair number of
Christians that would qualify and they are in no way apprehensive. Its
been out there for a while and made no real dents in their life to
date.

To each his own; i.e., for some it is an issue, for others not. But the
attitute that the "problem begins with me" is in turn just as assuming or
generalizing. You will note that I have never implied that all
"permeators" are objecting or should object. The fact that I object to the
book/movie does not imply a "problem with me", but merely a viewpoint that
might be different from yours.

The extremist label may not be fair based on the first part of your
description, but if they are 'apprehensive' for no better reason than
a poorly written book and an even worse movie, they just might be
dangerous...

...which I imagine is largely NOT the case. In fact, I found the book
entertaining (albeit poorly written) but shocking, just as I find many
poor movies no-brain entertainment. My apprehension stems from the content
and I am dumbfounded that someone cannot accept that this is blasphemous
in my opinion, whether fact or fiction. Just as I should be able to say to
anyone that they should knock themselves out and enjoy, even though I do
not agree with the content or quality of this particular piece of
entertainment, that person should be able to say that he/she understands
or accepts my apprehension. Or at least say that they are willing to try
and understand.

If nothing else, the Da Vinci Code does start with the belief that the
issue of whether or not Christ had children and the line exists in the
present day is of significance: the issue is Christian and the concept
would be important in that context. For many of us, we aren't and it
isn't.

...and for many of us, we are and it is. So in essence we ask for the same
inalienable right, to voice protest/concern/warning while allowing
another´s indifference. (I may warn me of a AMClassic´s dangerous seatpost
design, but you don´t have to listen!)

Basjan


Has the National Geographic Society blasphemed Christianity by publishing
the Gospel of Judas with commentary? Or is that merely heretical?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Basjan wrote:


I think one has to be very careful to assume extremism when one encounters
someone whose beliefs "permeates" their lives. Someone who fully endorsesa
belief-system might seem extreme to you, but might actually be normal in
terms of religious frameworks. On the contrary, another person´s religious
apathy, and associated actions and words, are *extreme* towards the other
end of the scale for some.

Basjan

"Extreme" when it comes to beliefs is not important. It's what the
believers are prepared to do in pursuit of those beliefs that matters.
A cult that worships Elvis could be perfectly harmless or might
ruthlessly persecute non-believers. My attitude to its members would
depend strictly on what they do. That beliefs are sincere and deeply
held does not justify infringment of the rights of others.

Nigel Grinter
Well-Spoken Wheels
(www.wellspokenwheels.com)

Basjan wrote:


Not the point at all... but then again, I am not here to argue,



SNIP




Dumbass -


Don't lie to yourself and to us. You're here to argue.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Basjan wrote:


Not the point at all... but then again, I am not here to argue,



SNIP




Dumbass -


Don't lie to yourself and to us. You're here to argue.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.