"But it's just FICTION!..."

[Belle10]

Just out of curiosity (because I don’t believe Jesus married Mary Magdalene), why would the fact that he was married defile his holiness? Married people can’t be holy? I don’t see the connection y ou are making.

Hi boppaid, I’m Belle

I wasn’t suggesting that married people can’t be holy, because in fact, married people are called to be holy within the sacrament of marriage. The point I was trying to make was that The DaVinci Code’s assertion that Jesus married Mary Magdalene is offensive to many Catholics (me included) because we know He was not, that He remained celibate, thus setting the example for the clergy who would follow in His footsteps as shepherds of His flock.

To suggest that Jesus was married and fathered human children is scandalous and against what the Church teaches. I believe that for Catholics to accept this idea, whether intellectually or simply for “entertainment,” is wrong. You can’t pick and choose which parts of the Catholic Church you like – it’s all or nothing (hopefully all! ).

Does that explain it better? Sorry, sometimes I’m not very clear.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Your personal opionion aside, the notion that we humans have NO responsibility to protect each other from that which others cannot protect themselves is neither biblical, nor in line with Church teaching, which reduces its relevancy in this context.

But who are you to tell me what I cannot read? That’s where the slippery slope begins.

 

[He_Man]

But who are you to tell me what I cannot read? That’s where the slippery slope begins.

I said you would be a fool to read it. I didn’t say you can’t read it.

You can despair and hope for Hell too. That doesn’t mean I’d advise it or pray for it.

You can go out tonight and murder a loved one. Again, that is your choise, but that doesn’t make it correct.

Just because you do it and deem it harmless doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t.

 

[historybrat]

You can replace fiction with nuclear weapons, child pornography, and alcohol for an alchoholic. I doubt you’ll get many supporters on any of those three.You are arguing that the problem is with humans, not human creations. The Church teaches though we have a responsibility to protect ourselves and others FROM the world. Why would they do this if the problems were all internal ones?

Just because there is not a lot of support for a particular opinion doesn’t mean it can’t be right. I seem to remember that while Jesus had quite a few supporters while he was here on earth, by no stretch did he have a majority, doesn’t meant he was right. Weapons in and of themselves are not evil or good, its how we use them. The same argument goes with alcohol, regardless of who its for, has no moral value in and of itself. Child pornography involves the direct use of people so its not even in the same category.

But to get back on topic. Yes we have problems. Yes we are told to protect ourselves and others. I think the best way to do this is to educate ourselves and others so we will not be swayed by fiction. If a piece of fiction could damage you then don’t read it. God’s greatest gift besides his son, was giving us free will. If your worried your faith/morals aren’t strong enough then exercise your free will and just say no.

If you truly want to protect yourself and others you need to know whats out there. The only way to do this is to read. Once you’ve read then post a logical, reasoned out argument against the book (or whatever).Like I said before that doesn’t bother me, its people who haven’t read or have only skimmed and then feel the need to tell me what I can/should or cannot/shouldn’t read. A lot of the times we are trying to take the responsibility off of ourselves, by blaming outside sources. I’m an adult, I know right from wrong, I know what I can and cannot read and still stay strong in my faith/morals, I believe that most people out there are in the same boat. For those that aren’t I work on helping them educate themselves.

Historybrat

 

[TomPiltoff]

I said you would be a fool to read it. I didn’t say you can’t read it.

You can despair and hope for Hell too. That doesn’t mean I’d advise it or pray for it.

You can go out tonight and murder a loved one. Again, that is your choise, but that doesn’t make it correct.

Just because you do it and deem it harmless doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t.

But you need to draw a line. Going out and murdering somebody factually harms others, obviously.

Books can only convey ideas, and you can’t block the flow of ideas.

 

[He_Man]

But you need to draw a line. Going out and murdering somebody factually harms others, obviously.

Books can only convey ideas, and you can’t block the flow of ideas.

Says who?? Now you are arbitrarily drawing the line where you see fit.

Whether you ackowledge it or not, disparaging God or leading others away from God hurts people (moreso than even physical death) and even wrose, hurts God. Just because people don’t ackowledge God doesn’t change anything.

By your logic, pornopgraphy is just fiction. Fiction that depicts people in my family in graphically sexual positions is fine, since it is only an idea. Fiction that describes different ways to murder someone is okay, since it is only fiction.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Says who?? Now you are arbitrarily drawing the line where you see fit.

Says who? Basically says the Constitution of the United States.

Whether you ackowledge it or not, disparaging God or leading others away from God hurts people (moreso than even physical death) and even wrose, hurts God. Just because people don’t ackowledge God doesn’t change anything.

But that is your OPINION based on a PERSONAL FAITH you have.

Before you can counter with ‘well what if murder was OK in my opinion?’ let me say that certain things can be agreed upon almost universally that cause harm, such as murder.

If I (an atheist, for the record) want to read a book about how to worship Satan, who are you to tell me that I cannot have access to that material because YOU believe it will hurt me?

By your logic, pornopgraphy is just fiction. Fiction that depicts people in my family in graphically sexual positions is fine, since it is only an idea. Fiction that describes different ways to murder someone is okay, since it is only fiction.

In a roundabout way I suppose you could classify pornography as fiction and I also have no problem with pornography.

Nobody ever died because a person wanted to look at graphic pictures while masturbating.

 

[deb1]

I think that we are missing the OP’s point. She/he(sorry) is merely saying that it is foolish to discount the fact that fiction does influence us. But the OP is not calling for anything to be banned.

 

[He_Man]

If you are going to simply fall back on the law, then I suppose you were okay with slavery up until the 1860s as well? What does the law have to do with anything so far as whether or not it is morally correct? If you want to argue whether or not it is legal, then yes, I agree, as does anyone who can read the text of a law. Whoopty doo.

Again, you may not recognize the damage from things like pornography, but it is there, and it is far worse than mortal death. One person’s refusal to acknolwedge is irrelevant. Young children may not ackowledge that sub-atomic structures exist, but that doesn’t negate their existence.

This is why it is best to avoid theological debates without establishing some sort of cmmon framework. I.e., God exists. Otherwise, it is like trying to teach calculus to someone who can’t count, for either person.

At least you are consistent with your support of pornography, unlike some posters on here whose best argument is “well, come on, that’s just different,”, which completely destroys the “it’s just fiction argument.”

 

[He_Man]

I think that we are missing the OP’s point. She/he(sorry) is merely saying that it is foolish to discount the fact that fiction does influence us. But the OP is not calling for anything to be banned.

I agree, no one is arguing the legality. As soon as the notion of whether or not it is healthy arises however, people jump on the “you have no right to ban this!” bandwagon. The two are very different.

I’s like debating feeding your children nothing but sugar. Is it legal? Sure. Is it a good idea? No.

 

[TomPiltoff]

If you are going to simply fall back on the law, then I suppose you were okay with slavery up until the 1860s as well? What does the law have to do with anything so far as whether or not it is morally correct? If you want to argue whether or not it is legal, then yes, I agree, as does anyone who can read the text of a law. Whoopty doo.

sigh

Morality is not universal. You and I are very different people, but there are certain truths we agree with. Murder, stealing, things of that nature. Things that interfere with lives.

But when you begin to say ‘this is immoral, so it shouldn’t be read’, you’re inevitably restricting freedom of choice. Not a good thing.

Again, you may not recognize the damage from things like pornography, but it is there, and it is far worse than mortal death. One person’s refusal to acknolwedge is irrelevant. Young children may not ackowledge that sub-atomic structures exist, but that doesn’t negate their existence.

No, pornography is not harmful in the hands of a mature adult.

At least you are consistent with your support of pornography, unlike some posters on here whose best argument is “well, come on, that’s just different,”, which completely destroys the “it’s just fiction argument.”

In some issues, it is different. In another thread somebody tried to equate allowing their children to read Harry Potter with giving their kids pornography. Obviously different.

 

[He_Man]

sigh

Morality is not universal. You and I are very different people, but there are certain truths we agree with. Murder, stealing, things of that nature. Things that interfere with lives.

But when you begin to say ‘this is immoral, so it shouldn’t be read’, you’re inevitably restricting freedom of choice. Not a good thing.

.

I’ll talk restriction of choice over an eternity separated from God any time.

But since you are an Atheist, and I, a Catholic, why are we even discussing this? It’s a waste of time; we have no common ground. We are getting way ahead of ourselves discussing the morality of certain fiction when we cannot even agree on whether or not God exists. That is where the discussion needs to be.

That, and I am headed to the gym

Back later.

 

[He_Man]

sigh

No, pornography is not harmful in the hands of a mature adult.

.

What?!? Where did you get that nugget? Either you are making that up, or you don’t know much about pornography then. Type “effects of porn” on google and see what comes up.

Or look up the drug abuse, suicide, and general upheaval present in the lives of former porn actresses. Or read their interviews. The viewer is only one casuality.

Or check out any number of sites that touch on the effects, one of which is: trueknights.org

 

[edwest2]

As a writer, I engage in self-censorship, as do non-writer Catholics who hold to Church teachings on morality and holiness. The Bible tells all Christians to be holy in all we do.

That’s the starting point for all discussions on a Catholic forum.

To put it another way, I am against “what’s-the-big-deal-ism” “who-knows-ism” “maybe-ism” and “who can-say-ism”

As a Catholic, I live in a very defined, black and white world. It’s a narrow path to salvation and American culture is currently on the wide path to destruction.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Joe_5859]

And why is that? Because I, as an atheist, am less of a moral person than you?

Sorry for the misunderstanding! I definitely did not mean to imply that in any way! I certainly believe that my faith helps me to be a more moral person, but I would never call anyone less moral than me. I don’t even know you!

I can understand why you wouldn’t like The DaVinci Code, but being vocal about it is one thing. Actually believing it shouldn’t be available is another.

It seems that there are several issues cropping up here that really need to be addressed separately.

I don’t think anyone here is promoting book banning. I can definitely see that being a slippery slope if we started that practice. Ideally, it would be nice if the culture was such that books like “The DaVinci Code”, even if published, wouldn’t sell because no one would be interested in it. I don’t anticipate that happening anytime soon (if ever).

We can organize a boycott of materials we find offensive (which is far different from banning it). I’m not sure such efforts always achieve the desired outcome as it just tends to generate publicity for the work in question, but anyone should have a right to do that if they please.

We can criticize the work in question, bringing attention to the problems and trying to educate people about them. Saying “You shouldn’t read this, it’s harmful” is far different from trying to coerce someone into not reading the book. I don’t think anyone on this thread has suggested coercion and I haven’t come across anyone who seriously argued for that. We all have free will and can certainly exercise it the way we see fit. I like the “feeding your kids candy” analogy that someone else used. Someone certainly can do it, but it probably wouldn’t be wise. In the end, I have no control over other people’s actions.

In a lot of ways, popular fiction today has become primarily about entertainment and selling products. (I don’t think it’s always been that way, but I’d have to research it a little to say for sure.) But even so, I think it is still very influential.

I forget who said it (Chesterton, maybe?), but someone once said that the story-tellers define the culture. I think that’s true in a lot of ways. Of course, it doesn’t mean that we don’t use our brains or that fiction will move us to act in ways against our free will. I have never believed that listening to that song or playing this video game will somehow make someone kill themselves or something. It can be a factor, but ultimately we are responsible for our own actions.

I feel like I’m being very disjointed and convoluted here. Hopefully not!

 

[deb1]

But when you begin to say ‘this is immoral, so it shouldn’t be read’, you’re inevitably restricting freedom of choice. Not a good thing.

.

Saying something should not be read is not restricting your freedom of choice. If I had an atheist friend who told me that I shouldn’t read the bible, I still have the freedom to ignore my friend. I might get annoyed or angry if my friend told me that the bible is immoral but his or her words don’t restrict my freedom in any way.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Saying something should not be read is not restricting your freedom of choice. If I had an atheist friend who told me that I shouldn’t read the bible, I still have the freedom to ignore my friend. I might get annoyed or angry if my friend told me that the bible is immoral but his or her words don’t restrict my freedom in any way.

Yes, of course.

I meant in terms of saying ‘The DaVinci Code is garbage! We demand it be pulled from the shelves!’