Callistus Valerius Da Vinci Code



In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Lines <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sorni wrote:

> > 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 wrote:
>
> > 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.
 
"Allez1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Basjan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:03:51 +0200, "Basjan" <[email protected]> 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?

Haven´t seen this, so cannot comment. But a mere factual presentation is
there for everyone to evaluate, if it is indeed factual and accurate...

Basjan
 
Basjan wrote:
>
> 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.

"Someone" should get a freaking life, and undertake the use of some
other drug that's less brain-damaging than unexamined dogma.

Chalo
 
"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:03:51 +0200, "Basjan" <[email protected]> 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.

Dear Doug,

Your judgement is noted...as is your unwavering inability to grasp the
argument/discussion. I in turn love it when people jump on the
religious-slaying bandwagon and thrust arguments, that they seem to be
carrying around like extra baggage, about without addressing or even
grasping the original intent.

> 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.

Man, seems that you have run into a lot of beef! I have nowhere claimed
that "all should follow what I believe", merely that you should *try* to
understand where I am coming from re. my objection to the book/movie. The
choice of belief or understanding is obviously yours.

> 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.)

Indeed, your choice/belief/disbelief is yours.

> The notion that one religion can
> exhaust, explain, or wholly contain an axiomatically infinite God is a
> contradiction.

Just a side note, did you ever stop and think about the *huge* philosophical
problem with a bumper sticker like "God is too big to fit into one
religion"? I.e., that one portion of the population is accusing another of
religion-casting God, while they are doing.....exactly the same, just where
they would want Him to fit.

> 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?

The major flaw in your argument is the concept that for a religious person,
God is above democracy, and whoooo, isn´t that a scary thought, that a
person can actually believe in something bigger than an idea invented by us
mere mortals.

> 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.

Man, get of the horse! I was not preaching or trying to convert anyone -
read the thread thoroughly and try to grasp that I was merely pointing out
that an unwillingness to understand is worse than someone who speaks his/her
mind.

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

Very, very true.

Basjan
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

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

>>"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.

Well put, and totally logical. We are, after all, a society of free choice,
or mostly, anyway.

Basjan
 
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.

Your vocabulary betrays you. As does your inability to read and comprehend.

Knock yourself out!

Basjan
 
"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Basjan wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> "Someone" should get a freaking life, and undertake the use of some
> other drug that's less brain-damaging than unexamined dogma.
>
> Chalo

Niiiiiceeee! So, are you able to try and understand (and perhaps accept)
another person´s ideas on this issue, or should they merely nod their heads
in submission and say a "yes, boss" to you?

Realize that the "someone" referred to above actually might find it sad that
another believes in only that which he/she can comprehend, explain, see, or
fathom. Perhaps it really is not all about the bike...

Basjan
 
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> 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.

There is a difference between pure mathematics (in which one can prove
a 'truth' within a given system) and applied mathematics which
attempts to describe the universe or sub-systems of the universe as
a mathematical model, though.
 
On 23 May 2006 01:19:19 -0700, "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Basjan wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>"Someone" should get a freaking life, and undertake the use of some
>other drug that's less brain-damaging than unexamined dogma.
>
>Chalo

Actually, the greater problem is that it isn't particularly
blasphemous, to go to the original points the person was trying to
make.

The Catholic Church long ago had to address the issue that there are
portions of the gospel where Christ appeared to be far less than
omnipotent and the question asked was, if Christ was God, why didn't
he know as God? Their answer was that Christ was God in clay, and the
clay of man limited his knowledge during his time on earth.

Even if Christ had a child, it would not be from the source of the
divinity of Christ, but the clay of man. A much smaller theological
issue than that of lack of omniscience. Christ bled, Christ sweated,
Christ could have a child. However, the child would not have been
devine. The Catholic Church already took care of that theological
point.

Their concern is with the conspiracy theories and that pet
organizations are under attack. They should be grateful it takes focus
away from some real world scandals of recent exposure in that
organization.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On Tue, 23 May 2006 10:52:55 +0200, "Basjan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Realize that the "someone" referred to above actually might find it sad that
>another believes in only that which he/she can comprehend, explain, see, or
>fathom. Perhaps it really is not all about the bike...

So you can't accept the viewpoint of this other person without being
judgmental. Interesting.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On Tue, 23 May 2006 10:21:40 +0200, "Basjan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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?
>
>The major flaw in your argument is the concept that for a religious person,
>God is above democracy, and whoooo, isn´t that a scary thought, that a
>person can actually believe in something bigger than an idea invented by us
>mere mortals.

Flaw in MY argument? You are admitting and proving my point, and yes,
what you say is QUITE scary. The fact is we all here on earth are
mere mortals, including you so-called Christians (not to exclude the
so-called Muslims), and while we are here have to abide certain rules.
You know, like the "theory" of gravity. Governments of mortal,
profane humans are run can mortal, profane humans, and they are stuck
with mortal, profane facts of life. Since God is infinite, etc., it
is sheer blasphemy to try to reduce God to our mortal, profane level,
and try to impose one's mere beliefs and conceptions regarding the
infinite onto the finite. Just because you and your evangelical ilk
think you, and you alone, are "saved," and you and you alone have the
"one true faith," gives you no right to impose your insanity onto the
rest of the humanity.

Believe what you want, in the privacy of your home, church, synagogue,
mosque, or whatever. Pray and meditate in silence. Dance naked with
body paint on your genitals for all I care.

But stay out of government and politics. Follow your savior, whom you
"claim" to follow (though I see scant evidence that any so-called
Christians do ANYTHING that Jesus Christ preached in the New
Testament):

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the
things that are God’s.”

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
 
"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 23 May 2006 10:21:40 +0200, "Basjan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The major flaw in your argument is the concept that for a religious
>>person,
>>God is above democracy, and whoooo, isn´t that a scary thought, that a
>>person can actually believe in something bigger than an idea invented by
>>us
>>mere mortals.
>
> Flaw in MY argument? You are admitting and proving my point, and yes,
> what you say is QUITE scary. The fact is we all here on earth are
> mere mortals, including you so-called Christians (not to exclude the
> so-called Muslims), and while we are here have to abide certain rules.
> You know, like the "theory" of gravity. Governments of mortal,
> profane humans are run can mortal, profane humans, and they are stuck
> with mortal, profane facts of life. Since God is infinite, etc., it
> is sheer blasphemy to try to reduce God to our mortal, profane level,
> and try to impose one's mere beliefs and conceptions regarding the
> infinite onto the finite. Just because you and your evangelical ilk
> think you, and you alone, are "saved," and you and you alone have the
> "one true faith," gives you no right to impose your insanity onto the
> rest of the humanity.

Dear Doug, you have obviously been hit or offended quite hard in the past,
and if my post had anything to do with this, I do apologize. It seems that
you have me quite well figured out and that you are even able to read so
well between the lines regarding my apprehension about the Da Vinci Code,
that you are in fact able to deduce that I believe I have all truth in hand,
and that I believe I am saved while you are doomed. If this is what you
deduced after dissecting my simple explanation earlier in the thread, then
you are moving on a totally different plane than me.

> Dance naked with body paint on your genitals for all I care.

I have tried this, but most body paints burn terribly and that is one place
I don´t like any burning sensations!

> But stay out of government and politics. Follow your savior, whom you
> "claim" to follow (though I see scant evidence that any so-called
> Christians do ANYTHING that Jesus Christ preached in the New
> Testament):

Again you read me well and you have been able to see in a crystal ball (?)
just how I , as Basjan, live my life. Just realize on thing, you can claim
to be a cyclist, that does not make you a good cyclist. It takes time,
patience, practice, and above all, some are actually more inclined than
others. Will you bash me the same way when you see that my cycling
state/expression/potential does not live up to my assortment of high-level
cycling gear? What can I say Doug, I only strive, I don´t always attain...

Keep well!

Basjan
 
"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 23 May 2006 10:52:55 +0200, "Basjan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Realize that the "someone" referred to above actually might find it sad
>>that
>>another believes in only that which he/she can comprehend, explain, see,
>>or
>>fathom. Perhaps it really is not all about the bike...
>
> So you can't accept the viewpoint of this other person without being
> judgmental. Interesting.

Curtis, there is a huge difference between acceptance and emotion. I can
accept his indifference, while still (personally) finding it sad. Like a
teenage dauther´s pregnancy, which while the father accept this and doesn´t
judge, still finds sad for a multitude of reasons. So I fail to see my lack
of acceptance without judgement... but I eagerly await your explanation.

Basjan
 
Donald Munro wrote:
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > 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.
>
> There is a difference between pure mathematics (in which one can prove
> a 'truth' within a given system) and applied mathematics which
> attempts to describe the universe or sub-systems of the universe as
> a mathematical model, though.



Dumbass -


Even so, how does that make it faith based?

Any discipline which follows the scientific method is not faith based.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
On Tue, 23 May 2006 16:43:35 +0200, "Basjan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>So I fail to see my lack
>of acceptance without judgement... but I eagerly await your explanation.

What nonsense - he gave you no reason for sadness other than your
judgment of his position. I suggest that before you are
passing judgment so freely on whether other people are inappropriate
that you start by stop giving yourself a free ride in the judgment
area. You pass the time between making judgments on others by being
hypocritical.

I would be sad at your dishonesty, but I won't waste the emotion.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
Robert Chung wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > 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

Ha. That's good. It's a matter of interpertation whether the memorial
design refutes my argument or the overheated reaction to it
conclusively proves my argument.

Neither a star of David nor a crescent is an "official" religious
symbol in the way that a cross is, though they are widely used
to connote a religious meaning.

I periodically drive through Somerset PA past the gas stations with
the hand-lettered signs offering directions to the Flight 93 temporary
memorial. Compared to Soledad, a hilltop in a major population center,
one will always have to seek this out to see it. Sometimes, a memorial
is more meaningful for that.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>
> Ha. That's good. It's a matter of interpertation whether the memorial
> design refutes my argument or the overheated reaction to it
> conclusively proves my argument.

Perhaps this will make it clearer:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1482656/posts
 
Basjan wrote:

> The statement to a person that "your mother is a *****" might be ABSOLUTE
> fiction, but it still upsets something deep inside that person.

It upsets a person to precisely the extent they allow themselves to be
upset. The statement is probably intended to upset you but you get to
decide. Many people are in the habit of doing whatever others want/expect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Hey Callistus
Replies
17
Views
440
Road Cycling
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
J
J
  • Locked
Callistus Various in trouble again
Replies
1
Views
540
Road Cycling
Kiem Madvanen
K
W
Brand Watches IWC Small Da Vinci 18kt Yellow Gold Moonphase GreenLadies Watch 3736-02 Discount, Repl
Replies
0
Views
474
Road Cycling
[email protected]
W
R
IWC Da Vinci 18kt Rose Gold Moonphase Brown Mens Watch 3758-11
Replies
0
Views
785
Road Cycling
Replica watches
R
Top Bottom Back