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?
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.
joolsveer wrote: » If the offence is not against the deity how can it be blasphemy?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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).
Onesimus wrote: » Well lets put it this way. If someone depicted your Mother in an Unorthodox manner wouldnt you be offended?
joolsveer wrote: » My mother is a real person, whereas the BVM is imaginary, so I would be against abuse of my mother.
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?
Onesimus wrote: » If that is the case for you then why bother coming in to get an answer to this question?:
gimmebroadband wrote: » Like the 'artist', to provoke a reaction! :eek:
joolsveer wrote: » I was exposed to all sorts of icons and statues
hotmail.com wrote: » The bible mentions Mary 3 times.
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.
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!"
Onesimus wrote: » Probably the case yes.
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.:):)
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*
