When does it end?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I would ignore them, the same as I'd ignore the odd film that sets out to make money by offending Christians.
Bingo! These folks don't understand that their protests only draw attention to something that will otherwise go away quickly on its own.
Christian Graus wrote:
The ability of nuclear weapons makes this a possibility, but I'd not consider it likely. I think we've got inevitable environmental concerns, however long they take to manifest themselves.
Nukes (or whatever is next) and/or some global environmental disaster may kill off 99% of mankind, but it will be religious zealotry that kills the final few humans. "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done." - Peter Ustinov
Mike Mullikin wrote:
These folks don't understand that their protests only draw attention to something that will otherwise go away quickly on its own.
Exactly. A few years ago, some guy took a religious statue ( a crucifixtion ), put it in a glass case and filled it with his own urine. He called it 'piss christ' and it was on display in the state art gallery. The amount of fuss that generated from protest groups !!! I'm sure otherwise, no-one would have heard of the 'artist'. Clever marketing, playing into the hands of those with weak minds and strong knee-jerk reactions. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
As you probably know, I am a Christian. My father is, too, and so my mother is not ( they live in a state of war ). I had a lengthy phone call from my mum to explain how this book blows apart how the church was created to oppress women, blah, blah, blah. You'd think that she was talking about something she read in a newspaper, not a work of fiction. I can understand that a lot of people would assume the book to be based on fact, and while I have no sympathy with the Catholic Church, I can see why they would mount a campaign to emphasise to those of feeble brain that it's a work of fiction. I would do it differently, I would ignore them, the same as I'd ignore the odd film that sets out to make money by offending Christians. I feel sorry for people who have no other resources than to try to make money by shocking and offending. I'm not offended, it does not affect me, or my belief, and I would certainly defend their right to their free speech, even if I do not agree. In other words, I would agree that they are handling this poorly.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
legal action because both offend Christ and the Church he founded.
That is just scary.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I'll bet that it won't be a political issue or even an environmental one - I'd wager that religion and some moron/zealot feeling offended will be at the heart of it.
The ability of nuclear weapons makes this a possibility, but I'd not consider it likely. I think we've got inevitable environmental concerns, however long they take to manifest themselves. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote:
the same as I'd ignore the odd film that sets out to make money by offending Christians. I feel sorry for people who have no other resources than to try to make money by shocking and offending.
How do you feel about those in the entertainment industry who make money by pandering to the populist religous beliefs?
-
Cardinal urges legal action against Da Vinci Code[^] In the latest Vatican broadside against "The Da Vinci Code," a leading cardinal says Christians should respond to the book and film with legal action because both offend Christ and the Church he founded. Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Nigerian who was considered a candidate for pope last year, made his strong comments in a documentary called "The Da Vinci Code-A Masterful Deception." Arinze's appeal came some 10 days after another Vatican cardinal called for a boycott of the film. Both cardinals asserted that other religions would never stand for offences against their beliefs and that Christians should get tough. "Christians must not just sit back and say it is enough for us to forgive and to forget," Arinze said in the documentary made by Rome film maker Mario Biasetti for Rome Reports, a Catholic film agency specializing in religious affairs. Since when does anybody/everybody have a "right" to not be offended? When mankind actually succeeds in killing itself off completely, I'll bet that it won't be a political issue or even an environmental one - I'd wager that religion and some moron/zealot feeling offended will be at the heart of it. "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done." - Peter Ustinov
Just because of Cardinal Francis Arinze I'm going to buy the book and watch the movie. Steve
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the same as I'd ignore the odd film that sets out to make money by offending Christians. I feel sorry for people who have no other resources than to try to make money by shocking and offending.
How do you feel about those in the entertainment industry who make money by pandering to the populist religous beliefs?
Do you mean Mel Gibson ? About the same, really. In both cases, they are presenting their beliefs, in a way that they expect to make them money. I'd say Mel is being less cynical about it, but I would never protest nor applaud in either c ase. I have neither seen the last temptation of Christ, nor have I seen the passion. In both cases, they really don't interest me. I did say I feel 'sorry' for people who have no other resources than shock value, and that's probably the only difference. I would feel equally about 'art' that attempts to shock based on something other than religion, so it's a feeling I have that has nothing to do with my own beliefs, I guess it has to do with how I percieve the sincerity and merit ( such as it is ) of such work. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Rob Graham wrote:
ince I am not a "leftist", you can't really blame that particular brand of 'brainwashing' for my view on this... care to try another theory?
I think basic Marxist dogma has so throughly satuarated the thinking of modern westerners that it is virtually impossible to not be affected by it, unless you purposefully go out of your way to identify and purge it from your thought processes. The simple truth is that religion has not been the great scourge of human society that we are currently taught to think of it as. In fact, religion as a cultural artifact can proudly claim to be among the healthier aspects of human civilization - a lot healthier than socialism has been. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 19:29 Sunday 7th May, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
religion has not been the great scourge of human society that we are currently taught to think of it as
And I never suggested it was a "great scourge". It has, however, been responsible for some of the greatest atrocities in history. And when Catholics complain about a work of fiction, demanding legal suppression, they become no better than Muslims demanding suppression of cartoons of the prophet. I would think that a religion secure in its beliefs would simply ignore such petty anoyances. Instead, they call attention to them, mostly to their own detriment. We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
-
As you probably know, I am a Christian. My father is, too, and so my mother is not ( they live in a state of war ). I had a lengthy phone call from my mum to explain how this book blows apart how the church was created to oppress women, blah, blah, blah. You'd think that she was talking about something she read in a newspaper, not a work of fiction. I can understand that a lot of people would assume the book to be based on fact, and while I have no sympathy with the Catholic Church, I can see why they would mount a campaign to emphasise to those of feeble brain that it's a work of fiction. I would do it differently, I would ignore them, the same as I'd ignore the odd film that sets out to make money by offending Christians. I feel sorry for people who have no other resources than to try to make money by shocking and offending. I'm not offended, it does not affect me, or my belief, and I would certainly defend their right to their free speech, even if I do not agree. In other words, I would agree that they are handling this poorly.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
legal action because both offend Christ and the Church he founded.
That is just scary.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I'll bet that it won't be a political issue or even an environmental one - I'd wager that religion and some moron/zealot feeling offended will be at the heart of it.
The ability of nuclear weapons makes this a possibility, but I'd not consider it likely. I think we've got inevitable environmental concerns, however long they take to manifest themselves. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote:
The ability of nuclear weapons makes this a possibility
I wish I could convince myself that we aren't very close to just that scenario, but I find it difficult to believe that Iran's quest is entirely as "peaceful" as they say. Even a "small" exchange between Iran and Israel could trigger a "nuclear winter" scenario that would precipitate your "environmental" concerns much sooner than Global warming will.Zealots on both sides will insure that it is as large an exchange as both can make it, and Zealots in the U.S. may precipitate our participation, in which case who knows where the exchanges will cease. We need to graduate from the ridiculous notion that greed is some kind of elixir for capitalism - it's the downfall of capitalism. Self-interest, maybe, but self-interest run amok does not serve anyone. The core value of conscious capitalism is enlightened self-interest. Patricia Aburdene
-
The amount of violence throughout human history caused by religion is not even a fraction of a percent of that caused by completely secular reasons. Makeing such a big deal out of religious violence, rather than concentrating on the far more onerous issues of secular violence is proof that the left is not trying to solve the problem of violence, it is trying to solve the "problem" of religion. If you are so brainwashed that you cannot see that, I would suggest that you are the one with the seious problems. "You get that which you tolerate"
No one in their sane mind would attempt to deny to violence caused by the crusades - It's a matter of historical fact. And it's not just the violence per se; it's the fact they actively exported it. Are you religious? Steve -- modified at 20:28 Sunday 7th May, 2006
-
Do you mean Mel Gibson ? About the same, really. In both cases, they are presenting their beliefs, in a way that they expect to make them money. I'd say Mel is being less cynical about it, but I would never protest nor applaud in either c ase. I have neither seen the last temptation of Christ, nor have I seen the passion. In both cases, they really don't interest me. I did say I feel 'sorry' for people who have no other resources than shock value, and that's probably the only difference. I would feel equally about 'art' that attempts to shock based on something other than religion, so it's a feeling I have that has nothing to do with my own beliefs, I guess it has to do with how I percieve the sincerity and merit ( such as it is ) of such work. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Mel Gibson was only one who came to mind. I was also thinking of how a few years ago mainstream TV was criticized by the right wing christians of "neglecting" them and being too secular. Now we have this spate of pseudoreligious programming such as "Touched by an Angel" and, I think from the teasers I've seen, things like "Ghost Whisperer" and "Medium". The let's take a few religious ideas and spin them all over them map. But next thing you have entertainment giving "credence" to a lot of the fringe because some people can't tell the difference just like da Vinci Code.
-
Mel Gibson was only one who came to mind. I was also thinking of how a few years ago mainstream TV was criticized by the right wing christians of "neglecting" them and being too secular. Now we have this spate of pseudoreligious programming such as "Touched by an Angel" and, I think from the teasers I've seen, things like "Ghost Whisperer" and "Medium". The let's take a few religious ideas and spin them all over them map. But next thing you have entertainment giving "credence" to a lot of the fringe because some people can't tell the difference just like da Vinci Code.
Tim Craig wrote:
Ghost Whisperer
OK, now I have a strong opinion. Shows like that will die, just because they are crap. Total crap. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
No one in their sane mind would attempt to deny to violence caused by the crusades - It's a matter of historical fact. And it's not just the violence per se; it's the fact they actively exported it. Are you religious? Steve -- modified at 20:28 Sunday 7th May, 2006
The Crusades *used* religion to motivate the masses. They were not created for religious purposes. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Ghost Whisperer
OK, now I have a strong opinion. Shows like that will die, just because they are crap. Total crap. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Since when does anybody/everybody have a "right" to not be offended?
Since when do only Christians not have the same "right" to be offended as everyone else?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
When mankind actually succeeds in killing itself off completely, I'll bet that it won't be a political issue or even an environmental one - I'd wager that religion and some moron/zealot feeling offended will be at the heart of it.
Thats doubtful -given that political and environmental issues have historically been far more distructive to human civilization than religions has. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 10:59 Sunday 7th May, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
Since when do only Christians not have the same "right" to be offended as everyone else?
Christians have exactly as much right to be offended as Muslims do -- none.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats doubtful -given that political and environmental issues have historically been far more distructive to human civilization than religions has.
Throughout history Religion has been the Political system for a lot of countries and it still is in places like the middle east. Can you think of any examples of destructive atheist governments besides the Communist governments of the former USSR and China?
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Since when do only Christians not have the same "right" to be offended as everyone else?
Christians have exactly as much right to be offended as Muslims do -- none.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats doubtful -given that political and environmental issues have historically been far more distructive to human civilization than religions has.
Throughout history Religion has been the Political system for a lot of countries and it still is in places like the middle east. Can you think of any examples of destructive atheist governments besides the Communist governments of the former USSR and China?
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Can you think of any examples of destructive atheist governments besides the Communist governments of the former USSR and China?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
----
-
The Crusades *used* religion to motivate the masses. They were not created for religious purposes. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
The first Crusade was started by Pope Urban II in 1096 AD to reclaim the Holy lands from the Turks. So we have the pope involved from the onset. I think it's naive to think that, at least in part, there was no religious motivation. Steve
-
Just because of Cardinal Francis Arinze I'm going to buy the book and watch the movie. Steve
-
Just because of Cardinal Francis Arinze I'm going to buy the book and watch the movie. Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Just because of Cardinal Francis Arinze I'm going to buy the book and watch the movie.
Maybe he gets a percentage of the royalty - in that case, he'd be mighty happy about this I think. :-D Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there! -
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Just because of Cardinal Francis Arinze I'm going to buy the book and watch the movie.
Maybe he gets a percentage of the royalty - in that case, he'd be mighty happy about this I think. :-D Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there!Now that's smart: buying shares then slamming the book/movie to increase the value. Steve
-
The first Crusade was started by Pope Urban II in 1096 AD to reclaim the Holy lands from the Turks. So we have the pope involved from the onset. I think it's naive to think that, at least in part, there was no religious motivation. Steve
I'd suggest it naive to say that the Pope in 1096 was mainly concerned with religion, but that's cool. :) Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
The amount of violence throughout human history caused by religion is not even a fraction of a percent of that caused by completely secular reasons. Makeing such a big deal out of religious violence, rather than concentrating on the far more onerous issues of secular violence is proof that the left is not trying to solve the problem of violence, it is trying to solve the "problem" of religion. If you are so brainwashed that you cannot see that, I would suggest that you are the one with the seious problems. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
The amount of violence throughout human history caused by religion
The original post made no reference as to the "Amount" historically. You protest to much.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Makeing such a big deal out of religious violence
It's a shame you weren't present to agrue the same against those that planned murder and cried, "It is Gods Will!". X|
"What classes are you using ? You shouldn't call stuff if you have no idea what it does" Christian Graus in the C# forum led mike
-
I'd suggest it naive to say that the Pope in 1096 was mainly concerned with religion, but that's cool. :) Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
I accept that politics is not always far from the minds of religious leaders. But that's the point - The church has turned many politcal issues into religious ones. Steve