Bob Cratchet wrote: » Mary, the mother of Jesus is a peaceful an inoffensive figure, as I'm sure so is your own mother.
Ellis Dee wrote: » 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.
philologos wrote: » 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.
Ellis Dee wrote: » It works for me. I still have control of my own mind.:)
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.
Bob Cratchet wrote: » Well it hasn't worked for at least 2500 years.
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:
gimmebroadband wrote: » Well first it starts off as sattire and when that's not enough........
gimmebroadband wrote: » I will defend my right to believe in God and to practice my faith!
gimmebroadband wrote: » I don't think anyone is 'entitled' to make fun of anyone's belief or unbelief, live and let live!
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:
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.
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.
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.
Lapin wrote: » Anyone know where and when this art exhibition is taking place?
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.
joolsveer wrote: » My mother is a real person, whereas the BVM is imaginary, so I would be against abuse of my mother.
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..
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.
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.
PDN wrote: » I'm pretty sure that isn't the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.
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.
Morbert wrote: » 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).
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*
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.:):)
