Cool topic, sounds like an interesting time to get back into the game after my sore performance in the first one. I wanna win that blue tag
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She placed her hand on his shoulders and leaned in close, "It's for the best." He nodded his response. He didn't cry out, and she severed his head with a tear.
Hey, here's an interesting information that might inspire some of you: Joan of Arc's sword has been stolen again! Not the real one, but still...
There's a statue of Joan in Reims whose bronzen sword has been removed by yet unknown thieves. This has already happened twice before, always in Reims, although there are quite a lot of Joan-statues in France.
I thought you'd like to know that...
Hmm does it have to be a long time ago? Say Joan somehow traveled forward in time and tried to capture these thieves....hmm.;)
Quote from Tipsy Tilter »
Being Catholic shouldn't be a reason for you to be mad at the Da Vinci code or anybody who takes it seriously, or those who don't have the same beliefs as you. Sure, it has a lot of vague ideas, but they sure do raise a lot of dirt on the Church's dark history, be it exagerrated or not. If you were mad at Da Vinci, don't be mad at me for my rendition of Joan of Arc. It's all fiction anyway.
I was simply disappointed in the people who believed many of the blatantly incorrect parts; yes the Catholic Church has a lot of bad things in its history, but the fictional ideas in the book would be like stomping on the core beliefs of Christianity if they were meant to be real, and the Church today does not generally operate like that.
As for dirt on the Church, the most severe I think would be the supposed Knights Templar Insurrection/murder by the Pope, etc. If you research that, it turns up a very different story: A weak Pope who could not resist the King of France demanding that the order be given, and simply sealed an order written by said King...not the conspiracy theory suggested in the Code. King Phillip was simply in deep debt to the Knights, and had been rejected by them when he tried to join. He knew of their wealth, and this was a way to make it his own. The Priory of Scion, as well, was established in the Mid 20th century...
And I'm certainly not mad at anyone with different beliefs than me, just at those who scorn my beliefs.
Well, here's the problem with history - it is written by those who survive and conquer their counterparts. Like modern Christianity, who rose out several other 'brands' of Christianity and even threatened to topple the Roman Empire, it conquered all the other versions of Christ's teachings, thus bringing about the New Testament. Most of the textbooks in school about history are based on the accounts of those who lived to tell and write about it. Let's put it this way, who'd be the one more likely to write about a war, the victor, or the defeated? It is this very reason why conspiracies exist: because not all who were defeated stay silent. This is just my own conspiracy by the way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" I came to them in a flock of ravens that filled a northern sky at dawn...
Magic shall be written upon the sky by the rain but they shall not be able to read it;
Magic shall be written on the faces of the stony hills but their minds shall not be able to contain it..."
Amen, Craven. I myself am against institutionalized and organized religion. The very reason Christians get upset when the Church gets criticized is what baffles me. The Church is an organization, not a religion. Christ's teachings and philosophy is the religion, not pagan-based rituals and holier-than-thou mentality the Church imposes on everybody.
@ Siby: I'll kill you if our stories are similar.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" I came to them in a flock of ravens that filled a northern sky at dawn...
Magic shall be written upon the sky by the rain but they shall not be able to read it;
Magic shall be written on the faces of the stony hills but their minds shall not be able to contain it..."
Ugg. Just when I discover this contest (yeah, yeah, I know it's been going for a while) and was thinking of dipping my toe in, the topic is ... Joan of Arc?
This is not to badmouth anyone. I'm sure lots of great stories can be written here. But it is definitely not getting the old creative juices flowing.
Maybe I'll get inspired though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
And what about the crusades - slaughter in the name of the "god of love"? Witch-burning? Everything Pizarro and others did to the Inkas, supported by the catholic church who tried to gather wealth?
The story you tell here is not that simple at all. It might be true that Phillip was in debt to the Templars, and that this was one reason to destroy them - but just saying that the vhurch can't be to blame for what they did is also untrue. The church had in fact aq lot of benefits from the destruction of the Templars - they gained a lot of land that formerly belonged to that order, and they removed a very powerful (religious) institution that was not part of the holy church. The fact that the Templars had a bigger influence on King Phillip than the Pope was a sign of weakness of the church, and that was not acceptable. So even if the Pope was that weak as you describe him, that's no excuse for the crimes of the church.
Oh, and by the way - attacking the church has absolutely nothing to do with attacking anyone's belief....
Many many Popes were the pawns of world leaders around them, the Pope who reigned when Hitler was taking over the world did very little to speak out, and even supported him in some things. Of course, he had Mousallini (er..spelling?) hanging over his head, but that's no excuse.
Yes, I agree, the Church did horrible, horrible things. The Inquisition and the Crusades are just examples. The same thing is true of nearly every organization, mistakes, and terrible ones at that, are made. A book written on real atrocities would be fine to take seriously. But a book suggesting that the Church covered up a conspiracy that does mock the deepest beliefs of Catholics (Jesus and Mary Magdalene) is not something that should be taken seriously, especially when it is admitted by even the author to be fiction. I have no problems with critisizing the Church for its mistakes, just with people who believe that Jesus had a bloodline (the essential plot of the Da Vinci Code). Believing that is attacking belief, since there is no evidence of it. So believing the Church knew this was true and covered it up is, in a way, attacking belief.
Quote from Craven »
And what about the crusades - slaughter in the name of the "god of love"? Witch-burning? Everything Pizarro and others did to the Inkas, supported by the catholic church who tried to gather wealth?
Witch Burning was most certainly not the Catholic Church, but it was Christians nevertheless. Christians, Jews and Muslims have all had (or are in) their Holy Wars, and they were wrong. The Church gave Pizzaro the mission of converting the Incans, and unfortunately the order to kill them if they didn't. Good intentions with terrible consequences. The wealth was a side bonus, unknown until they found it. Gold was for the conquistadores.
Anyway, back to topic. Does anyone know if the story has to be in Joan's own time?
Attacking belief? Aren't people free to believe in anything they want? So by believing something that's scandalous to the Church, is considered an attack? Why is that?
If I believe Microsoft is actually a demonic organization bent on world domination, is that considered an attack against Microsoft?
If I believed Jesus was gay because he spent his days and nights with 12 guys, is that considered an attack? Am I not entitled to believe what I want to believe? From what you are saying, believing in anything harmful against Christianity is an attack.
I think you're implying that the Church or Christianity may not be defied in any way.
" I came to them in a flock of ravens that filled a northern sky at dawn...
Magic shall be written upon the sky by the rain but they shall not be able to read it;
Magic shall be written on the faces of the stony hills but their minds shall not be able to contain it..."
Interesting debate going on here. I'd just like to add, I'd heard the "Jesus had a family" theory years before the Da Vinci code came out, and it seems quite plausible. None of the papal conspiracy or any of that, just something that was decided to be against then-forming dogma at some of the early ecumenical councils, and thus left out of the New Testament. How is Christ being married and having kids really harmful to your faith, anyway, other than the fact that it isn't what you believe? It doesn't cast him in a negative light at all, and he could still do any wonderful or miraculous things he might have done. *shrug*.
Anyway, the story doesn't have to be in Joan's own time. You'd just have to give some reason why Joan is somewhen else :).
Attacking belief? Aren't people free to believe in anything they want? So by believing something that's scandalous to the Church, is considered an attack? Why is that?
If I believe Microsoft is actually a demonic organization bent on world domination, is that considered an attack against Microsoft?
If I believed Jesus was gay because he spent his days and nights with 12 guys, is that considered an attack? Am I not entitled to believe what I want to believe? From what you are saying, believing in anything harmful against Christianity is an attack.
I think you're implying that the Church or Christianity may not be defied in any way.
No, the Church can be defied in a reasonable and sensible way. If you did say that about Microsoft, for example, with no proof whatsoever and evidence to the contrary, you could easily be sued for libel, if you were vocal. So, in that circumstance, it would be an attack.
You could believe Jesus was gay, heck, maybe he was if he wasn't married. You're entitled to believe that. But you can't state as a fact something which is not.
@Vestdan: Jesus having a family isn't the threat. The threat is that it was a Gnostic belief, and used to justify the idea that Jesus is not divine. If he had children and succumbed to the "weakness" of sex, than he was not divine because God cannot procreate in that way. Or something like that. So the dislike toward the bloodline idea is that we believe Jesus to be divine, and this is saying he isn't. Jesus's divinity is one of the core beliefs, without it there is nothing, not the Eucharist, or the Trinity...or anything at all, really. But good point anyway, it'd be neat in a way to have a descendant of Jesus.
So you could write a science-fiction story where Joan of Arc goes into a time machine and fights robot zombies?
This does not bode well for the seriousness of my writing. I can hope ...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
my mouth is full of winsome lies -
and eyes are full of death besides
but luckily the soul is wise -
it sees beyond my blindness and
forced failure makes a better guise,
so as i come again alive,
it feels like life's a decent plan
@ dragon:
That's the problem about dogma. There's no room for inconsistencies. No gray area. It's either this or that. I'm sure you also don't support birth control or family planning. I'm also sure you scorn gay people and tell them they're misguided. That's Church dogma right there, so if you don't agree, you're attacking the Church.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" I came to them in a flock of ravens that filled a northern sky at dawn...
Magic shall be written upon the sky by the rain but they shall not be able to read it;
Magic shall be written on the faces of the stony hills but their minds shall not be able to contain it..."
@ dragon:
That's the problem about dogma. There's no room for inconsistencies. No gray area. It's either this or that. I'm sure you also don't support birth control or family planning. I'm also sure you scorn gay people and tell them they're misguided. That's Church dogma right there, so if you don't agree, you're attacking the Church.
Family planning--fine, you can have sex when you're not going to be pregnant...the Church supports it. There's only about one week where you're at the risk of pregnancy.
I have absolutely NO problem with gays. I do have a problem with gay sex. The Church has no problem with gay people either--check the Catechism. It's gay sex they don't like. You simply have the dogma wrong.
The real dogma:
No contraception. Plan around your fertile time.
No gay sex. If you're gay, try to be chaste. Gay is ok.
Ugg. Just when I discover this contest (yeah, yeah, I know it's been going for a while) and was thinking of dipping my toe in, the topic is ... Joan of Arc?
This is not to badmouth anyone. I'm sure lots of great stories can be written here. But it is definitely not getting the old creative juices flowing.
Maybe I'll get inspired though.
no worries...however, out of all the prompts so far, this one is technically the most open one we've had, with only a single restriction. The way my drafting and planning is shaping up, Joan isn't the primary focus of the story...it's possible to address the prompt while still playing with the ideas you want to work with.
Can Joan of Arc be dead? The story I've got in mind could almost fulfil all the prompts so far except the first one.
Sure, she can be dead. She has been for 575 years, so she's actually gotten quite good at it, heh.
EDIT: Also, @Dragon... you can like gay people, but not if they practice gayness. So, then, is it alright for me to like Catholic people, but hate the practice of Catholicism?
In the fog of it all, I fail to see what is being copyrighted
I'd just like to add, I'd heard the "Jesus had a family" theory years before the Da Vinci code came out, and it seems quite plausible
I'm sure the theory has been around since Jesus died/before Jesus Died. How can you not think such a thing - is the question. Rather then "Do you suppose Jesus had a family?" However, me not being very big on history, I'm not sure whereas people would draw this conclusion, so my opposing question could be wrong.
Anyway, the story doesn't have to be in Joan's own time. You'd just have to give some reason why Joan is somewhen else
What's the fun of giving a reason? Shouldn't the addiance be gripping their seats in anticipation to know what's going on?
PS: YAY, time travel. Um...how to make it work...
Whatever method you choose to use this is up to you – historical fiction, biographical character study, alternate history, time travel, cloning
So you could write a science-fiction story where Joan of Arc goes into a time machine and fights robot zombies?
That sounds. Like a lot of fun. Not only to write, but to witness.
no worries...however, out of all the prompts so far, this one is technically the most open one we've had, with only a single restriction. The way my drafting and planning is shaping up, Joan isn't the primary focus of the story...it's possible to address the prompt while still playing with the ideas you want to work with.
Exactly the way mine has turned out.
I've finished my first draft (I've had alot of time to dedicate to it). I'm going to proofread/edit/fix it later on next week. Using the 'ol "Stay away from your story for a good while. Let the idea's settle into place and the structure. When you come back to it, you'll see not only the many flaws, but area's that should be corrected moreso."
Until then, I'll be (still) revising So'for of the Vedalken.
Not that I'm going to stop paying attention to this thread:cool:
Sure, she can be dead. She has been for 575 years, so she's actually gotten quite good at it, heh.
EDIT: Also, @Dragon... you can like gay people, but not if they practice gayness. So, then, is it alright for me to like Catholic people, but hate the practice of Catholicism?
Of course you can hate Catholicism. No one has ever said you couldn't, and many do. Nearly every priest and bishop hates something about Catholicism. I hate some things. Many people hate everything, although it makes me wonder if they see the good Catholics do. Without the Church, the world would be considerably worse off humanitarily (is that a word?). For proof that not all Catholicism is bad, take a look at a church on a weekday. I know that on Mondays and Wednesdays at my church the Saint Vincent De Paul Society helps anyone with a real problem. The Pope has his own charities. Catholics are among the most generous in times of disaster. Look up what Catholic Charities does. Whatever its faults, the Church does a lot of good.
Whatever its faults? Oh come on. That's a Robin Hood mentality you got there. So the ends justify the means?
No contraceptives. No gay sex. No gay marriages. No female priest. No premarital sex. No divorce.
Your dogma makes your mind closed. If the Church reverted to its stand that the Earth is the center of the universe, I'm sure you'd agree. Millions are starving because of overpopulation. Disease is spreading because people don't use contraceptives. Gay people are being persecuted because of the stand of the Church. Women are belittled because of the sexist doctrines of the Church. Before there was the Church, there was the Golden Age when Greek philosophers changed the world forever with their brilliance. Then when the Church rose to power, there was the Dark Ages, when people became stupid. Then, some people started looking back at the Golden Age and compared it to the Dark Ages and said to themselves, "I don't want to be stupid anymore." So, the Renaissance came about. I think the Church does more harm than good.
Here's a short essay I wrote a few weeks ago:
Why Dogma Is Crap
The Church once said the Earth was flat. To refute this claim was deemed a heresy
The Church once said that the universe revolved around the Earth. To refute this claim was deemed a heresy.
The Church once said that it was absurd to think that humans evolved from apes, because it was a fact that we all came from Adam and Eve. To refute this claim was deemed a heresy.
The Church once said there were only four Gospels. To refute this claim was deemed a heresy.
Heresy, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. By extension, heresy is an opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative."
Ah, authority. We all love to have our way, especially if you are one of the largest and nonetheless richest organizations in the world. I’m not talking about Microsoft. I’m talking about the Church, and that whatever the Church decrees should be obeyed because God granted them to power to do so. That’s Dogma at its highest form.
So what’s wrong with Dogma? There are myriad things wrong with it. All forms of conversation, intellectual discussions or debates end when Dogma is used as reference. All thought and innovation die when you let Dogma tell you ‘that’s just the way it is’.
You see, most people fear the unknown. Religion was created by humans to console their lack of understanding about the universe. Where did we come from? What happens when we die? Who made the universe? All these questions bug us, and there’s no way of finding out, so we console ourselves by saying, God made it so. That’s just the way it is, stupid. Accept it. Humans can be so pathetic sometimes.
When you were a kid, didn’t your mom tell you don’t talk to strangers? Well then why did you let these Catholic strangers tell you how you should live your life? The moment you were born, you were baptized at once without your consent. You had no choice as to what religion you believe in. You were stamped like a toy puppet, labeled and forcefully ordered to believe in something. But you were a baby, and you didn’t have a mind of your own. Blame your parents then for letting you be shaped by someone else. Just imagine yourself as a helpless baby, and you just came out into the world, and without any warning, you become Catholic. What a wonderful failsafe mechanism devised by the Church to safeguard its organization! Where’s the difference between that and being born, then harvested to be trapped in the Matrix? Wait, I know. It’s God’s will!
The Church said that God knows all, and that his Word is above all. The Bible is His Word, and that all knowledge must be based on it. But now that we are learning more and more about the world and the universe, we realize, the Bible isn’t really the best source of knowledge. If you think it is, then maybe you still believe we came from Adam and Eve, and that the world is flat. So maybe we shouldn’t take the Bible too literally. Maybe we shouldn’t treat the Bible as a law. Maybe we shouldn’t accept the rigid orthodoxy of any institutionalized religion because it makes us retarded. What say you?
When the Church tells you birth control is contrary to the Word of God, or that the meek shall inherit the Earth, or the women should not be allowed to become priests because they are inadequate, or that homosexuality is evil, or that if you don’t believe in God you go to hell, or that the Bible is the ultimate reference material, would you just go down on your knees and agree, or would you tell them that’s bull****?!
" I came to them in a flock of ravens that filled a northern sky at dawn...
Magic shall be written upon the sky by the rain but they shall not be able to read it;
Magic shall be written on the faces of the stony hills but their minds shall not be able to contain it..."
Whatever its faults? Oh come on. That's a Robin Hood mentality you got there. So the ends justify the means?
No contraceptives. No gay sex. No gay marriages. No female priest. No premarital sex. No divorce.
Your dogma makes your mind closed. If the Church reverted to its stand that the Earth is the center of the universe, I'm sure you'd agree. Millions are starving because of overpopulation. Disease is spreading because people don't use contraceptives. Gay people are being persecuted because of the stand of the Church. Women are belittled because of the sexist doctrines of the Church. Before there was the Church, there was the Golden Age when Greek philosophers changed the world forever with their brilliance. Then when the Church rose to power, there was the Dark Ages, when people became stupid. Then, some people started looking back at the Golden Age and compared it to the Dark Ages and said to themselves, "I don't want to be stupid anymore." So, the Renaissance came about. I think the Church does more harm than good.
<too long to quote so snipped>
Please.
Don’t be stupid.
Don’t be Dogmatic.
You vastly overestimate Dogma, and your definition of it is wrong. The things you mention are Doctrine, not Dogma. Dogmas never change. Doctrine is admitted by the Church to contain flaws.
No, I wouldn't agree if the Church said Earth was the center of the universe. I don't agree with many things now. I do agree with the main points, the basis of its teaching.
Overpopulation? If people followed the Church's teaching, like you think they do, there would be no overpopulation. Non-marital sex accounts for most of it. Planning around your fertile time is a fine way of birth control. It's really not that hard.
Women are not belittled, that's ridiculous. The Church does more to speak out for women's and minorities' rights than most other organizations. Maybe they can't become priests...but that might change. Change simply takes time. But Clergy is the only thing that women are restricted from.
Greek philosophers and their knowledge died long before the Church was even a dream. The Church was formed in the Dark Ages, not as the cause. The Dark Ages were a result of the collapse of the Roman Empire. History puts the Dark Ages' beginning at around AD 500--long before the organized Church you speak of. The Church tried to comfort people in the time of ignorance.
Did the Church stop the Renaissance? NO! They welcomed it! The Church had some of its greatest years during the Renaissance.
Yes, the Church made mistakes. Yes, they imprisoned learned men. But they didn't understand!
Try this: What if someone told you that the Sun wasn't really the center of the Solar System. This person said he knew because he looked through a little tube up at the sky. What would you do?
Laugh him off! You KNOW the sun is really the center! Who is he to say different? Thus, the Church's position in the 1500s.
But I don't live in the Church of 1500. I live in the Church of 2006. If you're going to point out serious flaws, do it for a time that is relevant.
<snip>
I never said that the Da Vinci Code should be taken seriously. I don't think it's mockery, though - it is actually possible that Jesus had a family. The Bible does not tell anything about what happened to him in his first 30 years, so there's no reason to believe that he absolutely had no wife. Of course there also is no evidence that he was married, either, but how is it an attack to christian belief if you suggest that it was possible? Just because you can't prove me to be wrong?
It was most definetly the Catholic Church. The Inquisitor Heinrich Kramer wrote the Summis desiderantes affectibus, the "Hexenbulle", and the maleus maleficarum ("Hexenhammer") - the first text contained rules on how to deal with witches which were approved by pope Innozenz VII., the second was a description of an inquisitory process. " „Hairesis maxima est opera maleficarum non credere" (it is a great heresy to believe that there are no witches") - "maleus maleficarum"
It was the catholic church who began with witch burning, there can be no doubt. It is of course true as well that other churches (lutherian, anglican, puritan) did it as well, but the catholic church was still widely responsible for distributing texts as the two I mentioned above.
I just wonder why God, who created men and women to have sex (Genesis 1:28: " God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it."), made Christ a man but should restrict him in one of his own laws... If Jesus was capable of having sex, why should it reduce his divinity if he actually had sex?
No, it is certainly ok to suggest it, but to take the Da Vinci Code as fact is what I don't like. Suggesting is fine, but without proof, I don't think you should take it as fact.
The American witch burnings were not Catholic, I thought they were Puritan. The authors of the Hexenhammer, Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, claimed that they were given Papal permission for their ideas, when this was in fact not true. The Papal Decree was to combat witchery, not kill witches. In fact, when the two inquisitors submitted their book to be approved by the Catholic Colleges, it was condemned as unethical and morally wrong. They forged an endorsement to get it printed. After it was, the Church banned the book, putting it on a list of forbidden works. Not exactly the Catholic Church condoning Witch Burning... And all of this in 1485, long before the witch-burnings of Salem and New England.
Quote: "Despite popular belief that the Malleus Maleficarum was the classic Roman Catholic text on witchcraft, it was never officially used by the Catholic Church and was, in fact, condemned by the Inquisition in 1490."
The Summis desiderantes affectibus was simply a Papal condemnation of witchcraft, and it granted power to root out witches. The two inquisitors overstepped their bounds in burning the witches, when they simply were supposed to bring them to trial.
At trial, more than half of the "witches'" cases were dismissed for lack of evidence. The rest went on to be tried in secular courts, NOT church courts.
God created men and women to have sex, but Jesus was neither man nor woman. He was fully divine and fully human, and thus could not procreate because he couldn't "pass on" his divinity. He is also supposed to be completely free from sin--and since there is no record of a marriage, it's assumed there was no marriage. If he can't sin, and he wasn't married, and premarital sex is a sin....he can't have had sex.
Overpopulation? If people followed the Church's teaching, like you think they do, there would be no overpopulation. Non-marital sex accounts for most of it. Planning around your fertile time is a fine way of birth control. It's really not that hard.
I'm sorry, but that's just so, so naive. A severely small part of the population is truly capable of self-regulated abstinence - we are biological creatures, with hormones and drives we can not really control. Unmarrital sex has happened for the entirity of human history, and shall continue to happen no matter what any doctrine or dogma says. People can't help themselves, it's a natural function. However, use of contraceptives is not a natural function, but WOULD do a lot to stop both overpopulation and the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Latin America (heavily catholic) has been having such a population boom because, while following the abstience doctrine is hard, following the no contraceptives one is easy. Not to mention, a woman CAN get pregnant any time of month, she's just a LOT more fertile for a certain part of it.
Well, I wrote that essay when I was quite furious after I read something from a priest about telling people not to watch the Da Vinci code because it was blasphemous.
As for overgeneralizing about gays: If you were an influential organization like the Church who's very vocal about their stand and beliefs in EVERYTHING, you can't help but generalize that most Catholics look down in disgust on gay people because Catholics usually do what the Church tells them to do.
It might seem dogmatic to condemn dogma, but there's no other way of putting it. Dogma really narrows your way of thinking, like telling people: "If only you follow the Christian way, there won't be overpopulation." That's just absurd. That's just saying Christianity is superior to everything. I can't accept that, and I can't respect that.
" I came to them in a flock of ravens that filled a northern sky at dawn...
Magic shall be written upon the sky by the rain but they shall not be able to read it;
Magic shall be written on the faces of the stony hills but their minds shall not be able to contain it..."
I dunno what you guys are talking about. I thought Dogma was a great movie.
Anyways, I was perusing Barnes and Noble yesterday for books on little Joany, and couldn't find a single one. But, I did find a great book on French history and another one on "The Seven Ages of Paris." Good atmosphere, right?
I checked the index of the history, turned to the page involving Joany's time period, and found a wonderful description of Paris of the time.
I checked the index of "The Seven Ages of Paris," turned to the page involving Joany's time period, and found... almost the exact same description. Same descriptive devices, same tropes, same historical material, and only slightly reworded phrasing. Oh, and one of them used French names.
Hmm. Completely different authors with different publishing histories. Different publishing houses. Published 10 years apart. No reference to eachother in any of their extensive bibliographies, and no acknowledgement in the prologue/afterword/thanks/acknowledgements/dedication.
Iiiinteresting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I felt ignored.
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6
Hmm does it have to be a long time ago? Say Joan somehow traveled forward in time and tried to capture these thieves....hmm.;)
I was simply disappointed in the people who believed many of the blatantly incorrect parts; yes the Catholic Church has a lot of bad things in its history, but the fictional ideas in the book would be like stomping on the core beliefs of Christianity if they were meant to be real, and the Church today does not generally operate like that.
As for dirt on the Church, the most severe I think would be the supposed Knights Templar Insurrection/murder by the Pope, etc. If you research that, it turns up a very different story: A weak Pope who could not resist the King of France demanding that the order be given, and simply sealed an order written by said King...not the conspiracy theory suggested in the Code. King Phillip was simply in deep debt to the Knights, and had been rejected by them when he tried to join. He knew of their wealth, and this was a way to make it his own. The Priory of Scion, as well, was established in the Mid 20th century...
And I'm certainly not mad at anyone with different beliefs than me, just at those who scorn my beliefs.
Trade Thread
Magic shall be written upon the sky by the rain but they shall not be able to read it;
Magic shall be written on the faces of the stony hills but their minds shall not be able to contain it..."
COLOHOLICS ANONYMOUS
Poetry Challenge
@ Siby: I'll kill you if our stories are similar.
Magic shall be written upon the sky by the rain but they shall not be able to read it;
Magic shall be written on the faces of the stony hills but their minds shall not be able to contain it..."
COLOHOLICS ANONYMOUS
This is not to badmouth anyone. I'm sure lots of great stories can be written here. But it is definitely not getting the old creative juices flowing.
Maybe I'll get inspired though.
Many many Popes were the pawns of world leaders around them, the Pope who reigned when Hitler was taking over the world did very little to speak out, and even supported him in some things. Of course, he had Mousallini (er..spelling?) hanging over his head, but that's no excuse.
Yes, I agree, the Church did horrible, horrible things. The Inquisition and the Crusades are just examples. The same thing is true of nearly every organization, mistakes, and terrible ones at that, are made. A book written on real atrocities would be fine to take seriously. But a book suggesting that the Church covered up a conspiracy that does mock the deepest beliefs of Catholics (Jesus and Mary Magdalene) is not something that should be taken seriously, especially when it is admitted by even the author to be fiction. I have no problems with critisizing the Church for its mistakes, just with people who believe that Jesus had a bloodline (the essential plot of the Da Vinci Code). Believing that is attacking belief, since there is no evidence of it. So believing the Church knew this was true and covered it up is, in a way, attacking belief.
Witch Burning was most certainly not the Catholic Church, but it was Christians nevertheless. Christians, Jews and Muslims have all had (or are in) their Holy Wars, and they were wrong. The Church gave Pizzaro the mission of converting the Incans, and unfortunately the order to kill them if they didn't. Good intentions with terrible consequences. The wealth was a side bonus, unknown until they found it. Gold was for the conquistadores.
Anyway, back to topic. Does anyone know if the story has to be in Joan's own time?
Trade Thread
If I believe Microsoft is actually a demonic organization bent on world domination, is that considered an attack against Microsoft?
If I believed Jesus was gay because he spent his days and nights with 12 guys, is that considered an attack? Am I not entitled to believe what I want to believe? From what you are saying, believing in anything harmful against Christianity is an attack.
I think you're implying that the Church or Christianity may not be defied in any way.
Magic shall be written upon the sky by the rain but they shall not be able to read it;
Magic shall be written on the faces of the stony hills but their minds shall not be able to contain it..."
COLOHOLICS ANONYMOUS
Anyway, the story doesn't have to be in Joan's own time. You'd just have to give some reason why Joan is somewhen else :).
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6
No, the Church can be defied in a reasonable and sensible way. If you did say that about Microsoft, for example, with no proof whatsoever and evidence to the contrary, you could easily be sued for libel, if you were vocal. So, in that circumstance, it would be an attack.
You could believe Jesus was gay, heck, maybe he was if he wasn't married. You're entitled to believe that. But you can't state as a fact something which is not.
@Vestdan: Jesus having a family isn't the threat. The threat is that it was a Gnostic belief, and used to justify the idea that Jesus is not divine. If he had children and succumbed to the "weakness" of sex, than he was not divine because God cannot procreate in that way. Or something like that. So the dislike toward the bloodline idea is that we believe Jesus to be divine, and this is saying he isn't. Jesus's divinity is one of the core beliefs, without it there is nothing, not the Eucharist, or the Trinity...or anything at all, really. But good point anyway, it'd be neat in a way to have a descendant of Jesus.
PS: YAY, time travel. Um...how to make it work...
PSS: COPYRIGHTED
Trade Thread
This does not bode well for the seriousness of my writing. I can hope ...
and eyes are full of death besides
but luckily the soul is wise -
it sees beyond my blindness and
forced failure makes a better guise,
so as i come again alive,
it feels like life's a decent plan
That's the problem about dogma. There's no room for inconsistencies. No gray area. It's either this or that. I'm sure you also don't support birth control or family planning. I'm also sure you scorn gay people and tell them they're misguided. That's Church dogma right there, so if you don't agree, you're attacking the Church.
Magic shall be written upon the sky by the rain but they shall not be able to read it;
Magic shall be written on the faces of the stony hills but their minds shall not be able to contain it..."
COLOHOLICS ANONYMOUS
Family planning--fine, you can have sex when you're not going to be pregnant...the Church supports it. There's only about one week where you're at the risk of pregnancy.
I have absolutely NO problem with gays. I do have a problem with gay sex. The Church has no problem with gay people either--check the Catechism. It's gay sex they don't like. You simply have the dogma wrong.
The real dogma:
No contraception. Plan around your fertile time.
No gay sex. If you're gay, try to be chaste. Gay is ok.
Trade Thread
no worries...however, out of all the prompts so far, this one is technically the most open one we've had, with only a single restriction. The way my drafting and planning is shaping up, Joan isn't the primary focus of the story...it's possible to address the prompt while still playing with the ideas you want to work with.
Sure, she can be dead. She has been for 575 years, so she's actually gotten quite good at it, heh.
EDIT: Also, @Dragon... you can like gay people, but not if they practice gayness. So, then, is it alright for me to like Catholic people, but hate the practice of Catholicism?
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6
In the fog of it all, I fail to see what is being copyrighted
I'm sure the theory has been around since Jesus died/before Jesus Died. How can you not think such a thing - is the question. Rather then "Do you suppose Jesus had a family?" However, me not being very big on history, I'm not sure whereas people would draw this conclusion, so my opposing question could be wrong.
What's the fun of giving a reason? Shouldn't the addiance be gripping their seats in anticipation to know what's going on?
That sounds. Like a lot of fun. Not only to write, but to witness.
Exactly the way mine has turned out.
I've finished my first draft (I've had alot of time to dedicate to it). I'm going to proofread/edit/fix it later on next week. Using the 'ol "Stay away from your story for a good while. Let the idea's settle into place and the structure. When you come back to it, you'll see not only the many flaws, but area's that should be corrected moreso."
Until then, I'll be (still) revising So'for of the Vedalken.
Not that I'm going to stop paying attention to this thread:cool:
Visit: Cabalwannabe's Art page right here on MTGS!
Cabalwannabe's Cards!
Control Lover Generation 1 if you see this in someones sig copy it and take the generation number plus 1 to show your generation!
Cabalwannabe's Stories
So'for of the Vedalken
Vansen, Dreamer of Dreams
Clone of Joan
Aeriedle's Mission
Of course you can hate Catholicism. No one has ever said you couldn't, and many do. Nearly every priest and bishop hates something about Catholicism. I hate some things. Many people hate everything, although it makes me wonder if they see the good Catholics do. Without the Church, the world would be considerably worse off humanitarily (is that a word?). For proof that not all Catholicism is bad, take a look at a church on a weekday. I know that on Mondays and Wednesdays at my church the Saint Vincent De Paul Society helps anyone with a real problem. The Pope has his own charities. Catholics are among the most generous in times of disaster. Look up what Catholic Charities does. Whatever its faults, the Church does a lot of good.
Trade Thread
No contraceptives. No gay sex. No gay marriages. No female priest. No premarital sex. No divorce.
Your dogma makes your mind closed. If the Church reverted to its stand that the Earth is the center of the universe, I'm sure you'd agree. Millions are starving because of overpopulation. Disease is spreading because people don't use contraceptives. Gay people are being persecuted because of the stand of the Church. Women are belittled because of the sexist doctrines of the Church. Before there was the Church, there was the Golden Age when Greek philosophers changed the world forever with their brilliance. Then when the Church rose to power, there was the Dark Ages, when people became stupid. Then, some people started looking back at the Golden Age and compared it to the Dark Ages and said to themselves, "I don't want to be stupid anymore." So, the Renaissance came about. I think the Church does more harm than good.
Here's a short essay I wrote a few weeks ago:
Why Dogma Is Crap
The Church once said the Earth was flat. To refute this claim was deemed a heresy
The Church once said that the universe revolved around the Earth. To refute this claim was deemed a heresy.
The Church once said that it was absurd to think that humans evolved from apes, because it was a fact that we all came from Adam and Eve. To refute this claim was deemed a heresy.
The Church once said there were only four Gospels. To refute this claim was deemed a heresy.
Heresy, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. By extension, heresy is an opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative."
Ah, authority. We all love to have our way, especially if you are one of the largest and nonetheless richest organizations in the world. I’m not talking about Microsoft. I’m talking about the Church, and that whatever the Church decrees should be obeyed because God granted them to power to do so. That’s Dogma at its highest form.
So what’s wrong with Dogma? There are myriad things wrong with it. All forms of conversation, intellectual discussions or debates end when Dogma is used as reference. All thought and innovation die when you let Dogma tell you ‘that’s just the way it is’.
You see, most people fear the unknown. Religion was created by humans to console their lack of understanding about the universe. Where did we come from? What happens when we die? Who made the universe? All these questions bug us, and there’s no way of finding out, so we console ourselves by saying, God made it so. That’s just the way it is, stupid. Accept it. Humans can be so pathetic sometimes.
When you were a kid, didn’t your mom tell you don’t talk to strangers? Well then why did you let these Catholic strangers tell you how you should live your life? The moment you were born, you were baptized at once without your consent. You had no choice as to what religion you believe in. You were stamped like a toy puppet, labeled and forcefully ordered to believe in something. But you were a baby, and you didn’t have a mind of your own. Blame your parents then for letting you be shaped by someone else. Just imagine yourself as a helpless baby, and you just came out into the world, and without any warning, you become Catholic. What a wonderful failsafe mechanism devised by the Church to safeguard its organization! Where’s the difference between that and being born, then harvested to be trapped in the Matrix? Wait, I know. It’s God’s will!
The Church said that God knows all, and that his Word is above all. The Bible is His Word, and that all knowledge must be based on it. But now that we are learning more and more about the world and the universe, we realize, the Bible isn’t really the best source of knowledge. If you think it is, then maybe you still believe we came from Adam and Eve, and that the world is flat. So maybe we shouldn’t take the Bible too literally. Maybe we shouldn’t treat the Bible as a law. Maybe we shouldn’t accept the rigid orthodoxy of any institutionalized religion because it makes us retarded. What say you?
When the Church tells you birth control is contrary to the Word of God, or that the meek shall inherit the Earth, or the women should not be allowed to become priests because they are inadequate, or that homosexuality is evil, or that if you don’t believe in God you go to hell, or that the Bible is the ultimate reference material, would you just go down on your knees and agree, or would you tell them that’s bull****?!
Please.
Don’t be stupid.
Don’t be Dogmatic.
Magic shall be written upon the sky by the rain but they shall not be able to read it;
Magic shall be written on the faces of the stony hills but their minds shall not be able to contain it..."
COLOHOLICS ANONYMOUS
You vastly overestimate Dogma, and your definition of it is wrong. The things you mention are Doctrine, not Dogma. Dogmas never change. Doctrine is admitted by the Church to contain flaws.
No, I wouldn't agree if the Church said Earth was the center of the universe. I don't agree with many things now. I do agree with the main points, the basis of its teaching.
Overpopulation? If people followed the Church's teaching, like you think they do, there would be no overpopulation. Non-marital sex accounts for most of it. Planning around your fertile time is a fine way of birth control. It's really not that hard.
Women are not belittled, that's ridiculous. The Church does more to speak out for women's and minorities' rights than most other organizations. Maybe they can't become priests...but that might change. Change simply takes time. But Clergy is the only thing that women are restricted from.
Greek philosophers and their knowledge died long before the Church was even a dream. The Church was formed in the Dark Ages, not as the cause. The Dark Ages were a result of the collapse of the Roman Empire. History puts the Dark Ages' beginning at around AD 500--long before the organized Church you speak of. The Church tried to comfort people in the time of ignorance.
Did the Church stop the Renaissance? NO! They welcomed it! The Church had some of its greatest years during the Renaissance.
Yes, the Church made mistakes. Yes, they imprisoned learned men. But they didn't understand!
Try this: What if someone told you that the Sun wasn't really the center of the Solar System. This person said he knew because he looked through a little tube up at the sky. What would you do?
Laugh him off! You KNOW the sun is really the center! Who is he to say different? Thus, the Church's position in the 1500s.
But I don't live in the Church of 1500. I live in the Church of 2006. If you're going to point out serious flaws, do it for a time that is relevant.
Trade Thread
No, it is certainly ok to suggest it, but to take the Da Vinci Code as fact is what I don't like. Suggesting is fine, but without proof, I don't think you should take it as fact.
The American witch burnings were not Catholic, I thought they were Puritan. The authors of the Hexenhammer, Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, claimed that they were given Papal permission for their ideas, when this was in fact not true. The Papal Decree was to combat witchery, not kill witches. In fact, when the two inquisitors submitted their book to be approved by the Catholic Colleges, it was condemned as unethical and morally wrong. They forged an endorsement to get it printed. After it was, the Church banned the book, putting it on a list of forbidden works. Not exactly the Catholic Church condoning Witch Burning... And all of this in 1485, long before the witch-burnings of Salem and New England.
Quote: "Despite popular belief that the Malleus Maleficarum was the classic Roman Catholic text on witchcraft, it was never officially used by the Catholic Church and was, in fact, condemned by the Inquisition in 1490."
The Summis desiderantes affectibus was simply a Papal condemnation of witchcraft, and it granted power to root out witches. The two inquisitors overstepped their bounds in burning the witches, when they simply were supposed to bring them to trial.
At trial, more than half of the "witches'" cases were dismissed for lack of evidence. The rest went on to be tried in secular courts, NOT church courts.
God created men and women to have sex, but Jesus was neither man nor woman. He was fully divine and fully human, and thus could not procreate because he couldn't "pass on" his divinity. He is also supposed to be completely free from sin--and since there is no record of a marriage, it's assumed there was no marriage. If he can't sin, and he wasn't married, and premarital sex is a sin....he can't have had sex.
Trade Thread
I'm sorry, but that's just so, so naive. A severely small part of the population is truly capable of self-regulated abstinence - we are biological creatures, with hormones and drives we can not really control. Unmarrital sex has happened for the entirity of human history, and shall continue to happen no matter what any doctrine or dogma says. People can't help themselves, it's a natural function. However, use of contraceptives is not a natural function, but WOULD do a lot to stop both overpopulation and the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Latin America (heavily catholic) has been having such a population boom because, while following the abstience doctrine is hard, following the no contraceptives one is easy. Not to mention, a woman CAN get pregnant any time of month, she's just a LOT more fertile for a certain part of it.
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6
As for overgeneralizing about gays: If you were an influential organization like the Church who's very vocal about their stand and beliefs in EVERYTHING, you can't help but generalize that most Catholics look down in disgust on gay people because Catholics usually do what the Church tells them to do.
It might seem dogmatic to condemn dogma, but there's no other way of putting it. Dogma really narrows your way of thinking, like telling people: "If only you follow the Christian way, there won't be overpopulation." That's just absurd. That's just saying Christianity is superior to everything. I can't accept that, and I can't respect that.
Magic shall be written upon the sky by the rain but they shall not be able to read it;
Magic shall be written on the faces of the stony hills but their minds shall not be able to contain it..."
COLOHOLICS ANONYMOUS
Anyways, I was perusing Barnes and Noble yesterday for books on little Joany, and couldn't find a single one. But, I did find a great book on French history and another one on "The Seven Ages of Paris." Good atmosphere, right?
I checked the index of the history, turned to the page involving Joany's time period, and found a wonderful description of Paris of the time.
I checked the index of "The Seven Ages of Paris," turned to the page involving Joany's time period, and found... almost the exact same description. Same descriptive devices, same tropes, same historical material, and only slightly reworded phrasing. Oh, and one of them used French names.
Hmm. Completely different authors with different publishing histories. Different publishing houses. Published 10 years apart. No reference to eachother in any of their extensive bibliographies, and no acknowledgement in the prologue/afterword/thanks/acknowledgements/dedication.
Iiiinteresting.