Blasphemy?

joolsveer

I am listening to the Joe Duffy show and there is a discussion arising from an art exhibition. I am not sure where the exhibition is being held. There seems to a protest about some depiction of the Virgin Mary and some say it is blasphemous. I am not religious but was raised as a Roman Catholic. I find it hard to believe that it is possible to commit blasphemy against the Virgin Mary. I thought Christianity was monotheistic (allowing for the Trinity). If the offence is not against the deity how can it be blasphemy?

hotmail.com

joolsveer wrote: »

I am listening to the Joe Duffy show and there is a discussion arising from an art exhibition. I am not sure where the exhibition is being held. There seems to a protest about some depiction of the Virgin Mary and some say it is blasphemous. I am not religious but was raised as a Roman Catholic. I find it hard to believe that it is possible to commit blasphemy against the Virgin Mary. I thought Christianity was monotheistic (allowing for the Trinity). If the offence is not against the deity how can it be blasphemy?

Could this OP be more confusing?

Why have you mentioned that you were raised a Catholic anyway? Seems bizarre to mention that.

The bible mentions Mary 3 times.

Fanny Cradock

hotmail.com wrote: »

Could this OP be more confusing?

Why have you mentioned that you were raised a Catholic anyway? Seems bizarre to mention that.

The bible mentions Mary 3 times.

You forgot to open and close your post with the rant tags

[rant][/rant]

Rented Mule

hotmail.com wrote: »

Could this OP be more confusing?

Why have you mentioned that you were raised a Catholic anyway? Seems bizarre to mention that.

The bible mentions Mary 3 times.

I believe that the OP is asking if it is 'blasphemy' if it is not directed at the 'trinity' or 'god'.

Would it be 'blasphemy' if it was directed at other individual else on the Old/New Testament ?

joolsveer

hotmail.com wrote: »

Could this OP be more confusing?

Why have you mentioned that you were raised a Catholic anyway? Seems bizarre to mention that.

The bible mentions Mary 3 times.

Why not mention Catholicism when it implies that I was exposed to all sorts of icons and statues? I don't understand your reference to the bible. It is not an answer to my dilemma.

Zombrex

joolsveer wrote: »

If the offence is not against the deity how can it be blasphemy?

Pretty easily, since blasphemy is not defined as offensive/disrespectful statements about only God, but offensive/disrespectful statements against any revered religious person, place or artifact.

Fanny Cradock

OP, it really depends on how TVM is being depicted. I'm not Catholic but I would imagine you could easily depict her in such a way that causes offence.

johnmcdnl

Blasphemy

1.
a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.


Mary would be considered holy so yes it would be considered blasphemy..

hotmail.com

joolsveer wrote: »

Why not mention Catholicism when it implies that I was exposed to all sorts of icons and statues? I don't understand your reference to the bible. It is not an answer to my dilemma.

The fact that you were raised a Catholic is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Mary was mentioned 3 times in the bible, only 3 times and yet many people believe she's brilliant. I don't get it.

As for the OP, freedom of speech always trumps any idea of blasphemey.

ISAW

hotmail.com wrote: »

The fact that you were raised a Catholic is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Mary was mentioned 3 times in the bible, only 3 times and yet many people believe she's brilliant. I don't get it.

As for the OP, freedom of speech always trumps any idea of blasphemey.

I guess you are not a Catholic then? Mind you Muslims also revere Mary. FYI Mary according to Catholics is the immaculate conception i.e. her mother St Anne underwent parthenogenesis. as such she was born without sin. Do you "get it" now?

As regards the OP. I just heard the end of it. Again I look upon it as part of an atheistic agenda of relativism. One commentator is saying we should say the Rosary and avoid Blasphemy and he is made to look like a crank. another who says she is an atheist is made to look reasonable.

Put it this way suppose an artist makes a set of earrinbgs which are transparent and have human foetuses inside them. Now the atheists says "there is no soul and this is just dead tissue" . But even to someone who does not believe in god this may be offensive. Take another example. Suppose I can create a graphic description of a human being without having to take an image of any human being. suppose I use such software to depict children in sexual acts with or without adults. Now I am not using the image of any living child so since I am not exploiting an existing child am I doing anything wrong? Most people would say such a depiction is child porn. In both cases neither the foetus or the child needs to be a real living being. all that is necessary is for people to idealise the concept.

Now back to the relativism. People who say there is no absolute right or wrong and it all depends on the individual or the society at the time. Certain atheists promote this agenda of no overarching absolute natural law which says some things are always right or always wrong. They will tell you such a think depends on the society of the time. So they would say child porn or insulting a religious icon is acceptable to them if society wants that. And a society without natural law will permit such a thing.

Got it?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

I guess you are not a Catholic then? Mind you Muslims also revere Mary. FYI Mary according to Catholics is the immaculate conception i.e. her mother St Anne underwent parthenogenesis. as such she was born without sin. Do you "get it" now?

As regards the OP. I just heard the end of it. Again I look upon it as part of an atheistic agenda of relativism. One commentator is saying we should say the Rosary and avoid Blasphemy and he is made to look like a crank. another who says she is an atheist is made to look reasonable.

Put it this way suppose an artist makes a set of earrinbgs which are transparent and have human foetuses inside them. Now the atheists says "there is no soul and this is just dead tissue" . But even to someone who does not believe in god this may be offensive. Take another example. Suppose I can create a graphic description of a human being without having to take an image of any human being. suppose I use such software to depict children in sexual acts with or without adults. Now I am not using the image of any living child so since I am not exploiting an existing child am I doing anything wrong? Most people would say such a depiction is child porn. In both cases neither the foetus or the child needs to be a real living being. all that is necessary is for people to idealise the concept.

Now back to the relativism. People who say there is no absolute right or wrong and it all depends on the individual or the society at the time. Certain atheists promote this agenda of no overarching absolute natural law which says some things are always right or always wrong. They will tell you such a think depends on the society of the time. So they would say child porn or insulting a religious icon is acceptable to them if society wants that. And a society without natural law will permit such a thing.

Got it?

The issue is far simpler. Is a secular government obliged to protect the religious sensibilities of people? I don't see why it should be. Though it is obliged to protect children (and it is argued that even artwork is damaging, as it promotes a culture of such crimes).

Manach

This is the legal act in question: - section 36 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf
I believe the state is under an obligation to preserve domestic order, which would be threaten in the case of people knowingly seeking to provoke a violent reaction and thus would over-ride the freedom of expression right (which along with every other right is non-absolute - AFAIR from various Supreme court cases).

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

I guess you are not a Catholic then? Mind you Muslims also revere Mary. FYI Mary according to Catholics is the immaculate conception i.e. her mother St Anne underwent parthenogenesis. as such she was born without sin. Do you "get it" now?

I'm pretty sure that isn't the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.

Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:

The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

This would suggest that the RCC position is that the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's ensoulment (which occurred subsequently to a normal bodily conception involving sperm and ova).

Slav

joolsveer wrote: »

I am listening to the Joe Duffy show and there is a discussion arising from an art exhibition. I am not sure where the exhibition is being held. There seems to a protest about some depiction of the Virgin Mary and some say it is blasphemous. I am not religious but was raised as a Roman Catholic. I find it hard to believe that it is possible to commit blasphemy against the Virgin Mary. I thought Christianity was monotheistic (allowing for the Trinity). If the offence is not against the deity how can it be blasphemy?

Strictly speaking, inappropriate depiction of any human being can be blasphemous. Any human being is an icon of God and making a bad caricature out of an icon can be seen as blasphemy against God. However, in day to day life this is rarely taken into consideration because our sins normally prevent us to see God's image in people around us unless it's about someone "holy". This is especially true about Catholics reacting to attacks on the Virgin Mary, as not only she has a very special place in the Church but she's also considered being without 'personal sin' by Roman Catholics - hence it's easer for them to recognise God's image in her.

But in any case blasphemy against a human is seen as blasphemy because at the end it's actually against God.

As a disclaimer, I'm not a Roman Catholic and therefore could be wrong!

Morbert

Manach wrote: »

This is the legal act in question: - section 36 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf
I believe the state is under an obligation to preserve domestic order, which would be threaten in the case of people knowingly seeking to provoke a violent reaction and thus would over-ride the freedom of expression right (which along with every other right is non-absolute - AFAIR from various Supreme court cases).

Such an art exhibition, in the 21st century, should not provoke a violent reaction. If it does, then the fault lies entirely with those committing the violent actions.

Onesimus

joolsveer wrote: »

I am listening to the Joe Duffy show and there is a discussion arising from an art exhibition. I am not sure where the exhibition is being held. There seems to a protest about some depiction of the Virgin Mary and some say it is blasphemous. I am not religious but was raised as a Roman Catholic. I find it hard to believe that it is possible to commit blasphemy against the Virgin Mary. I thought Christianity was monotheistic (allowing for the Trinity). If the offence is not against the deity how can it be blasphemy?

Well lets put it this way. If someone depicted your Mother in an Unorthodox manner wouldnt you be offended?

gimmebroadband

I was listening to the show and it seems that some 'artist' painted the Blessed Mother of God wearing a bikini! I guess the person who did it (in bad taste) wanted to provoke a reaction and got it!

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception means that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin! Our Lady at Lourdes told St. Bernadette to tell the Parish priest that "I am the Immaculate Conception!"

joolsveer

Onesimus wrote: »

Well lets put it this way. If someone depicted your Mother in an Unorthodox manner wouldnt you be offended?

My mother is a real person, whereas the BVM is imaginary, so I would be against abuse of my mother.

Onesimus

joolsveer wrote: »

My mother is a real person, whereas the BVM is imaginary, so I would be against abuse of my mother.

If that is the case for you then why bother coming in to get an answer to this question?:

I find it hard to believe that it is possible to commit blasphemy against the Virgin Mary. I thought Christianity was monotheistic (allowing for the Trinity). If the offence is not against the deity how can it be blasphemy?

gimmebroadband

Onesimus wrote: »

If that is the case for you then why bother coming in to get an answer to this question?:

Like the 'artist', to provoke a reaction! :eek:

Onesimus

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Like the 'artist', to provoke a reaction! :eek:

Probably the case yes.

Bob Cratchet

joolsveer wrote: »

I was exposed to all sorts of icons and statues

What do you mean by this ?

hotmail.com wrote: »

The bible mentions Mary 3 times.

And it never "mentions", as you try to put it, the trinity at all.

joolsveer wrote: »

My mother is a real person, whereas the BVM is imaginary, so I would be against abuse of my mother.

The vast majority of professsional historians of all beliefs and none agree that Jesus existed as a historical person, and therefore, so did his mother.

Ellis Dee

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OP, it really depends on how TVM is being depicted. I'm not Catholic but I would imagine you could easily depict her in such a way that causes offence.

That causes offence to whom? And who is to say that offence (ugliness?) is not entirely in the eye of the beholder? The Virgin Mary is almost certainly a fictional figure, or perhaps based very loosely indeed on events in Palestine nearly 2,000 years ago. Why should anyone be liable for prosecution for making a laugh of the story, just as writing a satirical novel about the exploits of Nebucadnezzar's nymphomaniac sister or his sexual exploits with his youthful cougar aunt will hardly see me in the dock any time soon?:)

The story that a woman had a husband, Joseph, who apparently never got the leg over, and that she then became pregnant by the Holy Ghost (who apparently likewise didn't get the leg over, but just told one of his archangel minions to go and tell the girls she was in the pudding club, without as much as a "by your leave", which in some jurisdictions could be construed as rape) is, to put it mildly, pretty far-fetched.:rolleyes:

Stories like that downright invite ridicule. How, then, can anyone be subject to criminal sanctions by the secular state for having a good belly laugh at the absurdity of them?:)

p.s. I'm out of the jurisdiction at the moment, so the Government can stuff its blasphemy legislation and risk making itself a laughing stock worldwide by seeking to have me extradited. :eek:

Coriolanus

Manach wrote: »

This is the legal act in question: - section 36 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf
I believe the state is under an obligation to preserve domestic order, which would be threaten in the case of people knowingly seeking to provoke a violent reaction and thus would over-ride the freedom of expression right (which along with every other right is non-absolute - AFAIR from various Supreme court cases).

It's not quite cut and dried. The State can only over ride the freedom of expression where it's excercise will provoke violence in a reasonable person. Somebody moved to violence over a picture of a human being in a bikini is not a reasonable person.

Ellis Dee

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I was listening to the show and it seems that some 'artist' painted the Blessed Mother of God wearing a bikini! I guess the person who did it (in bad taste) wanted to provoke a reaction and got it!

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception means that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin! Our Lady at Lourdes told St. Bernadette to tell the Parish priest that "I am the Immaculate Conception!"

Mary was conceived? I thought the story was that she had been put up the spout without any jiggy-jiggy, and that what was conceived was her child.

As for the Lourdes story, are there any reliable sources.

As an unswerving atheist, there's one thing I have to give the Lourdes people, though. They sure know how to spin a bull**** story to generate massive amounts of revenue.:):)

lmaopml

Onesimus wrote: »

Probably the case yes.

It worked too...and they call us sheep. I would no more get violent over somebodies idea of abstract art than I'm likely to engage in the abstract art.

Makes no difference though.

The unswerving atheist has spoken and seen the light, and fears being extradited, or not!.... because they are out of a 'jurisdiction' over their courageous post..bah ha haa

....opinions are like, yeah..... *yawns*

Guitar_Monkey

There's definitely a bit of the aul " oh i'll go wind up those silly Christians, that'll be a laugh !" going on. Grow up lads !

gimmebroadband

And we wind them up by ignoring them!

PDN

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Mary was conceived? I thought the story was that she had been put up the spout without any jiggy-jiggy, and that what was conceived was her child.

As for the Lourdes story, are there any reliable sources.

As an unswerving atheist, there's one thing I have to give the Lourdes people, though. They sure know how to spin a bull**** story to generate massive amounts of revenue.:):)

The problem with poking fun at others on a subject where you are woefully ignorant is that you are the one who ends up looking an ass.

I am not a Catholic, and I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, but even I can see the difference between the Immaculate Conception (Mary being conceived in her mother's womb) and the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb.

Now, I suggest you take a good read of the Forum Charter, because if you continue to troll (ie deliberately inflame and rile the natives) then infractions and bans will fall on you from a great height.

Onesimus

lmaopml wrote: »

It worked too...and they call us sheep. I would no more get violent over somebodies idea of abstract art than I'm likely to engage in the abstract art.

Makes no difference though.

The unswerving atheist has spoken and seen the light, and fears being extradited, or not!.... because they are out of a 'jurisdiction' over their courageous post..bah ha haa

....opinions are like, yeah..... *yawns*

What's wrong with being called sheep? I get it all the time *combing his wooly jumper*

lmaopml

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being called a 'sheep' by a fellow flock member who 'combs' lol...:) - Hey ho!

I'm a pretty black one tbh, I knew this from a long time ago when doubt and cynicism ruled...I had one of those..'dark nights' they speak of..

A 'choice' represented - enrolled! ..... but I have the hard road because of the 'choice' I know I have made, that leap that is everybodies laugh..

Do I care?

No. This is my 'freewill' choice..because quite frankly I 'possess' it...I am the master of my destiny. I make my own choices 'freely'..

Thank God.

Lapin

Anyone know where and when this art exhibition is taking place?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

The issue is far simpler. Is a secular government obliged to protect the religious sensibilities of people?

Yes. An atheistic government which wont protest them and institute a "There is no God and we will work against any who ask us to respect their religious beliefs" regime.

I don't see why it should be.

Every time that happened in history you could count the corpses. Hundreds of millions of them! That's a reason why.

Though it is obliged to protect children (and it is argued that even artwork is damaging, as it promotes a culture of such crimes).

The Church is helping children worldwide. I don't see international atheism helping any of them . Their meetings seem to be more concerned with talk and doing down religions.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that isn't the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.

I stand corrected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

Mary's immaculate conception should not be confused with the Incarnation of her son Jesus Christ; the conception of Jesus is celebrated as the Annunciation to Mary. Catholics do not believe that Mary, herself, was the product of a Virgin Birth from Saint Anne and Saint Joachim.

joolsveer

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

What do you mean by this ?



And it never "mentions", as you try to put it, the trinity at all.



The vast majority of professsional historians of all beliefs and none agree that Jesus existed as a historical person, and therefore, so did his mother.

What I mean is that catholic churches are generally packed with art works and statues of saints, popes etc. as opposed to churches the protestant tradition.

In Protestantism, except Lutheran and Anglican churches, veneration is sometimes considered to amount to the heresy of idolatry, and the related practice of canonization amounts to the heresy of apotheosis. Protestant theology usually denies that any real distinction between veneration and worship can be made, and claims that the practice of veneration distracts the Christian soul from its true object, the worship of God. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin writes that "(t)he distinction of what is called dulia and latria was invented for the very purpose of permitting divine honours to be paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity." Likewise, Islam also condemns any veneration of icons. The Hindu honoring of icons and murtis, often seen as idolatry, may also be looked upon as a kind of veneration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneration_of_Images

joolsveer

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Blasphemy

1.
a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
b. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.


Mary would be considered holy so yes it would be considered blasphemy..

Would an artistic lack of respect for the BVM be considered by the state to be blasphemous and prosecuted?

ISAW

joolsveer wrote: »

My mother is a real person, whereas the BVM is imaginary, so I would be against abuse of my mother.

Already dealt with earlier. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72821282&postcount=10

An image can be abused.

On a related issue . Look up "iconoclasts". IIR the image of Christ was not there in paintings for about two or three centuries. When it arrived it was usually depicted as a lamb beside the cross. the body of Jesus eventually was depicted on the cross fully clothed. Later the current image ( with just a loin cloth) became usual. Im not aware of a naked version of Jesus on the cross ever being culturally acceptable.

gigino

hotmail.com wrote: »

Mary was mentioned 3 times in the bible, only 3 times and yet many people believe she's brilliant. I don't get it.

If Jesus came back he probably would not get it either. He said " This do in remberance of me". He did not say " This do in remberance of Mary". If she was that important, would'nt she be mentioned more than 3 times in the bible ? Also, if people get upset over graven images, would that be why in the bible it says to avoid graven images ? There are other more important things in the world to be worried about, like hunger, disease, over-population, climate change, depletion of natural resources etc.

gimmebroadband

One of Jesus' last words on the Cross was of His Mother, he gave Her to John and us! 'Behold thy Mother!!

Catholics don't worship 'graven' images, and I don't know of any that do! OTOH, people worship money, and they depict graven images!

Brian Cowen was the recipient of some 'interesting' artwork not too long ago, and he didn't like it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cowen_nude_portraits_controversy

gimmebroadband

Lapin wrote: »

Anyone know where and when this art exhibition is taking place?

There's a big exhibition scheduled for 'Judgement Day!'

Ellis Dee

PDN wrote: »

The problem with poking fun at others on a subject where you are woefully ignorant is that you are the one who ends up looking an ass.

That is your opinion, and you have the same right to express it as I have to express mine. Saying that I look like an ass does not prove I am one; it merely proves that you might need to brush up your manners a bit and remain civil when you engage in discourse.

PDN wrote: »

I am not a Catholic, and I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, but even I can see the difference between the Immaculate Conception (Mary being conceived in her mother's womb) and the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb.

Why do you feel the need to deny that you are Catholic? What does it matter whether you are or not? The point I was making is that no one can really see the difference between those two events, because there is no proof at all that either ever happened.

PDN wrote: »

Now, I suggest you take a good read of the Forum Charter, because if you continue to troll (ie deliberately inflame and rile the natives) then infractions and bans will fall on you from a great height.

Yes, I'll read them in detail. However, I would like to point out that I was not trolling (assuming we both have the same understanding of that term). Rather than setting out to inflame and rile other users (and I question your rather patronising use of the word "natives" to describe them), I was expressing my sincerely held and very passionate opposition to anti-blasphemy laws of every kind - everywhere in the world. One of the ways of doing that is to make fun of beliefs that no rational person could possibly take seriously.

If you use and/or abuse power, it only proves that you have it, but it does not make your own arguments stronger or any more valid. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

gimmebroadband

Ellis Dee wrote: »

That is your opinion, and you have the same right to express it as I have to express mine. Saying that I look like an ass does not prove I am one; it merely proves that you might need to brush up your manners a bit and remain civil when you engage in discourse.



Why do you feel the need to deny that you are Catholic? What does it matter whether you are or not? The point I was making is that no one can really see the difference between those two events, because there is no proof at all that either ever happened.



Yes, I'll read them in detail. However, I would like to point out that I was not trolling (assuming we both have the same understanding of that term). Rather than setting out to inflame and rile other users (and I question your rather patronising use of the word "natives" to describe them), I was expressing my sincerely held and very passionate opposition to anti-blasphemy laws of every kind - everywhere in the world. One of the ways of doing that is to make fun of beliefs that no rational person could possibly take seriously.

If you use and/or abuse power, it only proves that you have it, but it does not make your own arguments stronger or any more valid. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I don't think anyone is 'entitled' to make fun of anyone's belief or unbelief, live and let live!

Ellis Dee

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I don't think anyone is 'entitled' to make fun of anyone's belief or unbelief, live and let live!

I believe it is everyone's right. Try to make a distinction between persecuting people for their beliefs (which is definitely a no-no) or discriminating against them (likewise to be utterly opposed) and making fun of things that are --- well, funny -- Live and let live has to include allowing people to express whatever religious views they wish, provided they do not try to harness the civil law and force others to act according to their religious precepts, but it also must include not prosecuting or victimising people who express their amusement at those views.

Go to YouTube, for example, and have a look at some of George Carlin's or Bill Maher's stuff. Especially Carlin gave a lot of people a great deal of happiness with his brilliant satire of religion.

gimmebroadband

Well first it starts off as sattire and when that's not enough........

I will defend my right to believe in God and to practice my faith!

Ellis Dee

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Well first it starts off as sattire and when that's not enough........

Nonsense! Satire is one of the most potent weapons there is against irrational beliefs. When one proceeds to use other means, such as discrimination or violence, against religious believers, one has already lost the battle by descending to their level.:rolleyes:

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I will defend my right to believe in God and to practice my faith!

It would probably astonish you to find out how many atheists, including me, would defend you if anyone ever tried to stop you doing those things.;)

Bob Cratchet

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Nonsense! Satire is one of the most potent weapons there is against irrational beliefs. When one proceeds to use other means, such as discrimination or violence, against religious believers, one has already lost the battle by descending to their level.:rolleyes:

Well it hasn't worked for at least 2500 years.
The book of proverbs provides good advice about scoffers and mockers.

If someone has to resort to satire for anything, then they've lost the argument, and deep down they know it, hence the insecurity and then the need to resort to scoffing and mocking.
It's just an ad hominem argument from there on in.

If someone had nothing better to do, it would be quite easy to satirise the Godless and faithless and scoff and mock them.

Ellis Dee

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Well it hasn't worked for at least 2500 years.

It works for me. I still have control of my own mind.:)

philologos

I agree with Ellis Dee to a degree. It is a persons right to be obnoxious, but nobody is obliged to respect it as it is the height of bad manners.

Guitar_Monkey

Ellis Dee...Do you not understand how offensive your comments might be to someone with religious beliefs ? Mockery is a form of descimination. Fair enough....you don't believe. That's your choice, no problem there. Do you not believe in respect ? It would seem not from the way you are conducting yourself in this thread.
As for wether the image itself is blasphemous ? I would say yes. But Christians don't have to go see it, so i don't see why it should bother us. If it was plastered all over billboards etc, then it would be a different story.

Ellis Dee

Guitar_Monkey wrote: »

Ellis Dee...Do you not understand how offensive your comments might be to someone with religious beliefs ? Mockery is a form of descimination. Fair enough....you don't believe. That's your choice, no problem there. Do you not believe in respect ? It would seem not from the way you are conducting yourself in this thread.
As for wether the image itself is blasphemous ? I would say yes. But Christians don't have to go see it, so i don't see why it should bother us. If it was plastered all over billboards etc, then it would be a different story.

As I've said before - and you will notice that I have been careful never to be personally offensive or ad hominen - offence is usually in the eye of the beholder, in the eyes of people who choose to take offence. That is their way of seeking to dominate others. What a cowardly cop-out it is to just scream "offence" or "blasphemy" every time someone says something that ridicules your beliefs!

As for respect, I have always believed that it is something that has to be earned.

I also reject your assertion that mockery is a form of discrimination. I would call it free speech. Sorry if it is not always what you are hoping to hear.

How old are you? Probably not old enough to remember the days when some of Ireland's finest and internationally renowned writers were banned in their home country, usually because self-appointed offence-detectors took it upon themselves to snitch on them to the censors.

Bob Cratchet

Ellis Dee wrote: »

It works for me. I still have control of my own mind.:)

Glad to hear it, so do theists.