|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Aren't the gods big enough to be able to deal with name calling?
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Blasphemy laws are used to guarantee the freedom of minorities to practice their beliefs.
I'm not sure which country you're in. But, as mentioned, the last application of blasphemy laws in the UK was in the 70s, when the editors of a gay magazine were prosecuted for publishing a poem about Jesus having sex with a Roman soldier on the cross.
I'm confused. Is this, from March of 2010, not an example of the application of an anti-blasphemy law? (another article on the same story)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Well, that wasn't an anti-blasphemy law per se. The guy was charged under some "public order" thingie that outlaws “religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress”.
I was aware of the Liverpool case when I wrote my post, but I wasn't sure if the law used had specified anti-religious offenses, or if it was just a general prohibition against disruptive behaviour, that the prosecutors were interpreting to include insulting religion. Since it was the former, then yes, you could agree, with the article, that it's a "backdoor" blasphemy law.
I suppose that the writers of that law were trying to make it more palatable to liberal sensibilities, by dressing it up in a utilitarian concern about social harm, rather than just the hoary old blasphemy charge.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Freddy: If we chase the angels away by our thoughts and actions then we are left with their opposites.
I prefer to believe that the angels stay with us exactly when we think or do bad things.
You are actually right about that, according to what i have been taught.
The angels, and God, are more present when we are struggling or taking the wrong path.
The issue is not their actual presence or absence. It is our openness to them and our willingness to be influenced by them.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But if blasphemy is as portentous as that, we should have a precise definition so we know what to avoid. Muslimists, for instance, were quick to call blasphemous a Danish cartoon satirizing the promise of virgins in the afterlife to suicide bombers. Do you agree?
I have what I consider to be excellent and reliable definitions of blasphemy. But they are not any different than what the average person understands. Mocking what is holy is an easy enough concept.
The issue isn't identifying blasphemy. The issue is that there is no cultural unity behind the idea of serious sanctions.
And this is probably not a bad thing, because Christianity understands blasphemy to be primarily a condition of the mind and heart, and only secondarily a matter of words or actions.
Therefore the concepts of religious liberty and freedom of speech trump any serious consideration of literal prohibitions, except in certain circumstances.
Westerners mostly consider the reaction to the Danish cartoons, as offensive as they were, to be hard to empathize with.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, that wasn't an anti-blasphemy law per se. The guy was charged under some "public order" thingie that outlaws “religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress”.
I was aware of the Liverpool case when I wrote my post, but I wasn't sure if the law used had specified anti-religious offenses, or if it was just a general prohibition against disruptive behaviour, that the prosecutors were interpreting to include insulting religion. Since it was the former, then yes, you could agree, with the article, that it's a "backdoor" blasphemy law.
I suppose that the writers of that law were trying to make it more palatable to liberal sensibilities, by dressing it up in a utilitarian concern about social harm, rather than just the hoary old blasphemy charge.
So, in short, it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and tastes like a duck. As you have pointed out, it's the religious majority using the law to punish someone in a religious minority.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, that wasn't an anti-blasphemy law per se. The guy was charged under some "public order" thingie that outlaws “religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress”.
I was aware of the Liverpool case when I wrote my post, but I wasn't sure if the law used had specified anti-religious offenses, or if it was just a general prohibition against disruptive behaviour, that the prosecutors were interpreting to include insulting religion. Since it was the former, then yes, you could agree, with the article, that it's a "backdoor" blasphemy law.
I suppose that the writers of that law were trying to make it more palatable to liberal sensibilities, by dressing it up in a utilitarian concern about social harm, rather than just the hoary old blasphemy charge.
So, in short, it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and tastes like a duck. As you have pointed out, it's the religious majority using the law to punish someone in a religious minority.
Right. Though with these new-fangled laws, the protected "religious majority" seems to be "people who hold to, or at least respect, religious belief". As opposed to the old laws' privileged caste being "Christians, and actually we only really care about Anglicans".
Either way, yes, the consensus forcing its will upon the dissent.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The fact that it's untrue doesn't make it better. It makes it worse: people are demonstrating their ability to say things that are untrue without correction.
Without correction by whom? Tons of people have corrected the whole "Kenyan Obama" thing.
If the first person to try to correct it actually corrected it, then why did anybody else need to correct it?
There are lots of liberal blogs on which a public figure can be pilloried should they say anything about birtherism. But if the 'mainstream' media is still covering birtherism as if it's one point of view about which they should maintain neutrality, then it's not successfully corrected in the 'mainstream' media. And if Fox News are letting it slide, it's not successfully corrected there.
If a black woman drives under a sign saying, 'Vote for the Mormon not the Muslim,' on her way to work every day, it's not of much comfort to her to know that it's ridiculed on the liberal blogosphere. She doesn't work in the liberal blogosphere. What the sign is saying to her is, 'you do not belong here'.
quote:
I guess what you're objecting to is the lack of corrective action in the form of legal penalties by the state.
I usually find that reading for comprehension helps reduce the number of inaccurate guesses.
From my second post on this thread:
quote:
Whatever's going on on the surface, insults to religion are basically saying to religious believers, 'I can say what I like about you and you can't stop me'. Legally, of course, that should be ok. The ethics depend entirely upon the relative power relations between the two groups.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But it is not that God becomes angry and retaliates. Rather, blasphemy is inherently harmful. It is more potent and deadly than the average disbeliever can appreciate. It serves to remove the protection of angels and expose the blasphemer to the malignant influence of hell.
"It serves to remove the protection of the angels"
Which Is effectively the same as God becomes angry and retaliates.
Yes, in the same sense that jumping off of buildings angers God and causes Him to smash you to the ground in a fury.
Survival in life, in both a spiritual and natural sense, is a matter of understanding and living within its imperatives and the laws that govern them.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Any society has to regulate behaviour and establish norms. The question is where this happens. If it doesn't happen through national legislation, how do you do it?
Has to? I'm not sure very many share your horror at the idea of people's behavior going unregulated or having the freedom to express unapproved thoughts. Do you see any room for unregulated behavior or abnormal ideas in society, or is it totalitarianism all the way?
A very odd argument. Our society already regulates norms and behaviour without being totalitarian. Do you have an alternative to anarchy?
No our society doesn't; it regulates excesses which is looking at it from 180 degrees in the opposite direction from regulated norms. The basic principle of freedoms in the UK is that you can do whatever you like unless there is a law which says you can't. It could be argued that the absence of a written constitution actually places these freedoms on a higher plane; they exist as innate freedoms, not rights that are in some way dependent on an external document.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Freddy,
The difference is God does not add or remove gravitational effect depending upon ones belief in, or respect for those effects.
From your depiction, whether God harms you or steps out of the way to allows you to be harmed is irrelevant. The intent is the same; to punish you for calling him nasty names.
[ 05. December 2012, 14:26: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
From your depiction, whether God harms you or steps out of the way to allows you to be harmed is irrelevant. The intent is the same; to punish you for calling him nasty names.
If you angrily and contemptuously tell people to go away, what do they do if they are courteous?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Sorry, Alogon, you cannot attribute human interaction modes to the God Christians claim to worship.
But blasphemy is not telling a god to go away. It is insulting god. Truly, more insulting followers by intent.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
But then, what does it matter for me? According to many followers of your God, I am condemned to hell regardless, no matter how polite and good I may be.
( and I am ever so good. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) I rescue kittens and orphans. Though it can be confusing. I know one finds good homes for both, but which does one spay or neuter? To be safe, I have that done as a blanket policy, but I am fairly certain it is not necessary for one of the groups.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sorry, Alogon, you cannot attribute human interaction modes to the God Christians claim to worship.
Why can't I? Actually, they're personal interaction modes. Judeo-Christian believers have described God as personal for ages.
quote:
But blasphemy is not telling a god to go away. It is insulting god. Truly, more insulting followers by intent.
Do blasphemers believe in the god they are insulting, or not? I'm trying to get my head around how someone can simultaneously (1) disbelieve in a god's existence or power, and (2) be miffed because the god they don't believe in has left them unprotected from other spirits they probably don't believe in, either.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I'm trying to get my head around how someone can simultaneously (1) disbelieve in a god's existence or power, and (2) be miffed because the god they don't believe in has left them unprotected from other spirits they probably don't believe in, either.
You don't know anybody who believes contradictory things before breakfast? Seems to me there are a hell of a lot of atheists who are mad at God.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Do blasphemers believe in the god they are insulting, or not?
Some do, some don't. It depends on the type of blasphemy involved. For instance, I've known Christians who believe in the existance of non-Christian deities, they just believe that these "deities" are actually agents of Satan trying to lead the faithful astray.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But then, what does it matter for me? According to many followers of your God, I am condemned to hell regardless, no matter how polite and good I may be.
Yes, but then we aren't claiming that God operates on Karmic principles.
Hell, whatever it is, doesn't exist because the people there will have rescued too few stray cats or refused to help the requisite number of old ladies across the road. Depravity, sin, fallen nature, whatever you want to call it, this is what condemns us. And they only saving difference between a kind and generous atheist and a less kind and generous Christian is that the latter has been pardoned because of all that stuff that happened on the cross.
It might sound like cods-wallop to you, but surely you have been around here long enough to understand the distinction between the notion of earning redemption yourself and receiving a gift you could never hope to gain otherwise?
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Alogon,
What I am saying is this:
All-loving God = / = You will BURN IN HELL for hurting My feelings.
And my posts are not about being miffed at anyone. Just highlighting a logical inconsistency.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
It might sound like cods-wallop to you, but surely you have been around here long enough to understand the distinction between the notion of earning redemption yourself and receiving a gift you could never hope to gain otherwise?
Understood that longer than I have been here. Just, as mentioned, see it as an inconsistency. And, if true, see the Christian God as no better than the emotionally stunted, immature Zeus or the backstabbing, vindictive Odin.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Freddy,
The difference is God does not add or remove gravitational effect depending upon ones belief in, or respect for those effects.
From your depiction, whether God harms you or steps out of the way to allows you to be harmed is irrelevant. The intent is the same; to punish you for calling him nasty names.
No, it is exactly the same.
God doesn't remove angels, nor do they leave of their own accord. No one punishes you for the nasty names, nor does God wish this.
It is we who remove ourselves from the angels just as it would be we who, heedless of gravity, launched ourselves from the building top. The only difference is that we would have to be fantastically stupid to ignore gravity, whereas ignoring spiritual reality is more a matter of not believing what we are told.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Birdseye
I can see my house from here!
# 5280
|
Posted
Blasphemy can't denigrate God, but I think blasphemy potentially injures the user and other people's relationship to God... it's funny how often people who routinely say 'Oh God' in thoughtless irritation or disgust blush when they find themselves having done so in front of someone in a dog-collar...
... I don't find it in the least bit offensive... but I do feel embarrassed for them because they have unintentionally called upon the Almighty to witness some triviality, and suddenly they feel rather foolish.
I DO wince inwardly when someone angrily yells 'Christ!' But then I wince inwardly when anyone lashes out in real anger. Perhaps it is because I know that their verbal punches are actually hitting an unseen mark... even if they are too shortsighted to see who they are striking.
--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view
Posts: 1615 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Any society has to regulate behaviour and establish norms. The question is where this happens. If it doesn't happen through national legislation, how do you do it?
Has to? I'm not sure very many share your horror at the idea of people's behavior going unregulated or having the freedom to express unapproved thoughts. Do you see any room for unregulated behavior or abnormal ideas in society, or is it totalitarianism all the way?
A very odd argument. Our society already regulates norms and behaviour without being totalitarian. Do you have an alternative to anarchy?
No our society doesn't; it regulates excesses which is looking at it from 180 degrees in the opposite direction from regulated norms. The basic principle of freedoms in the UK is that you can do whatever you like unless there is a law which says you can't. It could be argued that the absence of a written constitution actually places these freedoms on a higher plane; they exist as innate freedoms, not rights that are in some way dependent on an external document.
I don't particularly think we are in disagreement here. Legislation is one mechanism (amongst others) for achieving a policy intention. That may be done positively (you positively have the right to redirect your paid tax to a charity) or negatively (you can speak freely until it hits the boundary of offensiveness). I think you make this point rather better than my rather hurried post.
I think the founders of the US constitution would also say that the rights enshrined therein are innate freedoms - a written constitution is just a different way of expressing them. The relative merits of written and unwritten constitutions may make for a thread of their own.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, that wasn't an anti-blasphemy law per se. The guy was charged under some "public order" thingie that outlaws “religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress”.
I was aware of the Liverpool case when I wrote my post, but I wasn't sure if the law used had specified anti-religious offenses, or if it was just a general prohibition against disruptive behaviour, that the prosecutors were interpreting to include insulting religion. Since it was the former, then yes, you could agree, with the article, that it's a "backdoor" blasphemy law.
I suppose that the writers of that law were trying to make it more palatable to liberal sensibilities, by dressing it up in a utilitarian concern about social harm, rather than just the hoary old blasphemy charge.
So, in short, it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and tastes like a duck. As you have pointed out, it's the religious majority using the law to punish someone in a religious minority.
Are you saying that this behaviour should not, on principle, be considered as causing social harm purely on the basis that the harm caused had a religious dimension?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Are you saying that this behaviour should not, on principle, be considered as causing social harm purely on the basis that the harm caused had a religious dimension?
I'd say rather that the harm done by squelching it far outweighs any harm it might cause. Creating a fascist society where people are not free to speak out against authority, versus a couple of lewd pamphlets left in an airport lounge? I can't see how there's even a question as to which is the better option.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I agree with mousethief.
I would ask this question once more.
Why should religion have special protections enshrined in law?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Just to clarify-- I agree with Mousethief and with you as well, as far as the law is concerned.
But I also find what Freddy says plausible regarding inherent dangers of blasphemy to those engaging in it. There's nothing wrong with someone who sees danger warning others. Why shoot the messenger?
And it's not entirely self-centered when members of a loving community lash out against someone who gratuitously insults the community, whether that community is a family, a nation, or a group of co-religionists. It might not be the most mature or effective reaction, but it is natural enough, and perhaps honorable as well.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Just to clarify-- I agree with Mousethief and with you as well, as far as the law is concerned.
But I also find what Freddy says plausible regarding inherent dangers of blasphemy to those engaging in it. There's nothing wrong with someone who sees danger warning others. Why shoot the messenger?
Partly because this is used as an excuse by many to act nastily.
quote:
And it's not entirely self-centered when members of a loving community lash out against someone who gratuitously insults the community, whether that community is a family, a nation, or a group of co-religionists. It might not be the most mature or effective reaction, but it is natural enough, and perhaps honorable as well.
Natural enough. Not honorable to people who claim to follow the man who said if someone hits you on one cheek, turn the other. I can see how you might, in light of that command, justify speaking up against insults to your faith. But lashing out? No.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But I also find what Freddy says plausible regarding inherent dangers of blasphemy to those engaging in it. There's nothing wrong with someone who sees danger warning others. Why shoot the messenger?
There's a ton of question begging there. Let's posit a purely hypothetical group called "Jews", who have for centuries blasphemously denied the divinity of Jesus. Is it a good idea to target them with warnings of the truly horrible things that will happen to them if they don't convert? On the other hand, this purely hypothetical group might counter that elevating a human to divine status is blasphemy and likely to draw the ire of the One True God™, warning Christians to abandon their blasphemous ways before it's too late.
So how does one tell which group is being blasphemous here? Is it simply the standard of who gets offended first? Who gets the most offended? In numbers or intensity? What's the standard?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Freddy,
The difference is God does not add or remove gravitational effect depending upon ones belief in, or respect for those effects.
From your depiction, whether God harms you or steps out of the way to allows you to be harmed is irrelevant. The intent is the same; to punish you for calling him nasty names.
No, it is exactly the same.
God doesn't remove angels, nor do they leave of their own accord. No one punishes you for the nasty names, nor does God wish this.
It is we who remove ourselves from the angels just as it would be we who, heedless of gravity, launched ourselves from the building top. The only difference is that we would have to be fantastically stupid to ignore gravity, whereas ignoring spiritual reality is more a matter of not believing what we are told.
I see it as being (very) roughly analogous to a student taking a series of courses from a capable and well-meaning professor. If the student rejects what the professor teaches and ridicules her teaching methods in the first course, only to find himself unprepared for the follow-on course, he may well decide that the professor is punishing him when in fact punishment has nothing to do with it, particularly if the student decides that the professor could just give him a passing grade if she wanted. And any prior warnings from the professor might sound to the student like threats of future punishment. (Note that I did say it's a rough analogy.)
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So how does one tell which group is being blasphemous here?
I see no reason to consider what either group is doing as blasphemous. And no, it isn't a good idea take on the role of warning people about horrible consequences of a sincerely and innocently held belief. Blasphemy is not about being mistaken, it's about knowing what's right and/or good and deciding to actively reject it as worthless (at least how I see it).
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I see no reason to consider what either group is doing as blasphemous. And no, it isn't a good idea take on the role of warning people about horrible consequences of a sincerely and innocently held belief. Blasphemy is not about being mistaken, it's about knowing what's right and/or good and deciding to actively reject it as worthless (at least how I see it).
That doesn't seem to match up with Drew's suggested standard of causing offense. Most Christians would be at least moderately offended to be told that they're worshiping a false god.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
I'm not trying to make it match up. I don't think that blasphemy, as to its essence, has anything to do with someone being offended. And it seems clear to me that if someone is offended about a deeply held belief, that does not imply that it must be due to blasphemy.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Most Christians would be at least moderately offended to be told that they're worshiping a false god.
I don't know if it matters, but put me down as one who would not be. I know people disagree with me, and I think they're wrong and they think I'm wrong. That isn't offensive, it just is. What is potentially offensive (to me) would be HOW they expressed that opinion. I think adults with relatively normal mental health and intelligence should be able to say, "You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong, let's go have a beer."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Mousethief, I dearly wish that were the reaction much more often than it is.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Freddy: quote:
It is we who remove ourselves from the angels
You've been making statements like this quite firmly all through this thread, and they intrigue me. Could you explain why you believe that blasphemy cuts us off from the angels? You seem to know a lot more about angelic behaviour than I do, and I'd like to be enlightened.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Understood that longer than I have been here. Just, as mentioned, see it as an inconsistency. And, if true, see the Christian God as no better than the emotionally stunted, immature Zeus or the backstabbing, vindictive Odin.
Then I'm not sure what we are talking about. I think it's consistent with mainstream Christian soteriology that God can forgive just about any sin. This might well involve those who blaspheme.
I would have thought that hell isn't reserved for those who did something unforgivable like say nasty things about God. Rather, it's there for people who, for whatever reason, chose not to be forgiven.
The difference is that blasphemy is one sin amongst many sins. (And I'm sure that we could have fun talking about blaspheming against the Spirit.) While hell, whatever this is, is for those who remain in a state of sinfulness, a state that is obviously detestable to God.
Again, you seem to think that God operates on Karmic principles. Enough good and you get a cold star. Too much bad and you get a flaming bag of poo on your doorstep.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Freddy: quote:
It is we who remove ourselves from the angels
You've been making statements like this quite firmly all through this thread, and they intrigue me. Could you explain why you believe that blasphemy cuts us off from the angels? You seem to know a lot more about angelic behaviour than I do, and I'd like to be enlightened.
These are just things that my denomination teaches, from this book. They could be wrong. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But I think that the Bible also makes statements that can be understood this way:
quote:
Psalm 91 Because you have made the Lord, who is my refuge,
Even the Most High, your dwelling place,
10 No evil shall befall you,
Nor shall any plague come near your dwelling;
11 For He shall give His angels charge over you,
To keep you in all your ways.
Clearly this is not true in a literal way, since believers in God are not always literally protected. But the idea that every person is surrounded and protected by angels - and more so if they trust in God - is a common Christian belief.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Again, you seem to think that God operates on Karmic principles. Enough good and you get a cold star. Too much bad and you get a flaming bag of poo on your doorstep.
I am making no claims of how any god operates. I am saying two things on this thread.
1. Many Christians ascribe fundamentally contradictory behaviour to their god.
2. Blasphemy laws are ridiculous.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
I would have thought that hell isn't reserved for those who did something unforgivable like say nasty things about God. Rather, it's there for people who, for whatever reason, chose not to be forgiven.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) How do you "choose" to make someone else forgive you? I'm pretty sure that's not how forgiveness works.
quote:
Now I know I shouldn't have had that three-way with your sister and your best friend, but I've decided that you're going to forgive me. Isn't that wonderful?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Blasphemy laws are ridiculous.
You sum up three pages of posts very well.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
I would have thought that hell isn't reserved for those who did something unforgivable like say nasty things about God. Rather, it's there for people who, for whatever reason, chose not to be forgiven.
How do you "choose" to make someone else forgive you? I'm pretty sure that's not how forgiveness works.
quote:
Now I know I shouldn't have had that three-way with your sister and your best friend, but I've decided that you're going to forgive me. Isn't that wonderful?
Poor wording on my part. I didn't mean to imply that you are making God forgive you. Perhaps I should have said the "conditions for forgiveness". And, yes, I do believe that forgiveness comes with conditions.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Blasphemy laws are ridiculous.
You sum up three pages of posts very well.
I agree. I don't see too many people advocating blasphemy laws, even though that's what most of the posts on this thread seem to be reacting to.
The topic of this thread, though, is not about laws but about blasphemy itself, and whether it is really a "bad thing" or not.
There are plenty of "bad things" that do not fall into the realm of legislation.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's a ton of question begging there. Let's posit a purely hypothetical group called "Jews", who have for centuries blasphemously denied the divinity of Jesus. Is it a good idea to target them with warnings of the truly horrible things that will happen to them if they don't convert? On the other hand, this purely hypothetical group might counter that elevating a human to divine status is blasphemy and likely to draw the ire of the One True God™, warning Christians to abandon their blasphemous ways before it's too late.
This is exactly why I asked Freddy upthread for a more precise definition of blasphemy, and all I could gather from his reply is that he knows it when he sees it. Sorta like pornography, apparently.
Blasphemy must be something more than patiently and charitably discussing a difference of opinion.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree. I don't see too many people advocating blasphemy laws, even though that's what most of the posts on this thread seem to be reacting to.
Really? They're quite popular. Pakistan, Poland, Greece, Egypt, Russia . . . quite the geographically and culturally diverse collection of nations. I'm surprised you haven't heard of any of this.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
This is exactly why I asked Freddy upthread for a more precise definition of blasphemy, and all I could gather from his reply is that he knows it when he sees it. Sorta like pornography, apparently.
Blasphemy must be something more than patiently and charitably discussing a difference of opinion.
I'm not sure there's a distinction for "tone" in determining whether a statement is blasphemous or not. Historically most religions have considered it more a matter of idea content than of whether or not those ideas were expressed "patiently and charitably". Such things are highly subjective anyway. Does the reaction of the recipient matter, or is it the intention of the (potential) blasphemer that should be considered?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Freddy: quote:
the idea that every person is surrounded and protected by angels - and more so if they trust in God - is a common Christian belief.
Agreed; it was the other stuff you said about angels that I was curious about. I'm afraid my knowledge of Swendenborg is only what I've gleaned while studying Blake, so it is patchy at best. Thanks for the link.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The topic of this thread, though, is not about laws but about blasphemy itself, and whether it is really a "bad thing" or not.
It is a bad thing if you blaspheme the one true God which just so happens to be my God, btw. He's too tough to need protecting by laws of mere men.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree. I don't see too many people advocating blasphemy laws, even though that's what most of the posts on this thread seem to be reacting to.
Really? They're quite popular.
Yes, I agree that they are popular. But we shouldn't just follow the crowd. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
What I meant was that I don't see too many people on this thread advocating those laws.
The OP is about whether God should able to stand verbal insults, not whether there should be laws about it.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
What I meant was that I don't see too many people on this thread advocating those laws.
The OP is about whether God should able to stand verbal insults, not whether there should be laws about it.
I recognize the theoretical distinction between personal(even if publically expressed) opposition to blasphemy, and state suppression of blasphemy. But one thing I've been wondering about while following this thread...
To what extent, if any, can the concept of blasphemy be separated from laws against it? I'm not an expert, but it's my impression that, historically, references to blasphemy are almost always connected with efforts at forcefully suppressing it. I'm hard pressed to think of an historical account where someone is said to have been engaged in blasphemy, without the overall context being some sort of legal proceedings against him.
Related to this, it seems to me that the posters arguing "Well, we're just concerned about blasphemy because it estranges people from God" might be understating the antagonistic nature of the accusation. Because skipping mass on Sunday or neglecting to read your Bible might also estrange you(not to mention your family) from God, but as far as I am aware, in liberal democracies those transgressions have never been the subject of legal penalty.
In more poetic terms, I guess you could say that I'm a little skeptical of the image of blasphemy-hunters as emulating the compassionate shepherd valiantly searching for his lost little lamb. I think the proper metaphor might be something more like this.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I see no reason to consider what either group is doing as blasphemous. And no, it isn't a good idea take on the role of warning people about horrible consequences of a sincerely and innocently held belief. Blasphemy is not about being mistaken, it's about knowing what's right and/or good and deciding to actively reject it as worthless (at least how I see it).
That doesn't seem to match up with Drew's suggested standard of causing offense. Most Christians would be at least moderately offended to be told that they're worshiping a false god.
Did I give a standard? What did you think it was? Perhaps I should clarify a little. On principle I don't have a principle with blasphemy laws. The intention behind them is to allow religious people to hold their beliefs freely and to change them freely. But such laws should not (and happily in our country are not) considered in isolation. Government needs to consider if a religiously held view is itself offensive to someone who does not hold it. If I consider, from a religious viewpoint, that I have the right to spit on people with red hair, some third party (Government or judiciary) would need to decide what should be considernqcceptable an unacceptable. One should also consider how protection for religious people, be squared with the right to speak freely and criticise beliefs with which one does not agree. The point at which an offense is caused may well differ subjectively between individuals. But legislation, and it's interpretation by the judiciary, will determine where the line should be drawn for society as a whole.
The issue is further complicated by the difficulty of distinguishing between religion and culture. Whilst for many of us the two are logically distinct and easily distinguishable, for a Hindu or some Muslims, this is less clear.
It really is all something of a minefield. But one of the reasons for blasphemy laws is to recognise how sensitive issues of religion for many people, and making the point that society recognises these sensitivities.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
