I thought it was Ewan McGregor who sang, "All you need is love."

I thought it was the Ewoks in Star Wars.

Joseph Campbell was the advisor on the Star Wars set, and was highly influenced by Carl Jung. Now, Carl dealt heavily in dark and light and the management of both. Indeed, the earth is at any time half light and half dark. Life is both. But in darkness, when we need to see, we do not add more darkness. The only was to see in darkness is to add light. In other words "two darks do not make a light". So, here is where the bible got it all wrong, yet we still use this to justify fighting bad with more bad, and that is "an eye for an eye" etc. And then Jesue, who is profoundly buddist, was trying to correct this message. But we just didn't get it. But Carl, Campbell, and Star Wars did.

Regina

Regina Warren said:

Joseph Campbell was the advisor on the Star Wars set, and was highly influenced by Carl Jung. Now, Carl dealt heavily in dark and light and the management of both. Indeed, the earth is at any time half light and half dark. Life is both. But in darkness, when we need to see, we do not add more darkness. The only was to see in darkness is to add light. In other words "two darks do not make a light". So, here is where the bible got it all wrong, yet we still use this to justify fighting bad with more bad, and that is "an eye for an eye" etc. And then Jesue, who is profoundly buddist, was trying to correct this message. But we just didn't get it. But Carl, Campbell, and Star Wars did.

Regina

So . . . it is the Ewoks? Excellent! Always been a BIG fan of Campbell and Jung, sorta like Dr. Seuss too. Love John Prine; he's my favorite philosopher.

Yeah, what you say about Jesus and his coming to change things is true in my opinion of the Bible as well. I even know the history of the Bible well enough to know when the "powers that be" stole Christianity away from True christians and turned it into Khristianity.

Originally, Jesus and his message was just about as you descrined it, but a whole bunch of early religionists killed off them original Christians and replaced what the early Christians believed with the power-over control doctrine that religionists believe today. Along about 80AD Christianity was stolen from the people by the scribes and pharisees: St Paul had a horrible effect on early Christianity.

And the horrible effect of that theft is what is called Christianity today. It is a rare modern person who sees through it.

RicHARD Uses Profanity Makepeace said:

And the horrible effect of that theft is what is called Christianity today. It is a rare modern person who sees through it.

i think it is because khristians don't read, don't wanna read, don't know the history, etc etc of the bible and don't wanna know. It's magic and it ain't to be played around with by serious study. That is blasphmy. I am so amused by the Da Vinci code, which has shaken up so many people who never had a clue. This best seller of all time has scared the fundamentals half to death.

Regina Warren said:

RicHARD Uses Profanity Makepeace said:

And the horrible effect of that theft is what is called Christianity today. It is a rare modern person who sees through it.

i think it is because khristians don't read, don't wanna read, don't know the history, etc etc of the bible and don't wanna know. It's magic and it ain't to be played around with by serious study. That is blasphmy. I am so amused by the Da Vinci code, which has shaken up so many people who never had a clue. This best seller of all time has scared the fundamentals half to death.

I agree: Education cures ignorance and arrogance.

There's a fiction book out there titled The Gospel According to Biff, Jesus's Childhood Friend. I LOVE that book. It chronicles the years of Jesus's life that were left out of the Bible. A must read for anyone willing to see religious things in new ways.

All of this still can't make D.Browns book good. It is rubbish! If you want to read fiction, then read Das Jesusvideo, by Andreas Eschbach.

The stupidist thing is, that all the huha around books like the Da Vinci Code make me never want to read a book again. Especially when you see people talk about what the writer meant, or what the deeper meaning of a word on that page was and how it related to a word (or imagined meaning) on that page.

Suddenly all readers are psychologists? Yack, bah, spit.

To counter all that stupidity I bought two DVD's with episodes of a childrens book, also out on TV, called Charly and Lola. If it is not out yet on your local TV, contact the BBC in England for it, Books are written by Lauren Child.

Two children tackling every day problems, like "I am NOT sleepy and I will NOT go to bed" or "I will not ever NEVER eat a tomato (YUK)" or "I'm far to extremely busy" or "We do promise honestly we CAN look after your dog"

They are a totall balance to all the stupid madmaking things that are on childrens television these days. And once you see them, you won't go without ever again.

Forget the warmongering history changers, live in the now. Besides, a man like Leonardo da Vinci - although pretty amused with the attention he gets in this stupid D.Brown book - would have not had any time in his schedule to be part of such a group as mentioned. He was far to busy wheeling and dealing with his own inventions and negotiating on the brink of extermination by the church each day of his life for that. After all, he was married to a part of the most influentual people of those days - and they dealt in blood, not changes in the bible, how else would he have survived that long, being totally non religious himself.

Gotta admit: I devoured all of Dan Brown's books and keep looking for the next one.

As for "what the writer meant," that's what most literature programs are all about. "Call me Ishmael" is dissected in doctorate theses as is the effects of Hawthorne's paragraphing in The Scarlet Letter. We're not psychologists, but we all have different interpretations and would like to come to a fuller understanding of texts, contexts, cultures, and ultimately ourselves.

I also don't see fiction writer as "warmongering history changers." They offer different perspectives, but it's up to you to agree with them, consider them, or even just cast them aside.

My favorite books are those that offer a different perspective on history as most of history is told from the male point of view. Some examples:

The Red Tent offers up what it might have been like for Dinah, one of the women in the Bible. The facts stay the same, but some of the interpretations of the facts differ from the original text.

The Mists of Avalon (and other Marion Zimmer Bradley books for other historical times) gives a pagan and feminine perspective of the story of King Arthur, the round table, and the search for the Holy Grail. The original text practically demonized all women, Bradley's books demonizes no one, though it doesn't paint all Christians in the best of lights.

Mary Magdeline (and other Margaret George books for other time periods) looks into what Mary's life and walk with Jesus might have been like. It shows a scarily patriarchal system that called women prostitutes even if they were merely widows who walked outside their homes.

None of these books are evil or warmongering. None of these are purporting to change history. They're in the fiction section for a reason. What, I assume, the writers ARE hoping to accomplish is providing the readers with the understanding that the perspective of the majority/winners/history writers isn't always the end-all, be-all. And, at the same time, they're providing a good read and some great entertainment (including this discussion!).

Lastly, can you know for sure that da Vinci didn't have time? How much time does it take you to converse with us on O.net for a spell or to see your family at holidays? We can assume and deduce many things about the people in the past, but know very little.

>the earth is at any time half light and half dark

This is an interesting point of view, based on the technology of our eyes, but ignoring the technology of electric lighting, or infrared goggles. It also assumes the surface of the earth is a smooth sphere, such that there are no shadows -- no places the sun's rays don't shine during the daytime.

Or, perhaps it's the case that for every square meter in people's wine cellars which are dark during the day, there is a corresponding square meter on the other side of the earth which is lit up at night. This does in fact seem possible, as long as you are excluding the ocean floor and places like that, or including the atmosphere or something to balance out all that extra dark.

(time for bed)

Dude. You think too much.

:)

Kim said: Lastly, can you know for sure that da Vinci didn't have time? How much time does it take you to converse with us on O.net for a spell or to see your family at holidays? We can assume and deduce many things about the people in the past, but know very little.

Have you ever seen, read, followed through, looked at and tried to imagine all the things that Leonardo da Vinci was working on, in his life? He dissected about 30 corpses, to give us an impression of what our body looks like inside, from skeleton to female birth parts, muscles, blood circulation etc. Then he had time to work on countless paintings. Then he described the workings of flying, wrote down and pictured how the wings of birds worked exactly, to work out how mankind could one day build a machine to fly. He knew and drew the anatomy of countless animals, used that to come up with designs for wonderful statues, had time to paint and oversee the painting of some of the world wonders left to the Roman Catholic Church. Dabbled with photography, because he knew old Fenecian chemicals, it is said he made the Turin Shroud by using the Camera Obscura technique, long before it was used by a Dutch painter from Delft. He wrote over 30000 pages full of text on science, nature, the environment. He worked out countless machines to help out in War, like better bridges to cross places that were uncrossable, machines that allowed soldiers to should at people without getting hurt, and that is only a small portion of all the wonderful things he was working on, thinking about and making possible, just by dreaming them up. So why a person like D.Brown would think he had time, or even notion to get involved with a religious sect, while he was anti religious himself, that would be beyond me. Besides, the so called female person on that painting is in fact a man. A boy. Leonardo was into young men, boys, and the boy in his painting represents the relation that the disciples have to Jesus, they learn, take it all in and ask questions, and some of the questions are the truly honest questions that children have. At least, that is what I read into that painting. It is to show the world what they lost, the chance to ask questions and look at the world through the eyes of a child.

PS Have a good weekend, you all.

AJVandeAak said:

All of this still can't make D.Browns book good. It is rubbish! If you want to read fiction, then read Das Jesusvideo, by Andreas Eschbach.

The stupidist thing is, that all the huha around books like the Da Vinci Code make me never want to read a book again. Especially when you see people talk about what the writer meant, or what the deeper meaning of a word on that page was and how it related to a word (or imagined meaning) on that page.

But what I am appreciating about the Da Vinci Code is how is has got people asking questions, looking stuff up, checking facts, looking into things, questioning their pastors, and if a simple tale written in Harlequin style helped us to begin to start looking into this, instead of accepting everything religious as magic, then it is great. I applaud Dan Brown.

Kim Chi-Town Conf Edwards said:

Gotta admit: I devoured all of Dan Brown's books and keep looking for the next one.

As for "what the writer meant," that's what most literature programs are all about. "Call me Ishmael" is dissected in doctorate theses as is the effects of Hawthorne's paragraphing in The Scarlet Letter. We're not psychologists, but we all have different interpretations and would like to come to a fuller understanding of texts, contexts, cultures, and ultimately ourselves.

I also don't see fiction writer as "warmongering history changers." They offer different perspectives, but it's up to you to agree with them, consider them, or even just cast them aside.

My favorite books are those that offer a different perspective on history as most of history is told from the male point of view. Some examples:

The Red Tent offers up what it might have been like for Dinah, one of the women in the Bible. The facts stay the same, but some of the interpretations of the facts differ from the original text.

The Mists of Avalon (and other Marion Zimmer Bradley books for other historical times) gives a pagan and feminine perspective of the story of King Arthur, the round table, and the search for the Holy Grail. The original text practically demonized all women, Bradley's books demonizes no one, though it doesn't paint all Christians in the best of lights.

Mary Magdeline (and other Margaret George books for other time periods) looks into what Mary's life and walk with Jesus might have been like. It shows a scarily patriarchal system that called women prostitutes even if they were merely widows who walked outside their homes.

None of these books are evil or warmongering. None of these are purporting to change history. They're in the fiction section for a reason. What, I assume, the writers ARE hoping to accomplish is providing the readers with the understanding that the perspective of the majority/winners/history writers isn't always the end-all, be-all. And, at the same time, they're providing a good read and some great entertainment (including this discussion!).

Lastly, can you know for sure that da Vinci didn't have time? How much time does it take you to converse with us on O.net for a spell or to see your family at holidays? We can assume and deduce many things about the people in the past, but know very little.

agree; I read all these book. Loved the red tent. Even went to the bible to verify the story. Boy, that part is preached too often in chruch. They just look over that family's raping and plundering. And Mary Magdaline story in this book is just as plausible as any we seen to date. Makes a lot of sense to me.' Regina

Kim Chi-Town Conf Edwards said:

There's a fiction book out there titled The Gospel According to Biff, Jesus's Childhood Friend. I LOVE that book. It chronicles the years of Jesus's life that were left out of the Bible. A must read for anyone willing to see religious things in new ways.

John Prine has a song called, Jesus: The Missing Years The introduction is hysterical.

People who are sad - sometimes they wear a frown

And people who are kings - sometimes they wear a crown

But all the people who don't fit

Get the only fun they get

From people puttin' people down

People puttin' people down

People without love - sometimes build a fence around

The garden up above - that makes the whole world go 'round

But all the people who don't fit

Get the only fun they get

From people puttin' people down

People puttin' people down

So cold, sometimes it gets so cold

You may love your wife - you may lose your family

You may lose you mind - just to keep your sanity

But the people who don't fit

Get the only fun they get

From people puttin' people down

People puttin' people down

People that are glad - sometimes they wear a smile

And people without dreams they walk the extra mile

But all the people who don't fit

Get the only fun they get

From people puttin' people down

People puttin' people dwn

From people puttin' people down

People puttin' people down

So cold, sometimes it gets so cold.

--John Prine

A young monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to helping the other monks in copying the old canons and laws of the church by hand.

He notices, however, that all of the monks are copying from copies, not from the original manuscript. So, the new monk goes to the head abbot to question this, pointing out that if someone made even a small error in the first copy, it would never be picked up. In fact, that error would be continued in all of the subsequent copies.

The head monk, says, "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son." So, he goes down into the dark caves underneath the monastery where the original manuscripts are held as archives in a locked vault that hasn't been opened for hundreds of years.

Hours go by and nobody sees the old abbot. So, the young monk gets worried and goes down to look for him. He sees him banging his head against the wall and wailing, "We missed the "R", we missed the "R".

His forehead is all bloody and bruised and he is crying uncontrollably.

The young monk asks the old abbot, "What's wrong, father?" With a choking voice, the old abbot replies,

After all these years..... the word was "Celebrate"

:)

I go back & forth on the issue of clerical celibacy. On the one hand, it seems silly, when Peter and half the apostles were married, to act like Jesus wanted priests to be celibate (or that he wanted there to be priests at all, but that's another matter).

On the other hand, it's a kind of population control, nicer than most other methods out there. Maybe we should be for it on those grounds. And it's kind of harmless self mortification, not that different than what athletes put themselves through for similar reasons.

The idea that celibacy leads to child abuse is nonsense. Leaving kids (or anyone, for that matter) alone with grown men for extended periods of time is likely to result in problems now and then, whether they are married or not.

A sexist comment? Leaving them with women is okay but not with men? Or am I reading into this?

maybe more sexist against men? but possibly something to it?

What would the Buddha do?

Celebrate!

David said:

"I go back and forth on the issue of clerical celibacy"

Evidently, so do the clerics.

I don't see something to it.

Men are men, and women are women, and, in my eyes, pedophiles are a whole different category. Pedophiles are both men AND women. They are female teachers in elementary schools, male Catholics, mothers, and grandfathers.

Saying that leaving kids with men leads to trouble is akin to saying that if you kid hangs out with black kids your kid will wind up in a gang. It's a stereotype that is not only not true, but that hold negative connotations in people's minds, making it hard for men who want to work in child care or be stay-at-home dads.

So, yeah, I knew it was sexist against men, but it was a negative stereotype that shouldn't be proliferated nonetheless.