Rules for posting on FU-News.
I've been putting this off for long enough, but certain recent events have forced my hand. As such, I need to lay down some ground rules for posting comments to FU-News.
Now, some sites, such as the GUComics Forums have very clear and strict rules for what is allowed. These rules are intended to promote civility and rationale discussion. They are supposed to provide a fun, safe, and happy environment for all to share their thoughts.
This is the complete opposite of what I want on FU-News. The Internet can be used for many things (don't click that link; trust me on this one), but one of them is not rational discourse. If I wanted well thought out, researched, and intelligent writing, I'd read the Walt Street Journal or National Review. The fact that I am on the Internet necessarily implies that I have abandoned all my reason and am thinking only with my emotions. This is a required trait in all Internet discussions.
So remember, comments should be offensive, opinionated, arrogant, unintelligent, and above all, entertaining. But if you've got the first four, the fifth is sure to follow.
So here are the 16 rules for posting on FU-News:
1) Remember, your opinions are objective fact. Period. Never begin a sentance with "I think" or "I believe". Whatever you say is absolute truth and everyone should know it. Also, everyone else agrees with you.
Ex.
Incorrect: "IMHO, Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie."
Correct: "Evry1 nos taht ESB pwnz an is wai better tahn GL's ohter crap"
2) Never, ever, ever back up a statement with fact or research. The very fact that you are stating it necessarily implies that it is true.
Ex.
Incorrect: "Popular opinion indicates otherwise. The Phantom Menace had the highest world-wide gross of any of the Star Wars movies."
Correct: "Tahts totly rong. evry1 knos TPM is teh roxorz"
3)
a) Do not rebut the person's argument. Instead, point out to them how stupid they are. Remember, if they disagree with you, they don't just have a different opinion, they aren't just plain wrong. They are stupid for not being able to see the truth that is so blindingly obvious to everyone except them. They may get upset when you let them know that they are stupid, but how else are they going to learn if no one tells them?
Ex.
Incorrect: "I have to respectfully disagree with you on that topic. Despite what the box office says, the human tragedy is so much greater in Revenge of the Sith."
Correct: "OMFG how coud u be so ghey and stoopid? 3very1 knos taht ROTS is teh best"
b) Do not rebut the person's argument. Instead, pick one small irrelevant part of their point and go to great lengths to disprove that, despite the fact it has no bearing on their argument.
Ex.
Incorrect: "Actually, adjusted for inflation, A New Hope has the highest gross. It sold more tickets than any of the others."
Correct: "r u fing gay? their r aleins in star wars. u cant say 'human tragedy' cuz there r aliesn"
c) K's First Tactic: Instead of rebutting a person's argument, wonder aloud why they can't seem to understand why you are right and they are wrong. Question their mental capacity.
Ex.
K: "There can't be any space outside the boundaries of the known universe, because if there was, it would expand infinitely because the force of the vacuum is greater than the force of gravity."
Joe: "I don't think that's necessarily the case. A vacuum doesn't exert force, so the acceleration of expansion would be determined by whether the force of gravity pulling things in is greater than the force of pressure pushing things out."
K: "I don't understand why you can't see that I'm right."
d) K's Second Tactic: Instead of rebutting a person's argument, tell the person that it's OK for them to just admit they're wrong and they agree with you. After all, they're only keeping up the pretense of arguing to save face.
Ex.
K: "If someone robs your house, you should turn yourself in to the police and go to jail for the person."
Joe: "What? How does that serve justice or help the robber repent?"
K: "Well, you should suffer for the persons sins and take them away for them. Doesn't that sound familiar?"
Joe: *astonished stare*
K: "I know you agree with me. Just admit that I'm right
e) K's Third Tactic/Ed's corrolary: Instead of rebutting a person's argument, play the trump card. Play it. Find some difference between you and your opponent that makes him inelligible to debate you. Possibilities include age, experience, and mental capacity.
Ex.
K: "Harry Potter is evil and will send you to hell."
Paul: "Erm, I don't think that's true."
K: "You can't really argue this with me because I'm older and have seen the evil that things such as the card game Magic have done in people's lives."
-----
Joe: "I'm opposed to the seat belt law because I believe the purpose of government is to protect people from foreign threats and to protect people from each other and seat belt laws fall into neither category."
Ed: "Don't even bother making that point, Joe. I'm a Political Science major. There's no way you could win a political debate with me."
4) If you haven't figured it out from the previous 5 rules, DO NOT REBUT THE PERSON'S ARGUMENT! To do so only lends credibility to their point. You should not even need to address their argument because it is beneath you and any sane person can see they are obviously wrong. Be sure to point this out to them.
Ex.
Incorrect: "Well, let me go point by point through your arguments to show what's wrong with them."
Correct: "WTFOMGBBQ is rong wtih u. u must be stoopid or crazy or gay to disagree wtih me. ne1 can see im rite."
5) If a person uses an analogy to make a point, be sure to point out the implausibility of the analogy. Do not under any circumstances question if the analogy is accurate to the point being made.
Ex.
Poster: "Well, you don't see the Department of Transportation defending themselves by saying they never issued a license to the book's antagonist."
Incorrect: "Well, that's different. The book doesn't attack the DOT."
Correct: "OMFG ur so stupid. teh dot dos'nt issue drivers lisences. state dmvs do."
6) Tom's Tactic: Keep posting until everyone agrees with you. If you've already posted 100 times to make your point, and someone still doesn't admit you're right, explain yourself again. Giving up is a sign of weakness.
Tom: "We should allow unlimited immigration."
Poster 1: "Not necessarily."
Tom: "We should still allow unlimited immigration."
Poster 2: "I don't agree."
Tom: "It's important that we allow unlimited immigration."
(sorry, Tom =p)
7) Never, ever, ever, admit you're wrong. Do not concede even the smallest point. Deny the very fabric of space and time if you must.
Ex.
Argument: "And that's why, if that were true, then the universe could not exist."
Incorrect: "Well, I'll grant you that point, but my original argument still stands."
Correct: "well obvously teh univers dosn't exist tehn."
8) Dave's Gambit: If something you've said earlier contradicts what you're saying now, deny that you ever said it in the first place. Even if they have it on tape-recorder, or have a sworn testimony from several eye witnesses.
Ex.
Dave: "The X-Wings used Photon torpedoes to destroy the Death Star."
Joe: "No they didn't. They used Proton Torpedoes. Photon torpedoes are from Star Trek. Here, sign and date this document stating your claim."
--6 months later--
Red Leader: "Proton torpedoes away."
Joe: "See, I told you they use Proton torpedoes."
Dave: "I never said they didn't."
Joe: "Yes you did. Here, I have a signed and dated document indicating such."
Dave: "That's obviously a forged signature."
(sorry Dave. =p In his defense, he never did sign the document, which was written on the back of a Far Side cartoon.)
9) All arguments should be about matters of opinion, or about easily proven and verified fact, or best of all, inconsequential things that don't matter (Joe's Method).
Ex.
Incorrect: "And that's why winning the war in Iraq is important to the global war on terrorism."
Correct: "HL2 is soooo better tahn Halo 2. xbox sux"
Incorrect: "Look, here. It says right here in the Encyclopedia Brittanica that Columbus discovered America in 1492."
Correct: "gay fool. evry1 knos cloumbus freed the indinas frum slavery in 1863"
Joe: "I told you they use proton torpedoes in Star Wars, but nooo you insisted they use Photon torpedoes."
Everyone else: "Who in freaking heck CARES?!"
10) Derailing topics is a must. There should be no more than two comments on the post's original topic. Everything else should be off topic. If searching for a way to derail a topic, bring up one of these debates:
Apple vs. PC vs. Linux
Star Trek vs. Star Wars (vs. Babylon 5 vs. Battlestar Galactica vs. insert Sci-Fi of choice)
Ex.
Incorrect: "Wow! What a fine and exquisite piece on your inability to watch a movie in the correct order."
Correct: "u sux man. neways, if u used a mac u woodn't hav taht problum"
11) Flame early and flame often. In particular, remember to criticize someone's race, religion, creed, gender, disability, and (I cannot stress this one enough) sexual preference. Even if you have no idea what ethnicity they are, attribute one to them and insult it. Also, the word "gay" or "ghey" should be used as often as possible, in reference to someone who disagrees with you.
Ex.
Incorrect: "Getting back to the topic of which Star Wars movie is our favorite...."
Correct: "OMFG, u gay jew. u must be a gay def womon cuz only there taht gay and dum. ps ur gay."
12) Trolling, or saying things specifically to inflame other people, even if you don't mean them, is required.
Ex.
Incorrect: "Yes, back to the topic at hand. Being a helicoper fan, I love the Clone Trooper Gunships from AOTC."
Correct: "teh bible is fiction n gay people are dum."
13) Always, always leave Caps lock on.
Ex.
Incorrect: "Personally, I like Return of the Jedi the best, mainly for the space battle at the end."
Correct: "EVRY1 WHO IS NOT GHEY NOWS TAHT ROTJ IS BEST."
14) Spell checkers are for sissies. You are far too busy or too important to have time to proofread your posts for spelling and grammar errors.
Corrolary 1: "The" is spelled T-E-H.
Corrolary 2, Mom's Woe: Periods, shmeriods. Punctuation is not allowed.
Ex.
Incorrect: "And that concludes my 10-page, proofread, well thought-out comparison of the six Star Wars chapters."
Correct: "hu sed taht ep1 is best taht persun is ghey and teh dummest person hu evar livd"
15) Criticize spelling and grammar as often as possible. The fact that someone cannot properly spell "pneumonoultramicroscopicsiliconevolcanocaneosis" casts serious doubt on their education, intellect, and ability to engage in rational conversation.
Ex.
Incorrect: "I completely understand why your post was written that way. I know we all tend to write hastily, and this can be particularly bad if you have a keyboard that does not always function properly."
Correct: "lol u gay n00b. u cna't even spel 'teh' correctelly"
16) Despite all the above, harsh swear words will get your post deleted. I will accept mild swear words, such as "damn" and "hell". You might even get away with "bitch", if you are talking about the members of the American Kennel Club, and if I'm in a good mood. Other than that, no swearing. Swear words from Firefly are allowed. Bonus points if you use the Mandarin Chinese swear words from Firefly.
Ex.
Correct: "Did you watch the damn dog show? It was a hell of a good show. Some bitch won. She was a pretty Golden Retriever."
Correct + bonus points: "Wuh duh ma huh ta duh fung-kwong duh wai-shung doh, are you ruttin' stupid you Gorram ching-wah TSAO duh liou mahng?"
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Latest Blog Member Hasn't Pooped in Five Days
It's true. He hasn't.
He also isn't coordinated enough to suck his thumb. He keeps poking himself in the eye with his fingers. If he does get his thumb in his mouth, invisible forces (possibly the dang gnomes?) push it out of his mouth. When Mommy tries to help him find his thumb, his grasping reflex kicks in, conveniently hiding the thumb within his fist. When he nurses, he gets confused and tries to find that thumb again. He is pretty patient with himself, but come on. It's hard being two months old--all of this confusing stuff! But...he's trying.
(Did I mention he has his father's intelligence?)
Thomas is now almost nine weeks old and has gained six pounds since he was born (Holy Thursday, 2006--weight was 7lbs, 7oz, and length was 20 inches). He is rapidly gaining as he hasn't had a poopy diaper in five days. Yeah, it may not be an emergency for YOU...but he's a little guy! For all that, though, he's still pretty smiley.
Mommy love him more than life. She knows he'll find that thumb.
Friday, June 9, 2006
Thursday, June 8, 2006
Signs.
Wouldn't it be more relaxing if traffic information signs were written in Haiku?
A more barbaric poetry might cause road rage.
One thing's for sure. Highway signs could be a little more truthful.
Gas stations could also be brutally honest, too.
I'm not sure people would like it if construction signs were too honest, though.
Now that's just mean.
I think my computer has been reading too much Bill Waterson.
This is one of the ways I know my computer is a girl.
The honesty thing with computers might help users see the big picture.
Somehow I don't see the brutal honesty thing coming to Vegas.
Particularly not like this.
Witnesses described the vandal as 80 feet tall and snake like, with a big, beefy arm and consumate V's for teeth. The police are investigating all possible leads.
Back to the training academy for these two.
"Mommy, why is my dinner singing?"
Also in the news, the Chinese Government has begun taking drastic steps to control its population.
It's Click and Clack's lawyers!
What you say?
Wouldn't it be more relaxing if traffic information signs were written in Haiku?
A more barbaric poetry might cause road rage.
One thing's for sure. Highway signs could be a little more truthful.
Gas stations could also be brutally honest, too.
I'm not sure people would like it if construction signs were too honest, though.
Now that's just mean.
I think my computer has been reading too much Bill Waterson.
This is one of the ways I know my computer is a girl.
The honesty thing with computers might help users see the big picture.
Somehow I don't see the brutal honesty thing coming to Vegas.
Particularly not like this.
Witnesses described the vandal as 80 feet tall and snake like, with a big, beefy arm and consumate V's for teeth. The police are investigating all possible leads.
Back to the training academy for these two.
"Mommy, why is my dinner singing?"
Also in the news, the Chinese Government has begun taking drastic steps to control its population.
It's Click and Clack's lawyers!
What you say?
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Yeah, yeah. This post is back-dated. So sue me.
I didn't see this until Wednesday.
666 = number of the beast
665 = older brother of the beast
670 = approximate number of the beast
66600 or 00666 = zip code of the beast
1-666 = Area code of the Beast
DCLXVI = Roman numeral of the Beast
666.0000 = Number of the High Precision Beast
0.666 = Number of the Millibeast
1 / 666 = Beast Common Denominator
(-666) ^ (1/2) = Imaginary number of the Beast
6.66 e2 = Floating point Beast
1010011010 = Binary of the Beast
6, uh . . . what was that number again? = Number of the Blonde Beast
666mph = The speed limit of the Beast
$665.95 = Retail price of the Beast
$699.25 = Price of the Beast plus 5% state sales tax
$769.95 = Price of the Beast with all accessories and replacement soul
$656.66 = Walmart price of the Beast
$646.66 = Next week's Walmart price of the Beast
Phillips 666 = Gasoline of the Beast
Route 666 = Way of the Beast
666°F = Oven temperature for roast Beast
666k = Retirement plan of the Beast
666 mg = Recommended Minimum Daily Requirement of Beast
6.66 % = 5 year CD interest rate at First Beast of Hell National Bank, $666 minimum deposit.
$666/hr = Beast's lawyer's billing rate
Lotus 6-6-6 = Spreadsheet of the Beast
Word 6.66 = Word Processor of the Beast
i66686 = CPU of the Beast
665.9997856 = The Number of the Beast on a Pentium
666i = BMW of the Beast
DSM-666 (revised) = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the Beast
1232 Octal, Apt. 29A = Beast's hex address
668 = Next-door neighbor of the Beast
333 = The semi-Christ
I didn't see this until Wednesday.
666 = number of the beast
665 = older brother of the beast
670 = approximate number of the beast
66600 or 00666 = zip code of the beast
1-666 = Area code of the Beast
DCLXVI = Roman numeral of the Beast
666.0000 = Number of the High Precision Beast
0.666 = Number of the Millibeast
1 / 666 = Beast Common Denominator
(-666) ^ (1/2) = Imaginary number of the Beast
6.66 e2 = Floating point Beast
1010011010 = Binary of the Beast
6, uh . . . what was that number again? = Number of the Blonde Beast
666mph = The speed limit of the Beast
$665.95 = Retail price of the Beast
$699.25 = Price of the Beast plus 5% state sales tax
$769.95 = Price of the Beast with all accessories and replacement soul
$656.66 = Walmart price of the Beast
$646.66 = Next week's Walmart price of the Beast
Phillips 666 = Gasoline of the Beast
Route 666 = Way of the Beast
666°F = Oven temperature for roast Beast
666k = Retirement plan of the Beast
666 mg = Recommended Minimum Daily Requirement of Beast
6.66 % = 5 year CD interest rate at First Beast of Hell National Bank, $666 minimum deposit.
$666/hr = Beast's lawyer's billing rate
Lotus 6-6-6 = Spreadsheet of the Beast
Word 6.66 = Word Processor of the Beast
i66686 = CPU of the Beast
665.9997856 = The Number of the Beast on a Pentium
666i = BMW of the Beast
DSM-666 (revised) = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the Beast
1232 Octal, Apt. 29A = Beast's hex address
668 = Next-door neighbor of the Beast
333 = The semi-Christ
Oh, Gosh Darn that Bush.
Now he's forcing women to get abortions against their will.
The American Spectator - "I Just Had to Do It"
Talk about a complete and utter lack of any sense of personal responsibility.
Now he's forcing women to get abortions against their will.
The American Spectator - "I Just Had to Do It"
Talk about a complete and utter lack of any sense of personal responsibility.
I Must Have A Really Dark And Macabre Sense of Humor To Find This Funny.
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | The Nick of time
Key quote:
'Crabtree dissociates the Church of Satan from the Temple of Set and the First Church of Satan, saying it is the only Satanist group that is "sane and worthwhile".
'He says any Satanists who actually worship the Devil, rather than revering "Satan" as an abstract value, are "immature, unstable and nothing to do with us". It is perhaps reassuring for people of other religions to see that Satanists have the same controversies as everyone else."'
That seems like something from a dry British satire that I've read; internal political squabbles in the church of Satan. Maybe I'm just thinking of the Elucidated Brethren from "Guards, Guards".
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | The Nick of time
Key quote:
'Crabtree dissociates the Church of Satan from the Temple of Set and the First Church of Satan, saying it is the only Satanist group that is "sane and worthwhile".
'He says any Satanists who actually worship the Devil, rather than revering "Satan" as an abstract value, are "immature, unstable and nothing to do with us". It is perhaps reassuring for people of other religions to see that Satanists have the same controversies as everyone else."'
That seems like something from a dry British satire that I've read; internal political squabbles in the church of Satan. Maybe I'm just thinking of the Elucidated Brethren from "Guards, Guards".
Saturday, June 3, 2006
The Da Vinci Load...
...of crap
Just had to publish this.
First, the backstory:
Brian Briggs' trailer review for The Da Vinci Code on BBspot.com. While I have an agreement rate of only 25%-50% with him, I still find his reviews funny. Something's funny about basing your entire opinion of a movie on the trailer only.
Second, my response:
--
Hi,
Somehow I missed this trailer review until I came across the link to it in the last mailbag. While reading, I noticed this line from the review in particular:
"...the people who think this is a 'controversial' film. You know who you are, and you don't read BBspot."
I would like to point out three things:
1) I think The Da Vinci Code is controversial,
2) I know who I am, and
3) I read BBspot, regularly in fact.
So perhaps the line should have read: "the people who think this is a 'controversial' film. You know who you are, and at least one of you reads BBspot." Although, now that I write that, I think your line is funnier, if less factual. Again, I guess that's why you're the humor writer and I'm not.
I guess you can feel free to mock me in your next mailbag, or do whatever it is you prefer to do with e-mails from people who take religion seriously.
-Joe B.
--
Brian actually published it in his mailbag. It can be seen here.
Third, a reader responds to my e-mail, which Brian is kind enough to forward to me:
--
I would like to reply to this reader if you don’t mind. My rant begins here:
As a person who takes religion seriously enough to be a pastor, I still don’t understand why anyone would see this movie or the book as, in any way, controversial. The key to this not being controversial is to realize that these are works of fiction. The story is told in a compelling manner, but raises no issue that has not been thoroughly discredited both in centuries past and present.
As a pastor, I love it when Hollywood does this kind of stuff. Anything that gets people to thinking about faith, religion, and its place in life is not a bad thing to me.
I have learned that having better answers is not as important as asking better questions. So here goes: Why is this book/film so controversial to you? What can you do to address the controversy that this book/movie raises in you?
Gil
--
Now, my response. I actually thought about posting a similar article earlier, in response to a PvP comic strip published on May 18th, but decided not to, filing it under the "preaching to the converted" category. But this has prompted me to write out my formal objection to this argument and post it.
--
"No one should take offense to The Da Vinci Code because it is a work of fiction, and as such should not be taken seriously."
Recently I've heard this line of reasoning expressed by a few other people, in response to anyone who takes offense at The Da Vinci Code. The general reasoning here, it seems, is that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, an claimed to be so by the author, so thusly nothing it says should stir up any reaction from anyone because you should not be taking it seriously.
Oh, how I love this argument. The implication of this is that I can say whatever I want, just so long as I make clear that what I'm saying is fiction, and if you get upset about it, you're creating the controversy, not me. With fiction, I can make any claims I want, posit any theories, and defame any person. But since it is fiction, it's all OK.
On that note, I think I'll write a book about how all black people are serial rapists and Jews sacrifice babies as part of their daily worship. Oh, but no need to take offense; it'll be entirely fictitious.
Or have I crossed the line?
Obviously, one would argue that this hypothetical book is offensive because, even though the characters and events are fictitious, it has a very racist premise that is either trying to offend those it shows bigotry towards, or stir up hatred in those who are open to the offensive ideas posited by the book.
But The Da Vinci Code is different, right? Dan Brown is not trying to posit any anti-Christian theories is he? No, of course it isn't supposed to be taken seriously. It's just a cracking good mystery/thriller, right? After all, who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory? And for conspiracy theories, nothing beats the Catholic Church. It's so easy to believe such an ancient organization must have more than its share of secret sects to act for its preservation and more than its share of skeletons in the closet from the works of those secret sects. How can that not make for good fiction?
So here we embark on the conspiracy that for thousands of years a giant conspiracy has existed to hide the truth about Jesus. Sounds like a great read!
But let's take a step back here. In order for fiction to be enjoyable as such, the reader must open himself to the work's premise and believe it to be true, if only temporarily. And with The Da Vinci Code, what is this premise? That the Catholic Church and most of the rest of Christianity exist to repress women and strip them of any spiritual power. In the author's own words (taken from his website):
"Two thousand years ago, we lived in a world of Gods and Goddesses. Today, we live in a world solely of Gods. Women in most cultures have been stripped of their spiritual power. The novel touches on questions of how and why this shift occurred... and on what lessons we might learn from it regarding our future."
So according to Dan Brown himself, over the last two millenia, women have been denigrated and stripped of spiritual power, and his novel puts forth the theory, for the reader's consideration, that this is primarily the fault of Christianity.
I don't know about you, but the idea that Christianity exists to supress women seems a little "controversial" to me.
I suppose I should be thanking those people who keep telling me and others that we shouldn't be upset with The Da Vinci Code because it's only fiction. After all, they're only confirming what we're trying to say, that the book is completely false, right?
Well, I try to be thankful that they're making my point for me, but I can't shake one nagging feeling: that the insistance that this is merely fiction and is OK for anyone to read may actually be harmful to those who are not well grounded in their faith in Christ. It seems to me that the insidious nature of the book comes from the fact that one would pick it up, believing it to be only fiction, then walking away taking the themes of the book to heart.
While The Da Vinci Code may be fiction, the sources and inspirations it is based on are not written as such. Within his text, Brown actually cites some of these non-fiction works: The Gnostic Gospels; The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ; and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, to name a few. With these works, it is obvious and upfront what the agenda of the author is. A Christian reader knows what to expect. But with The Da Vinci Code, what Brown has done is taken the anti-Christian themes and theories of these other works and wrapped them in an intriguing, easily swallowed package, such that one who doesn't know what to expect and is not well grounded or knowledgable of Christian faith may begin to think there is something to Brown's ideas.
And perhaps this is exactly what Brown wants. Again, to quote him from his website:
"My sincere hope is that The Da Vinci Code, in addition to entertaining people, will serve as an open door for readers to begin their own explorations."
So Brown himself says he wishes readers to use his book as a starting point to begin their own spiritual journeys. But is it really wise to start such a journey from a point that is in such opposition to the Truth?
You say that anything that gets people to thinking about faith, religion, and its place in life is not a bad thing to you. Another line I've also heard is "good fiction makes you think and thinking is never bad." I'm afraid I can only agree with this if the thought process that is encouraged is one that urges the thinker on in a positive manner towards the truth of Christ and His Church. Something that leads people astray from Christ cannot be good.
Again, you ask me "What can you do to address the controversy that this book/movie raises in you?" Make no mistake, there is no controversy within me over this book and movie. I am fortunate enough to have been brought up solidly grounded in my Christian faith. I thank God every day for this and it will take more than a book full of false-hoods like The Da Vinci Code to raise doubt in my mind about Christ's divinity and sacrifice for mankind.
However, not everyone is as fortunate as I am. For those who do not have a firm, strong belief in Christ, this book can be disasterous in their spiritual journey towards God. Make no mistake, people are losing their faith and falling away from God because of this. In an article about the problems of The Da Vinci Code, a Catholic magazine printed some letters from readers:
"I own a Catholic bookstore. We are getting bombarded daily by people who are buying into the garbage in this book. You cannot believe how many people have been exposed to this book. . . . We even had an elderly aunt talking about Opus Dei tonight and yelling at us that the book is true or it couldn't be printed."
They even received a letter from a former Lutheran who was having a crisis of faith:
"Honestly, [reading the book] shook my whole faith. I realize that the book is fiction, but much of what he wrote about seemed like it was based on historical facts aside from the characters. Since I am not a Christian scholar I don't even know where to begin to refute these claims.... If Christianity is nothing more than a big accommodation, it becomes relegated to a lifestyle choice and not a religion, which I do not want to believe."
In your spirit of asking better questions being better than providing better answers, I close with these two questions.
Have you addressed your congregation about the anti-Christian errors and false-hoods contained within this book? It may be that your congregation is wise enough and with a good enough spiritual education to recognize the book as false. If that is the case, you should be commended for brining people closer to God. However, it may also be that there are those in your flock who are experiencing crises of faith because they have taken the message of The Da Vinci Code to heart.
Secondly, do you pray for those who have fallen away from God because they bought into the ideas of this book? I firmly believe that by uniting in prayer, we might overcome the evil that has been done and bring those that have been lead astray back into God's fold.
In Christ,
Joseph Belland
P.S. My main sources:
Envoy Magazine: http://envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/Review-DaVinci-part1.htm
Crisis Magazine: http://www.crisismagazine.com/specialreport.htm
Scott Kurtz, author of the PvP online comic strip had a blog entry on the subject, which can be found here: http://www.pvponline.com/newspro/archives/arc4-2006.html. Scroll down to the entry for May 18th.
He also wrote a comic strip on the controversy that is funny even though it misses the point: http://pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20060518
--
So... do I suck as an apologist?
...of crap
Just had to publish this.
First, the backstory:
Brian Briggs' trailer review for The Da Vinci Code on BBspot.com. While I have an agreement rate of only 25%-50% with him, I still find his reviews funny. Something's funny about basing your entire opinion of a movie on the trailer only.
Second, my response:
--
Hi,
Somehow I missed this trailer review until I came across the link to it in the last mailbag. While reading, I noticed this line from the review in particular:
"...the people who think this is a 'controversial' film. You know who you are, and you don't read BBspot."
I would like to point out three things:
1) I think The Da Vinci Code is controversial,
2) I know who I am, and
3) I read BBspot, regularly in fact.
So perhaps the line should have read: "the people who think this is a 'controversial' film. You know who you are, and at least one of you reads BBspot." Although, now that I write that, I think your line is funnier, if less factual. Again, I guess that's why you're the humor writer and I'm not.
I guess you can feel free to mock me in your next mailbag, or do whatever it is you prefer to do with e-mails from people who take religion seriously.
-Joe B.
--
Brian actually published it in his mailbag. It can be seen here.
Third, a reader responds to my e-mail, which Brian is kind enough to forward to me:
--
I would like to reply to this reader if you don’t mind. My rant begins here:
As a person who takes religion seriously enough to be a pastor, I still don’t understand why anyone would see this movie or the book as, in any way, controversial. The key to this not being controversial is to realize that these are works of fiction. The story is told in a compelling manner, but raises no issue that has not been thoroughly discredited both in centuries past and present.
As a pastor, I love it when Hollywood does this kind of stuff. Anything that gets people to thinking about faith, religion, and its place in life is not a bad thing to me.
I have learned that having better answers is not as important as asking better questions. So here goes: Why is this book/film so controversial to you? What can you do to address the controversy that this book/movie raises in you?
Gil
--
Now, my response. I actually thought about posting a similar article earlier, in response to a PvP comic strip published on May 18th, but decided not to, filing it under the "preaching to the converted" category. But this has prompted me to write out my formal objection to this argument and post it.
--
"No one should take offense to The Da Vinci Code because it is a work of fiction, and as such should not be taken seriously."
Recently I've heard this line of reasoning expressed by a few other people, in response to anyone who takes offense at The Da Vinci Code. The general reasoning here, it seems, is that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, an claimed to be so by the author, so thusly nothing it says should stir up any reaction from anyone because you should not be taking it seriously.
Oh, how I love this argument. The implication of this is that I can say whatever I want, just so long as I make clear that what I'm saying is fiction, and if you get upset about it, you're creating the controversy, not me. With fiction, I can make any claims I want, posit any theories, and defame any person. But since it is fiction, it's all OK.
On that note, I think I'll write a book about how all black people are serial rapists and Jews sacrifice babies as part of their daily worship. Oh, but no need to take offense; it'll be entirely fictitious.
Or have I crossed the line?
Obviously, one would argue that this hypothetical book is offensive because, even though the characters and events are fictitious, it has a very racist premise that is either trying to offend those it shows bigotry towards, or stir up hatred in those who are open to the offensive ideas posited by the book.
But The Da Vinci Code is different, right? Dan Brown is not trying to posit any anti-Christian theories is he? No, of course it isn't supposed to be taken seriously. It's just a cracking good mystery/thriller, right? After all, who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory? And for conspiracy theories, nothing beats the Catholic Church. It's so easy to believe such an ancient organization must have more than its share of secret sects to act for its preservation and more than its share of skeletons in the closet from the works of those secret sects. How can that not make for good fiction?
So here we embark on the conspiracy that for thousands of years a giant conspiracy has existed to hide the truth about Jesus. Sounds like a great read!
But let's take a step back here. In order for fiction to be enjoyable as such, the reader must open himself to the work's premise and believe it to be true, if only temporarily. And with The Da Vinci Code, what is this premise? That the Catholic Church and most of the rest of Christianity exist to repress women and strip them of any spiritual power. In the author's own words (taken from his website):
"Two thousand years ago, we lived in a world of Gods and Goddesses. Today, we live in a world solely of Gods. Women in most cultures have been stripped of their spiritual power. The novel touches on questions of how and why this shift occurred... and on what lessons we might learn from it regarding our future."
So according to Dan Brown himself, over the last two millenia, women have been denigrated and stripped of spiritual power, and his novel puts forth the theory, for the reader's consideration, that this is primarily the fault of Christianity.
I don't know about you, but the idea that Christianity exists to supress women seems a little "controversial" to me.
I suppose I should be thanking those people who keep telling me and others that we shouldn't be upset with The Da Vinci Code because it's only fiction. After all, they're only confirming what we're trying to say, that the book is completely false, right?
Well, I try to be thankful that they're making my point for me, but I can't shake one nagging feeling: that the insistance that this is merely fiction and is OK for anyone to read may actually be harmful to those who are not well grounded in their faith in Christ. It seems to me that the insidious nature of the book comes from the fact that one would pick it up, believing it to be only fiction, then walking away taking the themes of the book to heart.
While The Da Vinci Code may be fiction, the sources and inspirations it is based on are not written as such. Within his text, Brown actually cites some of these non-fiction works: The Gnostic Gospels; The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ; and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, to name a few. With these works, it is obvious and upfront what the agenda of the author is. A Christian reader knows what to expect. But with The Da Vinci Code, what Brown has done is taken the anti-Christian themes and theories of these other works and wrapped them in an intriguing, easily swallowed package, such that one who doesn't know what to expect and is not well grounded or knowledgable of Christian faith may begin to think there is something to Brown's ideas.
And perhaps this is exactly what Brown wants. Again, to quote him from his website:
"My sincere hope is that The Da Vinci Code, in addition to entertaining people, will serve as an open door for readers to begin their own explorations."
So Brown himself says he wishes readers to use his book as a starting point to begin their own spiritual journeys. But is it really wise to start such a journey from a point that is in such opposition to the Truth?
You say that anything that gets people to thinking about faith, religion, and its place in life is not a bad thing to you. Another line I've also heard is "good fiction makes you think and thinking is never bad." I'm afraid I can only agree with this if the thought process that is encouraged is one that urges the thinker on in a positive manner towards the truth of Christ and His Church. Something that leads people astray from Christ cannot be good.
Again, you ask me "What can you do to address the controversy that this book/movie raises in you?" Make no mistake, there is no controversy within me over this book and movie. I am fortunate enough to have been brought up solidly grounded in my Christian faith. I thank God every day for this and it will take more than a book full of false-hoods like The Da Vinci Code to raise doubt in my mind about Christ's divinity and sacrifice for mankind.
However, not everyone is as fortunate as I am. For those who do not have a firm, strong belief in Christ, this book can be disasterous in their spiritual journey towards God. Make no mistake, people are losing their faith and falling away from God because of this. In an article about the problems of The Da Vinci Code, a Catholic magazine printed some letters from readers:
"I own a Catholic bookstore. We are getting bombarded daily by people who are buying into the garbage in this book. You cannot believe how many people have been exposed to this book. . . . We even had an elderly aunt talking about Opus Dei tonight and yelling at us that the book is true or it couldn't be printed."
They even received a letter from a former Lutheran who was having a crisis of faith:
"Honestly, [reading the book] shook my whole faith. I realize that the book is fiction, but much of what he wrote about seemed like it was based on historical facts aside from the characters. Since I am not a Christian scholar I don't even know where to begin to refute these claims.... If Christianity is nothing more than a big accommodation, it becomes relegated to a lifestyle choice and not a religion, which I do not want to believe."
In your spirit of asking better questions being better than providing better answers, I close with these two questions.
Have you addressed your congregation about the anti-Christian errors and false-hoods contained within this book? It may be that your congregation is wise enough and with a good enough spiritual education to recognize the book as false. If that is the case, you should be commended for brining people closer to God. However, it may also be that there are those in your flock who are experiencing crises of faith because they have taken the message of The Da Vinci Code to heart.
Secondly, do you pray for those who have fallen away from God because they bought into the ideas of this book? I firmly believe that by uniting in prayer, we might overcome the evil that has been done and bring those that have been lead astray back into God's fold.
In Christ,
Joseph Belland
P.S. My main sources:
Envoy Magazine: http://envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/Review-DaVinci-part1.htm
Crisis Magazine: http://www.crisismagazine.com/specialreport.htm
Scott Kurtz, author of the PvP online comic strip had a blog entry on the subject, which can be found here: http://www.pvponline.com/newspro/archives/arc4-2006.html. Scroll down to the entry for May 18th.
He also wrote a comic strip on the controversy that is funny even though it misses the point: http://pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20060518
--
So... do I suck as an apologist?
Friday, June 2, 2006
I Laughed So Hard At This, Milk Came Out My Nose.
And I hadn't even been drinking any
FOX 9 - Investigators: Portable Pr0n
Key quote:
"What mom thought was just a game is actually a very sophisticated piece of electronics that a clever kid can use to capture pornographic images out of thin air. In the school's library, Jeff was eager to show his friends his new Sony Play Station Portable, or PSP. On a dare, Jeff showed his pals how the PSP could magically display images of naked women."
That's right! A PSP can "magically" create pornographic images "out of thin air"! It does this with a combination of voodoo, black magic, and non-dairy powdered creamer.
Before I continue, I would like to point out one thing: A PSP is not a game. A game is a piece of software. A PSP is a piece of hardware which allows one to play games.
Now that that's out of the way, I can get down to the beef. While certainly one can make the case that, as consoles - portable and otherwise - become closer and closer to PCs, particularly now that they have internet access, Sony and the other console makers need to make parents aware that consoles should be treated no differently than a computer as far as usage and parental monitoring. That being said, it seems that there are a couple larger issues than is Sony evil for making a device that kids can use to download porn:
1) Why did the kid's parents let him take a PSP to school? I seem to recall when I was a kid, I wasn't allowed to take any toys to school, except for show and tell. School is a place of learning, not of fun. Anything that might be used for fun should not be allowed.
2) Why in the heck does a school library have an unfiltered, unsecured wireless internet access point? This essentially means that anyone with any sort of wi-fi enabled device can surf for whatever they want while in range of the network. They might as well have TVs with unrestricted access to all the adult cable TV channels in the library.
And I hadn't even been drinking any
FOX 9 - Investigators: Portable Pr0n
Key quote:
"What mom thought was just a game is actually a very sophisticated piece of electronics that a clever kid can use to capture pornographic images out of thin air. In the school's library, Jeff was eager to show his friends his new Sony Play Station Portable, or PSP. On a dare, Jeff showed his pals how the PSP could magically display images of naked women."
That's right! A PSP can "magically" create pornographic images "out of thin air"! It does this with a combination of voodoo, black magic, and non-dairy powdered creamer.
Before I continue, I would like to point out one thing: A PSP is not a game. A game is a piece of software. A PSP is a piece of hardware which allows one to play games.
Now that that's out of the way, I can get down to the beef. While certainly one can make the case that, as consoles - portable and otherwise - become closer and closer to PCs, particularly now that they have internet access, Sony and the other console makers need to make parents aware that consoles should be treated no differently than a computer as far as usage and parental monitoring. That being said, it seems that there are a couple larger issues than is Sony evil for making a device that kids can use to download porn:
1) Why did the kid's parents let him take a PSP to school? I seem to recall when I was a kid, I wasn't allowed to take any toys to school, except for show and tell. School is a place of learning, not of fun. Anything that might be used for fun should not be allowed.
2) Why in the heck does a school library have an unfiltered, unsecured wireless internet access point? This essentially means that anyone with any sort of wi-fi enabled device can surf for whatever they want while in range of the network. They might as well have TVs with unrestricted access to all the adult cable TV channels in the library.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)