Callistus Valerius Da Vinci Code

Basjan said:

...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.

Basjan said:

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 said:

"Sorni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

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>

Quoted message said:

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!

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:03:51 +0200, "Basjan" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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 said:

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 said:

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.

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Doug Taylor <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

Basjan said:

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."

In RBT, Mr Brandt is always in possession of the truth, and that gets
discussed. No harm, no truth.

Quoted message said:

Hence, by definition, they are right,
everyone else is wrong, end of discussion.

Ditto.

Quoted message said:

Unlike, say,
mathematics, no such belief can, by definition, universally be true.

Mathematics is a belief system. Get over it.

Quoted message said:

In a pluralistic society and a true democracy, religion should remain
personal and stay out of politics and public opinion.

Bull dingy !! What is left for politics ? Straw polls ? Are laws a matter
of moral precept or economic theory ? Everything belongs in politics and
democracy, including a correct appreciation of good beer. Which by
definition is Belgian.

Quoted message said:

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?

HELMET !! Oh, didn't notice. This argument pent upon the extremes isn't
about H*****S. Sorry.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

After your 15th birthday (judging from your picayune population of grey
cells in activity), you may ...
--
Sandy
-
Darwinism, born in ideological struggle, has never escaped from an intimate
reciprocal relationship with worldviews exported from and imported into the
science. No one challenges the claim that evolutionary theory has had a wide
effect on social theory. It is a cliché of cultural history that the
explanation of evolution by natural selection served as an ideological
justification for laissez-faire capitalism and the colonial domination of
the lesser breeds without the law

- Richard Lewontin

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
Kurgan Gringioni <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

Basjan said:

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.

No need to repeat the FAQ.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Basjan said:

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

...some discussion...

Quoted message said:

Geez, then don't read the book, don't see the movie....Nobody is going
to change their mind about what they 'believe' because of a book or
movie...the 'Bible' included.

Not the point at all... but then again, I am not here to argue, merely to
state my opinion regarding the much abused "it is fiction, not fact
argument" used by people who claim that Christians are overly sensitive in
this matter. If you do not wish to understand my argument, then you won´t. 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."

There are many Christians who actually do hold some things sacred and fro
whom their religion also premeates their lives, hence their apprehension at
the Da Vinci issue.

I am as apprehensive of someone who call himself a
Christian, as I am of someone who call himself a patriot.

--
Michael Press

Sorni said:

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!

Gears as applied to bicycle power trains (and I suppose any system
that accomplishes the same effect) so we could stop using 48" - 60"
wheels.

Franklin Street or Forest in Monterey, CA must have been fun with a
penny farthing - in either direction.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell said:

Sorni said:

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!

Quoted message said:

Gears as applied to bicycle power trains (and I suppose any system
that accomplishes the same effect) so we could stop using 48" - 60"
wheels.

Well, if you categorize "knee saving" as "safety" (and I don't see why not,
really), then you're on to something!

Quoted message said:

Franklin Street or Forest in Monterey, CA must have been fun with a
penny farthing - in either direction.

Were people nuts enough to do stuff like that before video cameras? :-D

Sorni said:

Curtis L. Russell said:

Franklin Street or Forest in Monterey, CA must have been fun with a
penny farthing - in either direction.

Were people nuts enough to do stuff like that before video cameras? :-D

Certainly, if nothing else just think of the canonical quote of:
"Hey y'all, hold my beer and watch this!"

--
Dane Buson - [email hidden]
I went into the business for the money, and the art grew out of it. If
people are disillusioned by that remark, I can't help it. It's the truth.
-- Charlie Chaplin

Sorni said:

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.)

No major American municipality has attempted to tear down a
star of David (or Muslim symbol, such as the crescent) that is
the size and prominence of the Mt. Soledad Cross on public land.
This is because no major American municipality would ever erect
a star of David or crescent the size and prominence of the
Mt. Soledad Cross on public land in the first place.

Michael Press said:

I am as apprehensive of someone who call himself a
Christian, as I am of someone who call himself a patriot.

"Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who profess to know it.

Sorni said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Sorni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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>

Quoted message said:

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!

I think we should all ask OURSELVES ... What would Jesus do?

He wouldn't wear a helmet. Just look at the pictures!

Case closed!

Quoted message said:

This is because no major American municipality would ever erect
a star of David or crescent the size and prominence of the
Mt. Soledad Cross on public land in the first place.

http://www.google.com/search?q=flight+93+crescent

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim Lines said:

Sorni wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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!

I think we should all ask OURSELVES ... What would Jesus do?

He wouldn't wear a helmet. Just look at the pictures!

Absolutely, just watch JCSC (episode 1).

http://www.thebighonkin.com/

(Sorry, no direct link...)

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Sandy said:

Quoted message said:

Unlike, say,
mathematics, no such belief can, by definition, universally be true.

Mathematics is a belief system. Get over it.

Dumbass -

Mathematics is science. In the scientific method, no theory is ever
proven, if a theory is confirmed by observation it is assumed that it
is true only until if and when it is disproven.

Scientists assume that it is possible to describe the universe in
mathematical terms, because observation has shown this to be true,
however, a true follower of the scientific method will abandon this
assumption if it is ever shown that there are portions of the universe
undescribable by mathematics.

Therefore, it is not a belief system.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

Quoted message said:

Unlike, say,
mathematics, no such belief can, by definition, universally be true.

Mathematics is a belief system. Get over it.

Dumbass -

Mathematics is science. In the scientific method, no theory is ever
proven, if a theory is confirmed by observation it is assumed that it
is true only until if and when it is disproven.

Scientists assume that it is possible to describe the universe in
mathematical terms, because observation has shown this to be true,
however, a true follower of the scientific method will abandon this
assumption if it is ever shown that there are portions of the universe
undescribable by mathematics.

Therefore, it is not a belief system.

For that matter, science is a belief system. Mathematics more clearly
so, as it is based on an immutable fundamental language, and additions
to its basic grammar and lexicon are discarded if not wholly consistent
with it. When errant expressions seem correct, they are fit into the
system, or discarded. That simple addition of one and one gives
different symbolic expressions in binary or decimal contexts only
represents an agreement to speak similar translatable languages, not
proof of a scientific reality.
--
Banzai !

Sandy