A riddle for you....

rozeboosje

Interesting article on the BBC News page...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25874580

First time I have seen a "blasphemy" charge that I would consider to be valid. But please don't get me wrong - the validity is purely at a "technical" level. I have pointed out in the past that it's logically impossible for an Atheist to blaspheme. In order to commit such an act, you must believe that the "god" against which it has been committed is real, and that rules out any Atheist as a possible "blasphemer". But this guy does really believe in the "god" he claims to be a "prophet" for. That said, rest assured that I think the actual charge and the punishment meted out are ludicrous.

But that aside.

Here's one for you to ponder. This guy was quickly accused of and convicted of being a "blasphemer" on the basis of his claim that he was a prophet. Apparently, according to his accusers and the court that convicted him, another guy, a guy named Muhammad who lived around 1400 years ago, was a REAL prophet.

Can someone kindly explain how one makes the distinction?

PopePalpatine

The distinction between this poor man and Mohammad is that the latter had an army, the former doesn't.

rozeboosje

Sounds plausible :-)

kiffer

Magic only existed and miracles only happened in the past before cameras were invented.
This is similar.
Also don't claim to be a prophet until you have a large enough following that you can avoid this... until then you are a Great Teacher or similar... anyone who doesn't know this and goes straight to "I'm the son of God/the next prophet" clearly isn't smart enough to actually be.

rozeboosje

kiffer wrote: »

anyone who doesn't know this and goes straight to "I'm the son of God/the next prophet" clearly isn't smart enough to actually be.

Certainly not. But I know of a few [bleep]s who are making a decent living out of fleecing the gullible...

Nodin

kiffer wrote: »

Magic only existed and miracles only happened in the past before cameras were invented.
This is similar.
Also don't claim to be a prophet until you have a large enough following that you can avoid this... until then you are a Great Teacher or similar... anyone who doesn't know this and goes straight to "I'm the son of God/the next prophet" clearly isn't smart enough to actually be.

This is true. Until the secure compound is established, discretion is the byword.

Mark Hamill

rozeboosje wrote: »

First time I have seen a "blasphemy" charge that I would consider to be valid. But please don't get me wrong - the validity is purely at a "technical" level.

Really? Even at a technical level, how can blasphemy ever be a valid charge? Think about what is going to happen to a blasphemer when they die, according to a believer - that person will go straight to hell because their crime is directly against god. So any earthly punishment is completely redundant, not to mention it takes away the blasphemers chance to ask forgiveness and become a better theist.

rozeboosje

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Really? Even at a technical level, how can blasphemy ever be a valid charge?

Blasphemy is defined as "the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things". Obviously this is an impossibility if you don't believe in "god" things or "sacred" things. But if you DO, then you can conceive of doing something "blasphemous". From an outside perspective - which is obviously what you and I would have to take - it is all equally nonsensical, but from within the framework it makes a weird kind of "sense". But seeing that it can make "sense" to someone who is up to their neck in the bull**** is not the same as agreeing that it does in fact make sense or being able to see the "sense" for oneself. It makes no sense whatsoever TO ME.

Don't think that I'm following anybody THAT far down their particular garden paths.

rozeboosje

Wait I can't say "bull-s-h-i-t" here? LOL. Can I say bullpoop?

Sulla Felix

Of course you can say bullshit, why did you put in the stars like that? :pac:

Anyway, I don't see where you're getting the idea that blasphemy can only be commited by a member of the faith blasphemed?

Turtwig

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Of course you can say bullshit, why did you put in the stars like that? :pac:

Because the f­ucking c­unts censor it.

rozeboosje

Sulla Felix wrote: »

I don't see where you're getting the idea that blasphemy can only be commited by a member of the faith blasphemed?

How could I possibly insult a "god"? I have no idea what a "god" is even supposed to be, let alone whether one exists or not or how to insult whatevertheeffitis....

Obviously some believer could start having a hissy fit and accuse me of "blasphemy", but I certainly have no idea how to go about doing such a thing.

Sulla Felix

rozeboosje wrote: »

How could I possibly insult a "god"? I have no idea what a "god" is even supposed to be, let alone whether one exists or not or how to insult whatevertheeffitis....

Obviously some believer could start having a hissy fit and accuse me of "blasphemy", but I certainly have no idea how to go about doing such a thing.

"Allah is a pedophile-enabling cunt" probably constitutes an insult. Start with that but you know, make it your own.

Besides, we're getting bogged down in a narrow definition here. As far as I'm aware, traditionally, the act of denying divinity or the sacred nature of things was blasphemy.

Just looking at the standard dictionaries, blasphemy is, if you'll forgive the saying, a pretty broad church:
American Heritage,
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.

Collins,
1. (Ecclesiastical Terms) blasphemous behaviour or language
2. (Law) Also called: blasphemous libel law the crime committed if a person insults, offends, or vilifies the deity, Christ, or the Christian religion

Webster,
1. impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.
2. an act of cursing or reviling God.


There's plenty of leeway in there for a non believer to say something that could definitionally be considered blasphemy. Most people would disagree that blasphemy should be a prosecutable crime, but I don't think it's a common arguement to say that it's not an actual thing. I'm one of those perverse people who get pleasure out of it though, so I'm biased.

rozeboosje

Sorry, I don't do "dictionary definitions". At best they give you a rough idea what something actually is. Let's just put it this way: the word "blasphemy" was definitely not invented by an Atheist. ;-)

"There's plenty of leeway in there for a non believer to say something that could definitionally be considered blasphemy."

Didn't I already say: "Obviously some believer could start having a hissy fit and accuse me of 'blasphemy'"? But some believer throwing the accusation at me doesn't make it so.

I couldn't possibly say "Allah is a pedophile-enabling ****" unless I had a clear idea who or what the word "Allah" is actually referring to. From MY perspective the word "Allah" stands for exactly nothing, or at the very least nothing that I would consider comprehensible, so a statement like "Allah is a pedophile-enabling ****" is to me no more intelligible than "Flarble is a blogboggling grompledonk". Like WHAT?

rozeboosje

ok how the heck do I get rid of this censorship nonsense? I can't even quote what somebody said earlier? Darn it, we're all adults here. XD

rozeboosje

Scunthorpe!

rozeboosje

Hm. Looks like the censorship algorithms are a bit cleverer than I thought. Hmmmmmm ... lemme see....

 **** 

rozeboosje

ok that didn't work. ... Hm.

S h i t - let's try that one...

rozeboosje

Nope.

S h

rozeboosje

S♫h

rozeboosje

Oh drat never mind. ****

Mark Hamill

rozeboosje wrote: »

Blasphemy is defined as "the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things". Obviously this is an impossibility if you don't believe in "god" things or "sacred" things. But if you DO, then you can conceive of doing something "blasphemous". From an outside perspective - which is obviously what you and I would have to take - it is all equally nonsensical, but from within the framework it makes a weird kind of "sense". But seeing that it can make "sense" to someone who is up to their neck in the bull**** is not the same as agreeing that it does in fact make sense or being able to see the "sense" for oneself. It makes no sense whatsoever TO ME.

Don't think that I'm following anybody THAT far down their particular garden paths.

You left out the rest of my post though, where I covered blasphemy from the point of a believer:
"Think about what is going to happen to a blasphemer when they die, according to a believer - that person will go straight to hell because their crime is directly against god. So any earthly punishment is completely redundant, not to mention it takes away the blasphemers chance to ask forgiveness and become a better theist. "

Think about it this other way too: how is any sin not sacrilege? If you sin, you are going against god's orders, that would be contemptuous.

Turtwig

You need to open your mind. Be pure of heart. It's only when you really really want the words to be uncensored that they shall appeared uncensored. It's a gradual process that begins with having difficulty in composing a post. Then you realise that in order to truly understand the thread mechanics you must become one with yourself. I'm sorry I cannot show you how. You have to discover this for yourself. But, please, do not fear or be anxious, for we shall morally support you along the way in your quest to swear.

Mark Hamill

rozeboosje wrote: »

Sorry, I don't do "dictionary definitions".

You are going to have a hard time justifying why everyone should go by your personal definition rather than the dictionary definition.

Sulla Felix

rozeboosje wrote: »

Sorry, I don't do "dictionary definitions". At best they give you a rough idea what something actually is. Let's just put it this way: the word "blasphemy" was definitely not invented by an Atheist. ;-)

Ok, we're obviously going to be talking at cross purposes if we can't even agree what we're arguing about. Semantic disputes are only fun if both parties will at least put forward their intended meaning of the word. I've provided several definitions I'm happy with, feel free to provide one that gives us more than "a rough idea" of what blasphemy is.

"There's plenty of leeway in there for a non believer to say something that could definitionally be considered blasphemy."

Didn't I already say: "Obviously some believer could start having a hissy fit and accuse me of 'blasphemy'"? But some believer throwing the accusation at me doesn't make it so.

I couldn't possibly say "Allah is a pedophile-enabling ****" unless I had a clear idea who or what the word "Allah" is actually referring to. From MY perspective the word "Allah" stands for exactly nothing, or at the very least nothing that I would consider comprehensible, so a statement like "Allah is a pedophile-enabling ****" is to me no more intelligible than "Flarble is a blogboggling grompledonk". Like WHAT?

Just because you don't have a personal meaning attached to the word Allah doesn't mean that you can't use it in ways that are insulting or blasphemous to those that do.

Let's ignore the God issue for the moment. I have a Spanish friend, who when she first arrived in Dublin heard the phrase "You're only a bleedin' cunt in a context that lead her to believe that it was a mild, deprecating and jocular phrase relating to someones clumsiness or mild befuddlement, used between intimates and close friends. She then, for a few days, until it was explained to her proceeded to use it in that manner. Some people were insulted by her use of it referring to them, and offended in a general sense about her use of it to others and in referring to herself at times. She didn't have a clear idea of what the word meant, insult and offense still resulted.

As previously said, blasphemy as far as I'm concerned is merely the word we use to describe insulting behaviour toward that set if concepts, people and items that people consider "holy" whether.

We can argue whether they should be insulted, whether their reaction when insulted is proportionate, whether states should enact laws relating to that insult and a host of other things, but I don't think it makes sense to argue that a non-believer cannot blaspheme.

rozeboosje

"Just because you don't have a personal meaning attached to the word Allah doesn't mean that you can't use it in ways that are insulting or blasphemous to those that do."

Er, pardon me? Blasphemy is supposedly an insult to GOD, NOT to "those who have a meaning attached to that word", but to the "god" thing *itself*. So damn right I cannot blaspheme, as the word "god" means nothing to me.

I will repeat: the word "blaspheme" was invented by the religious, and it meant that you're insulting the "god" thing itself. That some of the mealy-mouthed amongst us have since modified its meaning to include "saying something that some religious people find cause to get their knickers in a twist about" is of no concern to me. I use the word in its original meaning, and since I'm the person who brought it up you can bloody well accept that that is how *I* use the word, right here, in THIS thread. In another thread I will be happy to adopt whatever sense the OP has chosen to use a word like that in *there*. But not here. Sorry.

Now let me remind everybody of why I actually posted this thread: I'm interested in finding out how those who are happy to convict a guy like the one in the BBC article of "blasphemy" because he claimed to be a prophet are able to distinguish between how he is not a real prophet and therefore a blasphemer as opposed to good old Mo himself who made the exact same claim 1400 years ago. That's a much more interesting discussion than what the word "blasphemy" actually means.

rozeboosje

"I've provided several definitions I'm happy with, feel free to provide one that gives us more than "a rough idea" of what blasphemy is."

I provided one right from the start. That's the one we're using here.

rozeboosje

Another attempt at the censorship thing...

(**(tihs

Hotblack Desiato

kiffer wrote: »

Also don't claim to be a prophet until you have a large enough following that you can avoid this... until then you are a Great Teacher or similar... anyone who doesn't know this and goes straight to "I'm the son of God/the next prophet" clearly isn't smart enough to actually be.

Mmm yeah. David Icke, I'm looking at you.

Hotblack Desiato

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Think about what is going to happen to a blasphemer when they die, according to a believer - that person will go straight to hell because their crime is directly against god.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkyCrx4DyMk

AstraMonti

Don't go that far away... This happened in Greece, http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2014/01/16/elder-pastitsios-satire-greek-blogger-sentenced-to-10-month-prison-for-insulting-religion/

A group in Facebook ridiculed a "prophet" and he ends up with a sentence!

rozeboosje

ninja900 wrote: »

Mmm yeah. David Icke, I'm looking at you.

People like David Icke have always fascinated me.

On the one hand you could just dismiss them as the loonies that they sound like. But then again, David Icke and people like him build up a following of people who are willing to support him financially and he can actually live off the proceeds of the insanity he peddles.

So is he actually stupid and a lunatic, or is he just someone willing to cynically exploit the gullibility of people and cash in on that, regardless of what it does to his reputation? It wouldn't be my choice of career, and I wouldn't be able to live with the idea that on the back of the insanity that I'm peddling somebody, somewhere, might end up doing something stupid to themselves or, worse, to their kids (look up Lyn Benedetto, for example).

But if you're a callous, psychopathic bar steward who doesn't care WHAT happens to your followers then I can see how this kind of a "career" can seem attractive even if you're not actually insane enough to buy into the bullpoop that you're selling yourself ....

rozeboosje

AstraMonti wrote: »

This happened in Greece

Ugh. That's what happens when we allow religion-specific notions such as "blasphemy" to be generalised out into something that would be applicable even to people outside the religion itself. It makes no sense.

There are already laws out there that should cover anti-social behaviour toward religious people. These are the same laws that cover anti-social behaviour toward ANYONE.

There are laws against inciting hatred, there are laws against harassment, there are laws against defamation, there are laws against trespassing, there are laws against causing public disturbances, etc, etc, etc. If somebody makes enough of a nuisance of him- or herself while confronting a religion they will undoubtedly cross the line on one or more of these laws and legal action can be taken on that basis. There is no need to invoke yet another, special law JUST for the protection of the feelings of the religious among us.

Doctor Strange

Shit fuck cunt

Anything else?

rozeboosje

HOW *sob* U DO DAT?!?!?!

rozeboosje

s᠎᠎hit

rozeboosje

==strutting==