Friday, May 26, 2006

The Sporkist View of the Da Vinci Code


I'm sure you've all been aware of the ridiculous and unnecessary controversy about the film 'The Da Vinci Code'. This is the Sporkist perspective.

a) Many of the assumptions made in the book have been proven false by a few documentaries; poor Dan Brown kept stressing throughout that it was a work of fiction anyway.
b) If your faith is strong, surely a work of fiction is not going to make you change your mind?
c) If you are an angry, outraged, righteous Catholic who wants it banned, why didn't you push for banning the book as well, since that's a fictional piece 'offending' your religion?
d) There's even a video game released for the Da Vinci Code, stressing the fact that this is all fiction.

So, if you are a sensible Sporkist, you're probably asking yourself: "Gosh, why bother if it's fiction and the theory of Jesus not being crucified and surviving to father a line of French Kings has been proven false... Why the hell are these Catholics losing it?"

Because [Drumroll]...
They have nothing better to do! And if they let these 'outrageous' things slip by them that easily, they'll look like they don't care. Which they should, since faith should be determined by the individual. But if it looks like they don't care, that means people won't be afraid of their amazing power.

Wow. What a bunch of bored fogeys, honestly.

Catholics all over the world are flipping out, and it's hilarious. Indian Catholics have threatened to fast unto death if the film is not banned. (But isn't suicide a Catholic sin?) I heard that in Sri Lanka, with a population that is only something like 5% Catholic, the film is banned there too. It's quite surprising that conservative Malaysia let it pass. The Catholic Association there said they recognised the fact that Catholics should decide for themselves if they want to watch the film or not.

What next? "Buddha Blasphemy"? "Krishna's Krime"? Or, "Allah's Secret"?

Grow up!

12 Comments:

Blogger Singer Gazelle said...

Religion as a whole, rather like heterosexual marriage, seems to be regarded as a peculiarly fragile thing by its exponents.

They say they have a dirty great vengeful, omnipresent and omnipotent god, they say that they have eternity licked and salvation almost in the bag. Write a book or make a lifelong male-male commitment though (for example) and they behave as though the sky is falling in.

Tell an evangelist that you doubt the foundation of their belief and they'll reach for an Uzi. Tell an atheist that there's an evangelist about and he or she will probably just re-evaluate the individual's character, wonder if they'll ever stop "seeing the light"... and then avoid them like the plague.

What should a Sporkist do? Hmm. Probably assess the threat posed by said evangelist and, depending on the likelihood of reliable witnesses and/or CCTV, take independent action.

The action? Well, I reckon it could range from running away or the swift application of high-velocity lead from the evangelist's own Uzi.

That's the strength of the non-believer. We don't have to wait for a fax from the Vatican before we can act and we aren't limited to the same sorry, sad, tired range of actions.

Independent, free thought.

The kind a film or a book - of any variety, agreeable or otherwise - only adds to...

12:54 am  
Anonymous Electra said...

more importantly...even if jesus WAS married and DID procreate, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? does it take anything away from his teachings or his work? does it take anything away from the fact that he dedicated his adult life to figuring life out for us poor humans and after having worked tirelessly had to die for his efforts? does it take anything away from his message of compassion and love, and does it make him a lesser being to have been (merely) human? this i don't get. poor jesus, imagine watching the entire world freak out just because they found out that he might not be divine in the form that we've been taught he was. poor jesus, imagine having to watch no one coming unconditionally and strongly to the defense of you and your work because they're all too busy denying the fact that you might have been married? i think we've all too easily forgotten the real issue here, the issue of the serious lack of people that actually take the philosophies of their religions to heart.

10:37 am  
Blogger Singer Gazelle said...

Hi Electra,

avec tout respect I think that the point is rather that we don't need religions at all!

There may indeed have been a carpenter wandering around re-hanging the odd door or knocking up the occasional broom cupboard - but unless this carpenter geezer had a phenomenal public relations machine and a 2,000 year contract with them it has to be said that it won't have been said carpenter who cooked up the religion nonsense. That has been cooked up by the usual power moguls and has been run very successfully as a control mechanism. Killing, maiming, repressing and exploiting the world over.

With the da Vinci Code we have proponents of one utterly fictitious nonsense taking offence at another work of fiction.

There is no "god". There are no "gods".

Human beings don't seem to be able to stand on their own two feet as free-thinking individuals even within the confines of their personal philosophies, purely within their own heads! What chance have we of coping with the outside world as a species when most people (still) need an invisible "friend" to tell them how to behave?

12:48 pm  
Blogger Prophet said...

It is true that the importance of this issue, regarding the Da Vinci Code, anyway, is the stupidity and ignorance of Jesus' 2000 year-old Public Relations Machine, as Gazelle put it. Still, I don't think we can be bold enough to say "There is no God", because we still can't prove that. Remember: being a Sporkist, you are nothing but human by definition, and this includes being wary of aethism. You can entertain your private thoughts on the meaning of life, just don't use it to control others, as the Catholic Church have done.

1:21 pm  
Blogger Singer Gazelle said...

I beg to disagree!

"God" is a role, a function, not an individual.

I accept no god and thus, as far as I am concerned, there is no god...

None at all...

None whatsoever...

;-)

ps., please don't tell me I have to resign my Spork "membership"!

5:40 pm  
Blogger Prophet said...

Of course not. Like I said, every Sporkist is entitled to their own views. You're not ramming your atheism down my throat, or anyone else's, so it's fine.

10:11 pm  
Anonymous Electra said...

"God" is a role, a function, not an individual. - absoloutely well put!

10:45 am  
Blogger Political Teenager said...

With regards to the Da Vinci Code, don't they realise that by showing such opposition to it, it only increases the curiousity of others, thus the film company wins because more people go to see it.

They really didnt think it through. All publicity is good publicity.

1:57 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"God" is not an individual.

Needs to be repeated. (Not sure what God is though)
-----------------------------------------

I want to know what you guys think of this:

Imagine some engineer succeeds in creating an artificial world where artificially intelligent beings live. These beings cannot perceive the engineer.

This makes the engineer the omnipresent and omnipotent god of this artificial world.

BUT.... what the hell does the engineer know really? Although he may be the master of this artifical domain, what right does he really have?

Now if I was one of those artificial beings, I wouldn't accept a God/Engineer (the individual) simply because my next question would be, who created god.

So if a God (as in an individual, like the engineer) did really create everything around me, all he/she/it is to me is another confused being who doesn't really know diddly squat.

I would rather be interested in knowing the truth beyond god whether or not god/gods exist.

(And my imagination leads me to believe that this ultimate truth is where all things that I think I know break down and evrything will hopefully make sense - truth is the only thing that cannot be relative)

4:45 pm  
Blogger Annelie..xox said...

Have to say the Sporkist View of the Da Vinci Code is very eloquently put! Not sure if I am
'supposed' to be posting since I am not a Sporkist...but will do so! :)

I think the most important part about this whole controversy is that it is a fiction book!! Granted, based on truth but I can only see good coming from it.

Honestly, before the book was published, how many young people discussed religion seriously. Some yes, but this book has not only sparked interest but discussion, which was Dan Browns' aim!

I agree with Electra, say the allegations were true, and Mary Magdalene was in fact his wife- so what! If you are a believer that should have no affect whatsoever and if you aren't...why try so adamantly to prove something false-surely not spite? I sincerely believe its because they have nothing better to do!

Anyway, thats my two cents worth. I am just about to start my History Internal Assessment on the Da Vinci Code and the Sporkist View made for great food for thought! :)Do excuse me if I was out of line...I will use ignorance as my excuse! :) All your posts make for a great read!

12:05 pm  
Blogger Prophet said...

Annelie - of course not. See newest post.

7:21 pm  
Blogger Prophet said...

'Anonymous' (Actually Rug, welcome back) - thanks again for the profound thoughts. Indeed, we are entitled to question, "Who the hell are you anyway?" as we are sentient beings. Nevertheless, reserve such philosophies for posts concerned with a similiar subject matter, not the Da Vinci Code, which we are tackling the political aspect of.

7:30 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home