Blasphemy

[Hibrandenburg]

Received a private message from another user objecting to my use of the phrase "Jesus Wept" on another thread. My gut instinct was to say GTF but I genuinely don't like to offend people unless they kick off first.

However I do feel my freedom of speech is being infringed upon and why the hell (oops I've probably done it again) should I conform to someone elses beliefs when I personaly consider those beliefs to be humbug?


Thoughts?

[cabbageandribs1875]

was it Doddie :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

was it Doddie :greengrin

Knew he would be the main suspect but no it wasn't.

Won't name the guy because he obviously wanted to keep his objection private and I respect him for that.

[Beefster]

Received a private message from another user objecting to my use of the phrase "Jesus Wept" on another thread. My gut instinct was to say GTF but I genuinely don't like to offend people unless they kick off first.

However I do feel my freedom of speech is being infringed upon and why the hell (oops I've probably done it again) should I conform to someone elses beliefs when I personaly consider those beliefs to be humbug?


Thoughts?

I had one once and I suspect that it was from the same poster as yours. My initial reaction was the same as yours but in the end, I didn't tell them to....

Personally, I think the poster needs to deal with the fact that 'blasphemy' is part of modern language.

[lyonhibs]

Nonsense. I tend to try to avoid using blasphemy, because of my Mum not being a fan. I prefer a good old "awww for ****s sake" or similar, but folk want to stop being so sensitive.

"Jesus wept" is far from the worst as well.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Knew he would be the main suspect but no it wasn't.

Won't name the guy because he obviously wanted to keep his objection private and I respect him for that.


nah, i wasn't suggesting doddie was a 'suspect' i was only jokin due to his occupation :wink:

[cabbageandribs1875]

Knew he would be the main suspect but no it wasn't.

Won't name the guy because he obviously wanted to keep his objection private and I respect him for that.


Knew he would be the main suspect but no it wasn't.

Won't name the guy because he obviously wanted to keep his objection private and I respect him for that.



is .net playing up for you as well :(

[HibsMax]

My thoughts.

If you are in the company of someone you KNOW will be offended by certain language, show some respect and don't use that language.

To me, that does not apply to message boards because then we would all have to talk like robots.

Why is "Jesus Wept" even offensive? If I was being totally blunt then I would say it's not offensive because even though the man most likely lived....son of God? I don't think so. I think it's a story, albeit it a good one. Should I be offended when people tell me that dinosaurs lived on this planet only 6,000 years ago because it goes against my beliefs?

[VickMackie]

Someone in my class at school asked the re teacher of Jesus could have been a t-Rex. Teacher went mental.

Some people need to get a grip.

[Future17]

Think Max has nailed it if you pardon the pun. I don't think many of us would be deliberately offensive towards someone's religion, but that's a common phrase and not insulting to a religious group.

If someone is going to read a public messageboard like this, they should expect to see phrases like this which are in common use.

Having said that, they're as entitled to raise it with you as you are to use the phrase.

[lyonhibs]

Someone in my class at school asked the re teacher of Jesus could have been a t-Rex. Teacher went mental.

Some people need to get a grip.

:rotflmao::rotflmao:

Brilliant.

[HibsMax]

Someone in my class at school asked the re teacher of Jesus could have been a t-Rex. Teacher went mental.

Some people need to get a grip.

If he was I doubt the Romans would have won that match-up. :wink:

[joe breezy]

Blasphemy isn't just a right it's a pre-requisite for a progressive country

Children should be encouraged to blaspheme against all religions

[Jonnyboy]

Knew he would be the main suspect but no it wasn't.

Won't name the guy because he obviously wanted to keep his objection private and I respect him for that.

I suspect I know who it was but won't name them either. Personally I think that person is the one with issues - not the accused blasphemer. To avoid his ire I tend to use the word Jeezo instead :greengrin

[Hibs Class]

There was another poster on here who used to use the expression Jesus wept quite regularly. I forget now who it was, but it struck me as being less about blasphemy and more about trying to take the moral high ground, almost like posting 'me and Jesus, both of us think you're talking pish. How can you respond to that'. I found it odd rather than blasphemous.

[Pretty Boy]

I generally try to avoid deliberately offending people. If I was in the company of someone who I knew found the term 'Jesus wept' offensive then I'd try and stop saying it.

When I was young the local Catholic Priest was a close family friend, and the answers no before anyone asks, and in his company phrases like 'Jesus Christ' or 'for Gods sake' were just a no go. Not that he ever said anything, it just seemed like common sense.

On a public messageboard its a bit more complex imo. The swear filters are in place for language unsuitable for a family board for obvious reasons. However for better or worse certain blasphemous phrases have become part of everyday language. Personally I think the poster who sent you the PM, and I'm fairly sure I know who it was, needs to be a bit less sensitive. If they wish to refrain from blasphemous expressions then that's their choice and right but expecting a whole board to do it for fear or upsetting them is, whilst not necessarily wrong, a bit unrealistic.

[Westie1875]

I had one once and I suspect that it was from the same poster as yours. My initial reaction was the same as yours but in the end, I didn't tell them to....

Personally, I think the poster needs to deal with the fact that 'blasphemy' is part of modern language.

As did I a while ago, can't remember exactly what I posted but agree with most of what is said on this thread. It is unrealistic to expect everyone on a public messageboard to refrain from "taking gods name in vain" which I think is how it was put to me and some folk need to be a bit less sensitive about these things instead of telling off everyone who doesn't hold the same beliefs as them.

[Twa Cairpets]

I find it mildly astonishing that someone thinks it acceptable to piously request someone desists from blasphemy on a public forum.

If it was unecessary and out-of-context abuse for the sake of it (for example, and at the risk of offending any Vikings reading, if I said "I think that Thor was a great big nancy boy bestialist who enjoyed getting all jiggy with Fenrir the wolf") then its unecessary and stupid, but its only offensive if you want to be offended by it.

There have been countless threads on this forum that have contained opinions or stances that are massively more deserving of censure than the rather mild "Jesus wept" from an over-sensitive soul with a desire to be offended.

[CropleyWasGod]

Blasphemy, like many things, is in the eye of the beholder.

I am sure the poster referred to knows that the phrase is a direct quote from the St.John Gospel. It is one of the interpretations of the verse that it signified (to quote that other Bible, Wikipedia)...."The sorrow, sympathy, and compassion Jesus felt for all mankind, and the rage he felt against the tyranny of death over mankind."

Sorrow and rage are two of the emotions that provoke the common use of the expression. If Jesus felt them when he wept, how can it be blasphemous to feel the same?

[hibsbollah]

Aye, ive been a target as well. If i may quote from my book of Kevin 4:5,

And The Poster Is Question Is A Complete Plum, Spake The Lord.

(it wasnt doddie. Hes far too busy polishing up his father ted references to bother about looking all holy) :greengrin

[IndieHibby]

Just to add to the list, this is exactly the same thing that happened to me. I would put money on knowing who it is.

But I won't name them either, for no other reason than I think it's actually against the etiquette ( if not the rules ) of hibs.net

Unlike said use of the phrase in question.

I was actually pretty offended, as TC will remember, that he/she felt it appropriate to 'take me to one side' and request that I conform to his/her religious sensitivities.

If we had been in the pub, or any other public place ( save the Church, say ) would this person do the same?

I doubt it, and if they did I expect they know they'd be told ( politely or otherwise ) to GTF.

I see it as an attempted infringement of freedom and exactly why it is a Good Thing that we no longer live in a theocratic society.

Sorry folks, rant over.

[BroxburnHibee]

Folks, if any of you receive a PM which makes you feel uncomfortable or even harassed then we would like to know about it.

You can report Private Messages in the same way you report posts.

Having said that we respect that private messages are exactly that.

Any naming of individuals on this thread would have to be deleted as others have said - we won't allow it.

Thanks.

[Hibbyradge]

8623

[ginger_rice]

Think Max has nailed it if you pardon the pun. I don't think many of us would be deliberately offensive towards someone's religion, but that's a common phrase and not insulting to a religious group.

If someone is going to read a public messageboard like this, they should expect to see phrases like this which are in common use.

Having said that, they're as entitled to raise it with you as you are to use the phrase.

:faf:

TBH I'm fed up of these religious fanatics ( of all sects) dictating what can and can't be said or posted. Jesus Wept IMHO isn't blasphemy, if you ARE a believer then you accept that Jesus did indeed weep for mankind, so what's the problem, if you are atheist then what does it matter. I'm certain that there are far worse things going on in the World that saying Jesus Wept or Gor Blimey!

[hibsbollah]

I suspect I know who it was but won't name them either. Personally I think that person is the one with issues - not the accused blasphemer. To avoid his ire I tend to use the word Jeezo instead :greengrin

I wonder if 'christ on a bike' (one of my personal favourites) is acceptable? Since the bicycle was invented some 1800 years after the dude's death i think i might be ok...

[Hibbyradge]

I wonder if 'christ on a bike' (one of my personal favourites) is acceptable? Since the bicycle was invented some 1800 years after the dude's death i think i might be ok...

Blasphemy is disrespect for God or something holy/sacred.

I'm not sure how "Jesus wept" could ever be construed as blasphemous, but christ on a bike sounds at least frivolous, if not disrespectful.

Having said that, the mere use of the words like God, Jesus, Christ etc out of a religious context can be deemed as blasphemous by more fundamental believers.

On a lighter note...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

[BroxburnHibee]

Blasphemy is disrespect for God or something holy/sacred.

I'm not sure how "Jesus wept" could ever be construed as blasphemous, but christ on a bike sounds at least frivolous, if not disrespectful.

Having said that, the mere use of the words like God, Jesus, Christ etc out of a religious context can be deemed as blasphemous by more fundamental believers.

On a lighter note...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

:thumbsup:

Blasphemer!!!!!!!! :greengrin

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Just how "cross" did this person get?

Was this thread posted on The Holy Ground forum intentionally?

[HibsMax]

I know we can't name this person but it "appears" as though they have been pretty active in telling people how they should act.

Why doesn't that person contribute to this thread publicly so it can be debated? Multiple, related PMs to various users is not the way to handle this sort of discussion.

If there are issues with any of my posts I'll listen to an Admin, not you.

[Mon Dieu4]

Im really sure Jesus won't mind, he seems the forgiving sort,

[hibsbollah]

Blasphemy is disrespect for God or something holy/sacred.

I'm not sure how "Jesus wept" could ever be construed as blasphemous, but christ on a bike sounds at least frivolous, if not disrespectful.

Having said that, the mere use of the words like God, Jesus, Christ etc out of a religious context can be deemed as blasphemous by more fundamental believers.

On a lighter note...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

Thanks radge but im still unsure how Christ On A Bike is frivolous and gets me a fatwa. I mean, Chris Hoy rides a bike and hes not frivolous.

To be on the safe side i wont post it again. I'll file it away with my Rope A Dope Pope fighting move and my cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed eating a bacon roll...

[Lucius Apuleius]

John 11:35

I don't think quoting a verse of the bible verbatim is blasphemy. Don't know if a previous poster was referring to me when he thought someone used it before and was taking the moral high ground but if so I can assure you not. Think it was used to express incredulity at the stupidity of something that was said.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Thin end of the wedge. First they try to control your speech, then your thoughts. I hate people using apostrophes wrongly, I think blasphemy is in the same place as that.

[Famous_Fifer]

Thin end of the wedge. First they try to control your speech, then your thoughts. I hate people using apostrophes wrongly, I think blasphemy is in the same place as that.
Weren't there 12 apostrophes? RE was never a strong subject of .mine at school :)

[hibsbollah]

Weren't there 12 apostrophes? RE was never a strong subject of .mine at school :)Apostrophes are very holy forms of punctuation. They levitate above the other letters and punctuation, a bit like Jesus himself did :agree:

[SRHibs]

I'm not entirely sure about where I stand on blasphemy, but considering a large percentage of our population are still religious, I guess it is a bit insensitive to openly blaspheme on a public forum.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm not entirely sure about where I stand on blasphemy, but considering a large percentage of our population are still religious, I guess it is a bit insensitive to openly blaspheme on a public forum.

I disagree with your point in general, but in particular what is openly blaspheming?

Which of these are offensive:
Typing "Jesus Wept"?
A picture of Mohammed?
Typing "Zeus is a ladyboy"?
Typing "Buddha is a fatty"?

There's a difference between regarding something as unthinking abuse and over-sensitivity on the part of the reader.

[Dinkydoo]

Add me to the list.

I too responded politely and stated that I would be more careful in future - very different from the response I probably would have given them a few years ago! :greengrin

I think the pm related to a post of mine in a match update thread last year; we scored and I posted something like "Thank ye Jesus." as I'd been watching the Big Bang Theory earlier that day and had quite a few of Sheldon's sayings floating around my head.

Bazinga!

http://img.tapatalk.com/56a61c99-6d66-709a.jpg

[IndieHibby]

Bazinga!

http://img.tapatalk.com/56a61c99-6d66-709a.jpg
YES! Bazinga... LOL!

[NAE NOOKIE]

Its pretty simple IMO.

Many phrases are in common usage and as a result will pop up on here and elsewhere from time to time. I think if a phrase like the one referred to here has been used in a deliberate attempt to insult or belittle someones religious beliefs, or in an attempt to poke fun at the God they believe in, then being offended by it is a reasonable reaction. If it has been used ( as it can be ) in general terms then theres little point in being offended enough by it to start PMing folk about it.

There are many different people who use this board I am sure. Some with strong religious feelings and some who are firmly athiest.

The only watchword should be that even if you think someones opinion ( or way of life ) is utter nonsense you should respect them and their right to be the way they are.

Anyway:

Religious or not, Gay or Straight, Black or White, Male or Female, Capitalist or Communist. There is one thing that everybody on this board knows about everybody else.

There is one thing we have all got right and one thing we all agree on.

GGTTH


:flag:

[SRHibs]

I disagree with your point in general, but in particular what is openly blaspheming?

Which of these are offensive:
Typing "Jesus Wept"?
A picture of Mohammed?
Typing "Zeus is a ladyboy"?
Typing "Buddha is a fatty"?

There's a difference between regarding something as unthinking abuse and over-sensitivity on the part of the reader.

How do you distinguish between what is objectively a sensitive issue, and what isn't? If a large group of people are offended by something, then surely basic morality would dictate that we refrain from upsetting them.

Why would you disagree with the point in general? There are things that can't be seen as objectively good or bad - racism, homophobia etc. Is it OK for me to use the word '******' freely?

[Nuitdelune]

If the Hibs win, or some such dashed good thing, if you say, 'there is a God', is that blasphemous and if so why? Surely that is a confirmation from the speaker of it, who might doubt it, that Our Lord does exist or it just could not happen or is it because it is too trivial to be in Gods sights, one should not say it as it is offensive to him. Can't be right, surely he wants to help us all from time to time, and for all we know,he might enjoy football. Likely that is a blaspheme also though
:confused:

[Twa Cairpets]

How do you distinguish between what is objectively a sensitive issue, and what isn't? If a large group of people are offended by something, then surely basic morality would dictate that we refrain from upsetting them.

Why would you disagree with the point in general? There are things that can't be seen as objectively good or bad - racism, homophobia etc. Is it OK for me to use the word '******' freely?

Oddly enough, I wrote a very similar line to your second sentence then deleted it - I guess you mean "can" be seen as objectively good or bad like racism, homophobia etc.

At least part of the reason why they are demonstrably bad is that they cause direct ill effect to the person subjected to it - exclusion, violence, intimidation. For blasphemy, in general this isnt the outcome.

The examples I gave were to illustrate how fundamentally daft blasphemy is. It is solely a thing by which an individual chooses to be offended, and seldom, if ever, has a wider impact.

As for the point of there being many christians therefore we shouldnt blaspheme, I dont agree with this either. The churchgoing attendance is 15% in the uk, and it is a broadly secular society, so I dont agree with it on a point of fact, but also on a point of principle. At what point would it become acceptable to blaspheme? When the majority claim to be atheist or non-christian?

I also dispute strongly that the majority of people within the groups claiming to be offended by their spokesmen actually are. I have no idea what proportion of christians break the third commandment, but one would have to think it is almost all of them. As usual, it is those at the fringes who'll make the most noise.

[sidjames]

Blasphemy is disrespect for God or something holy/sacred.

I'm not sure how "Jesus wept" could ever be construed as blasphemous, but christ on a bike sounds at least frivolous, if not disrespectful.

Having said that, the mere use of the words like God, Jesus, Christ etc out of a religious context can be deemed as blasphemous by more fundamental believers.

On a lighter note...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

Brillant that scene Dave, sums it all up for me::aok:

[sleeping giant]

Was it a polite request via pm?

If so , i can't see anything wrong with it .

Why the fuss ?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Weren't there 12 apostrophes? RE was never a strong subject of .mine at school :)

Your not doing yourself any favours. :greengrin

Personally, having grown up in a time when the Kirk/Religion had much more sway over society, I don't like religious people telling me what to do. This a throwback to the days when Dave Allen at Large was a controversial show.

I'm afraid that everybody has their bete noir, and we have to respect other people's individual rights.

[Hibrandenburg]

Was it a polite request via pm?

If so , i can't see anything wrong with it .

Why the fuss ?
Yes, the request was polite. However I object to someone asking me to live my life and abide by what THEY believe.

Whilst I respect everyone's right to live life how they see fit, I ask them to let me do the same and don't appreciate them expecting me to conform to their rules.

[Hibrandenburg]

Your not doing yourself any favours. :greengrin

Personally, having grown up in a time when the Kirk/Religion had much more sway over society, I don't like religious people telling me what to do. This a throwback to the days when Dave Allen at Large was a controversial show.

I'm afraid that everybody has their bete noir, and we have to respect other people's individual rights.

Whack! Nail on the head.

[joe breezy]

I'm an atheist and have already responded although I must admit I actually try not to deliberately offend

My folks are Christians so although I swear I tend not to use 'Jesus' in my swearing - there's usually better ways

I've got Thai friends and I'm respectful of their culture too

I would never insult their king or Buddha as they're pretty serious about all that to say the least

So I'm contradicting myself a bit

As a society people must question religion and hierarchies but for individual beliefs perhaps respect is good

Possibly a big contradiction, I dunno

[Hibbyradge]

I'm an atheist and have already responded although I must admit I actually try not to deliberately offend

My folks are Christians so although I swear I tend not to use 'Jesus' in my swearing - there's usually better ways

I've got Thai friends and I'm respectful of their culture too

I would never insult their king or Buddha as they're pretty serious about all that to say the least

So I'm contradicting myself a bit

As a society people must question religion and hierarchies but for individual beliefs perhaps respect is good

Possibly a big contradiction, I dunno

Not at all. You're right.

Respect is good.

Well said.

[Hibrandenburg]

Not at all. You're right.

Respect is good.

Well said.

Agreed Dave,respect is always good. However I think between the religious and non believers the cards are heavily weighted in favour of the religious. If I'd politely PM'd him asking him not to refer to god in his posts because I felt it was contrary to my ideals, then I'm sure he would have told me where to get off. Maybe I'll try this on another forum where I post and see what happens.

[Jay]

There ws a thread on here recently named something like - Football headline of the year. My personal opinion was that it went beyond the bounds of decency for .net (I do appreciate by bringing it up again it will reappear :rolleyes:)

What I learned was that this is a football forum and sometimes things are said that go against the grain for you or offend you but on these few occassions you just have to grow a thicker skin, ignore those threads or posts and move on.

[Hibbyradge]

Agreed Dave,respect is always good. However I think between the religious and non believers the cards are heavily weighted in favour of the religious. If I'd politely PM'd him asking him not to refer to god in his posts because I felt it was contrary to my ideals, then I'm sure he would have told me where to get off. Maybe I'll try this on another forum where I post and see what happens.

I'm between a rock and a hard place on this because I seem to agree with everyone!

The guy irritated me with all his complaints when I was an admin and I think he's got a cheek labelling people as blasphemers, but I sort of think that it as doesn't cost me anything to use different words, so I might as well humour him.

My curse vocabulary is fairly extensive, dontcha know. :wink:

[Jack]

Knew he would be the main suspect but no it wasn't.

Won't name the guy because he obviously wanted to keep his objection private and I respect him for that.

If the coward who sent you, and others, holy orders to stop using certain language doesn't have the conviction in his/her beliefs to openly challenge the use of certain words or phrases then I agree the problems lie with him/her – big time.

For someone to set themselves up as some sort of secret inquisition on a public forum is an insult to the admin who admirably patrol these boards; a slur on the rest of us and might I respectfully suggest an abuse of the PM system.

How dare you, whoever you are.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm an atheist and have already responded although I must admit I actually try not to deliberately offend

My folks are Christians so although I swear I tend not to use 'Jesus' in my swearing - there's usually better ways

I've got Thai friends and I'm respectful of their culture too

I would never insult their king or Buddha as they're pretty serious about all that to say the least

So I'm contradicting myself a bit

As a society people must question religion and hierarchies but for individual beliefs perhaps respect is good

Possibly a big contradiction, I dunno

The difference is that you have a personal relationship with your parents and your friends. If your friends were homophobic based on their religion (not saying they are), the odds are that you wouldnt talk about that either, because it is immediate and personal to them, even if you disagree. The rules are different on the internet. If you were restricted to typing only things that were deemed totally inoffensive to everyone then it would be very very dull.

I also don't see why personal religious faith deserves a special place in the pantheon of offensiveness. Why should belief in any particular deity be seen as more worthy of resepct than belief in ghosts or aliens, when they are all in the general grouping of "belief without evidence"?

[--------]

I suspect I know who it was but won't name them either. Personally I think that person is the one with issues - not the accused blasphemer. To avoid his ire I tend to use the word Jeezo instead :greengrin


Ah, John, you're a bad man. :tsk tsk:


Can I just say that if I ever decide to harass any of you scurrilous foul-mouthed layabouts for blasphemy, I promise to do it on the open forums where everyone can see who it is and what I'm complaining about.


(It's much more fun fighting with people in public, anyway ... :devil: )

[HibsMax]

Is the phantom PM'er lurking here and wishing to comment?

[HibsMax]

By the way, there are many people alive today with the name Jesus. Is it wise to assume that when someone says, "Jesus wept!" that they're talking about the son of God?

[--------]

Is the phantom PM'er lurking here and wishing to comment?



'E's be'ind yer, mate!

[ChooseLife]

ignore him, he's stupid enough to believe in something as disgusting as religion so his opinion is pretty irrelevant.

Christopher Hitchens told me so :thumbsup:

[NAE NOOKIE]

ignore him, he's stupid enough to believe in something as disgusting as religion so his opinion is pretty irrelevant.

Christopher Hitchens told me so :thumbsup:

You wont find anybody more fanatical about their religion than an athiest :greengrin

[HibsMax]

You wont find anybody more fanatical about their religion than an athiest :greengrin

LOL. You mght be right. That said, I'm not sure that Atheism is responsible for many wars, those are the fanatics that scare me the most.

[Jack]

Ah, John, you're a bad man. :tsk tsk:


Can I just say that if I ever decide to harass any of you scurrilous foul-mouthed layabouts for blasphemy, I promise to do it on the open forums where everyone can see who it is and what I'm complaining about.


(It's much more fun fighting with people in public, anyway ... :devil: )

I think that’s it though Doddie. I seem to recall back in the mists of time we had a wee set to (1 or two ‘o’s?) or two and you’ve had fair few debates with others - fair and open for all to see. While I don’t share in all your beliefs, or that of the men of the cloth I count among my friends, I appreciate your candour when you come on here and that of my holy chums.

I really cant believe how angry it made me to discover there's some self-righteous prowler creeping about here in the cyber bushes firing off PM lightening bolts smiting any heathen passer by.

[--------]

LOL. You mght be right. That said, I'm not sure that Atheism is responsible for many wars, those are the fanatics that scare me the most.

Oh, I think of you sat down and thought about it Max ... :greengrin

[Sergio sledge]

As a "believer" can I add my tuppence worth?

Firstly, it wasn't me..... :greengrin

Secondly, I don't know what was said in the PM's and the tone of what was said so I can't comment on that.

But, for those who are quoting free speech rights etc. Surely the right to free speech brings with it an element of responsibility to use that free speech wisely and to use the right to free speech to hold open, honest, frank and respectful discussions with people without resorting to insults or offensive language? The fact that you know something is offensive to someone else or to another group of people should lead to an element of thought as to whether something needs to be said, or can be phrased differently so as to avoid being offensive. Before anyone starts, I am aware that as a Christian I am speaking from something of a weakened position given some of the things spoken in the name of Christianity in the past... :greengrin

That being said, coming onto an open forum online I expect a degree of fruity language and comments which are not to my taste. I would not expect or demand people to change or tone down their posts on the messageboard on the off chance that I might happen to read their post in amongst all the other posts on the forum however I would hope that if I was involved in a direct discussion on here with people and they knew who I was and what I stood for that there would be a degree of respect and restraint in terms of language and terminology within that conversation (from both sides) and that people wouldn't set out deliberately to offend.

I do not expect people to change because of me and I do not see the above as an impingement on any right to free speech in anyway although I appreciate others may disagree with that.

In answer to Jack's posts, I don't see a polite request to someone via PM as being cowardly or "some self-righteous prowler creeping about here in the cyber bushes firing off PM lightening bolts smiting any heathen passer by" Perhaps they felt it better to try to tackle the issue discreetly rather than calling the person out in public on the matter. Again though, I haven't had a PM or send any of the PM's :greengrin so I don't know the exact content of them.

[Jack]

As a "believer" can I add my tuppence worth?

Firstly, it wasn't me..... :greengrin

Secondly, I don't know what was said in the PM's and the tone of what was said so I can't comment on that.

But, for those who are quoting free speech rights etc. Surely the right to free speech brings with it an element of responsibility to use that free speech wisely and to use the right to free speech to hold open, honest, frank and respectful discussions with people without resorting to insults or offensive language? The fact that you know something is offensive to someone else or to another group of people should lead to an element of thought as to whether something needs to be said, or can be phrased differently so as to avoid being offensive. Before anyone starts, I am aware that as a Christian I am speaking from something of a weakened position given some of the things spoken in the name of Christianity in the past... :greengrin

That being said, coming onto an open forum online I expect a degree of fruity language and comments which are not to my taste. I would not expect or demand people to change or tone down their posts on the messageboard on the off chance that I might happen to read their post in amongst all the other posts on the forum however I would hope that if I was involved in a direct discussion on here with people and they knew who I was and what I stood for that there would be a degree of respect and restraint in terms of language and terminology within that conversation (from both sides) and that people wouldn't set out deliberately to offend.

I do not expect people to change because of me and I do not see the above as an impingement on any right to free speech in anyway although I appreciate others may disagree with that.

In answer to Jack's posts, I don't see a polite request to someone via PM as being cowardly or "some self-righteous prowler creeping about here in the cyber bushes firing off PM lightening bolts smiting any heathen passer by" Perhaps they felt it better to try to tackle the issue discreetly rather than calling the person out in public on the matter. Again though, I haven't had a PM or send any of the PM's :greengrin so I don't know the exact content of them.

I agree with everything you say :aok:


Except the last bit :greengrin, which is my opinion and open to debate, just as yours is, by everyone ... like almost everything else on dotnet :agree:

[IndieHibby]

In answer to Jack's posts, I don't see a polite request to someone via PM as being cowardly or "some self-righteous prowler creeping about here in the cyber bushes firing off PM lightening bolts smiting any heathen passer by" Perhaps they felt it better to try to tackle the issue discreetly rather than calling the person out in public on the matter. Again though, I haven't had a PM or send any of the PM's.
My PM from said poster made me feel like I had committed some heinous crime against decency.

It angered me because:
1. He/she chose to PM me when he could have said as much on the thread in question - if it bothered him that much why not express this in public?
2. He/she invoked the offence of other (unnamed but 'many', apparently) members in order to add weight to his criticism - surely they could speak for themselves?

The crux of the matter, for me, is that I feel his/her offence is fake - if he/she was genuinely offended he/she would say so in public or ignore me or not read any public forum.

Which leads me to conclude he/she is some kind of self-appointed arbiter of what is allowed on hibs.net.

I have since discovered that this really pushes my buttons.

In my reply I was probably a bit rude, which made me feel bad.

All because I used a phrase that he/she finds offensive but no-body else I have ever encountered has mentioned it.

If he/she chooses to view a public forum like this, they should expect to be offended.

Grrrr.....

[Hibbyradge]

My PM from said poster made me feel like I had committed some heinous crime against decency.

It angered me because:

1. He/she chose to PM me when he could have said as much on the thread in question - if it bothered him that much why not express this in public? Perhaps he didn't want to hi-jack the thread, which is exactly what would have happened.

2. He/she invoked the offence of other (unnamed but 'many', apparently) members in order to add weight to his criticism - surely they could speak for themselves?

The crux of the matter, for me, is that I feel his/her offence is fake - if he/she was genuinely offended he/she would say so in public or ignore me or not read any public forum.

Which leads me to conclude he/she is some kind of self-appointed arbiter of what is allowed on hibs.net. He's not.

I have since discovered that this really pushes my buttons.

In my reply I was probably a bit rude, which made me feel bad. That's a pity if he wasn't rude to you.

All because I used a phrase that he/she finds offensive but no-body else I have ever encountered has mentioned it.

If he/she chooses to view a public forum like this, they should expect to be offended. I expect to be offended in various walks of life from time to time, but I'm not always going to sit quiet like a good boy and meekly put up with it.

Grrrr.....

My comments above in red.

I find his "rows" for blasphemy irritating too, but it really is harmless and can easily be put into perspective.

[--------]

My PM from said poster made me feel like I had committed some heinous crime against decency.

It angered me because:
1. He/she chose to PM me when he could have said as much on the thread in question - if it bothered him that much why not express this in public?
2. He/she invoked the offence of other (unnamed but 'many', apparently) members in order to add weight to his criticism - surely they could speak for themselves?

The crux of the matter, for me, is that I feel his/her offence is fake - if he/she was genuinely offended he/she would say so in public or ignore me or not read any public forum.

Which leads me to conclude he/she is some kind of self-appointed arbiter of what is allowed on hibs.net.

I have since discovered that this really pushes my buttons.

In my reply I was probably a bit rude, which made me feel bad.

All because I used a phrase that he/she finds offensive but no-body else I have ever encountered has mentioned it.

If he/she chooses to view a public forum like this, they should expect to be offended.

Grrrr.....


Indie, I think it's fair to say that most Christian believers are disturbed and upset to some degree by the use of the words 'Jesus' and 'Christ' as expletives or exclamations. I have to say that I am, and it's only because I'm such a thoroughly decent and tolerant chap that I haven't already issued the Doddie equivalent of a fatwa and invoked all the pestilences of the Book of Revelation on the heads of those concerned.

So if you hear horses' hoofs approaching down your street, and clouds of locusts blot out the sun in your neighbourhood, you'll know I'm on your case ...

As for the others - they know who they are. :wink:

I would think that most times, people don't mean anything directly offensive to Christianity or Christian believers as such - they're not deliberately targeting the Christian faith or going out of their way to be insulting. These expressions have become part and parcel of colloquial speech, and there's not a lot I or anyone else can do about it. Unless, of course, I seize power, set up a Holy Office of the Inquisition or its equivalent, and start arresting people and throwing them in jail.

Now historically this sort of thing usually escalated to torture and execution for really serious cases - eventually, for all cases. And not just in the culturally and superficially Christian ecclesiastical community. No one's so arrogant or judgemental as one of God's servants who knows better than God.

But I have the sneaking feeling that Jesus of Nazareth aka the Lord Jesus Christ might just be a little more upset and angry about people claiming to be His servants torturing and killing other people in His Name than about the fact that someone like yourself slipped out with 'Jesus wept' in the first place. He might even be upset enough at His alleged followers' cruelty to weep over it?

You won't, I suppose, have heard of Bishop Arnaud Amaric of Citeaux, Papal Legate to the Crusading army during the Crusade against the Albigensians or Cathars in the early 13th century? In 1209, when the Crusader army captured the city of Beziers, a great centre of the Cathar faith, one of the soldiers asked him how to tell the heretic Cathars from true Catholic believers. Arnaud's answer was, "Kill them all - God will know his own." Which the Crusaders proceeded to do - all 20,000 inhabitants of the city.

I would guess that on that day, Jesus wept.

[VickMackie]

Jesus H Christ

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1393742/

Anyone seen it? :greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

I think Christians should speak out against things that they find objectionable.

For years now people from other backgrounds such as the gay and Muslim communities have vociferously opposed any words or actions that they have perceived to have been against their culture and beliefs, which has taken us to the point where we're at now where it's now deemed politically incorrect and totally unacceptable to be seen to be having a go at people from those backgrounds. In fact, you would probably be looking at a jail sentence if you went far enough against certain groups.

Meanwhile it continues to be completely acceptable, fashionable even, to poke fun at Christians and Christianity in general and a lot of people who speak openly about their beliefs are quite often mocked and are figures of fun and the butt of many jokes.

People have a free rein to say pretty much whatever they like about Christianity without any real fear that they'll face any sort of punishment. Any Christian who complains is just supposed to "lighten up" or "get a sense of humour", which is the general mood from the people who have replied on this thread. I highly doubt we would see these sort of replies if we were talking about another section of society.

As it happens, I don't actually feel offended by the phrase in question on this thread and, no, it wasn't me who sent the PM! :wink:

[Speedy]

As a "believer" can I add my tuppence worth?

Firstly, it wasn't me..... :greengrin

Secondly, I don't know what was said in the PM's and the tone of what was said so I can't comment on that.

But, for those who are quoting free speech rights etc. Surely the right to free speech brings with it an element of responsibility to use that free speech wisely and to use the right to free speech to hold open, honest, frank and respectful discussions with people without resorting to insults or offensive language? The fact that you know something is offensive to someone else or to another group of people should lead to an element of thought as to whether something needs to be said, or can be phrased differently so as to avoid being offensive. Before anyone starts, I am aware that as a Christian I am speaking from something of a weakened position given some of the things spoken in the name of Christianity in the past... :greengrin

That being said, coming onto an open forum online I expect a degree of fruity language and comments which are not to my taste. I would not expect or demand people to change or tone down their posts on the messageboard on the off chance that I might happen to read their post in amongst all the other posts on the forum however I would hope that if I was involved in a direct discussion on here with people and they knew who I was and what I stood for that there would be a degree of respect and restraint in terms of language and terminology within that conversation (from both sides) and that people wouldn't set out deliberately to offend.

I do not expect people to change because of me and I do not see the above as an impingement on any right to free speech in anyway although I appreciate others may disagree with that.

In answer to Jack's posts, I don't see a polite request to someone via PM as being cowardly or "some self-righteous prowler creeping about here in the cyber bushes firing off PM lightening bolts smiting any heathen passer by" Perhaps they felt it better to try to tackle the issue discreetly rather than calling the person out in public on the matter. Again though, I haven't had a PM or send any of the PM's :greengrin so I don't know the exact content of them.

I find it interesting that few would object to negative/offensive comments about Hearts players on here but there are some who object to comments being made about someone/something who may not even exist.

[Mon Dieu4]

I think Christians should speak out against things that they find objectionable.

For years now people from other backgrounds such as the gay and Muslim communities have vociferously opposed any words or actions that they have perceived to have been against their culture and beliefs, which has taken us to the point where we're at now where it's now deemed politically incorrect and totally unacceptable to be seen to be having a go at people from those backgrounds. In fact, you would probably be looking at a jail sentence if you went far enough against certain groups.

Meanwhile it continues to be completely acceptable, fashionable even, to poke fun at Christians and Christianity in general and a lot of people who speak openly about their beliefs are quite often mocked and are figures of fun and the butt of many jokes.

People have a free rein to say pretty much whatever they like about Christianity without any real fear that they'll face any sort of punishment. Any Christian who complains is just supposed to "lighten up" or "get a sense of humour", which is the general mood from the people who have replied on this thread. I highly doubt we would see these sort of replies if we were talking about another section of society.

As it happens, I don't actually feel offended by the phrase in question on this thread and, no, it wasn't me who sent the PM! :wink:

Muhammad wept

[ginger_rice]

By the way, there are many people alive today with the name Jesus. Is it wise to assume that when someone says, "Jesus wept!" that they're talking about the son of God?

Was going to post the same....perhaps HAYsus wept instead?

[Beefster]

I find it interesting that few would object to negative/offensive comments about Hearts players on here but there are some who object to comments being made about someone/something who may not even exist.

Blasphemer.

[Speedy]

Blasphemer.

:greengrin

That was me phrasing it nicely.

[Twa Cairpets]

I think Christians should speak out against things that they find objectionable.

For years now people from other backgrounds such as the gay and Muslim communities have vociferously opposed any words or actions that they have perceived to have been against their culture and beliefs, which has taken us to the point where we're at now where it's now deemed politically incorrect and totally unacceptable to be seen to be having a go at people from those backgrounds. In fact, you would probably be looking at a jail sentence if you went far enough against certain groups.

Firstly, bad choice of groups. One is religious, the other isn't. People fighting against personal homophobic discrimination and violence is very different to people complaining about the offence caused by cartoons of Mohammed. Are you suggesting that muslims are over-reacting to blasphemy, or that christians should have the same range of over the top artifical outrage? You also infer that there is somethign wrong with laws that provide sanction for abuse, which seems odd.

Meanwhile it continues to be completely acceptable, fashionable even, to poke fun at Christians and Christianity in general and a lot of people who speak openly about their beliefs are quite often mocked and are figures of fun and the butt of many jokes.

People have a free rein to say pretty much whatever they like about Christianity without any real fear that they'll face any sort of punishment. Any Christian who complains is just supposed to "lighten up" or "get a sense of humour", which is the general mood from the people who have replied on this thread. I highly doubt we would see these sort of replies if we were talking about another section of society. Yes, in precisiely the same way as muslims should ligten up and get a sense of perspective on cartoons of Mohammed, and that as a religion it should evolve another 500 years. Faith is fair game for satire, as is politics, as is culture. There is no reason why personal faith should be accorded priveliged status, as long as it isn't personally abusive.

As it happens, I don't actually feel offended by the phrase in question on this thread and, no, it wasn't me who sent the PM! :wink:

You seem to make an argument based on going to the lowest common denominator of outrage.

[--------]

Might I just say that while I've always considered the "Father Ted" series a light-hearted (and not inaccurate) example of quirky TV comedy, Rikki Fulton's "Rev I M Jolly" constituted a foul and utterly unprovoked slanderous defamation of the finest body of men and women ever to walk the streets of Scotland?

:greengrin

[lyonhibs]

You seem to make an argument based on going to the lowest common denominator of outrage.

Doesn't seem a very FH thing to do......................

[VickMackie]

I think Christians should speak out against things that they find objectionable.

For years now people from other backgrounds such as the gay and Muslim communities have vociferously opposed any words or actions that they have perceived to have been against their culture and beliefs, which has taken us to the point where we're at now where it's now deemed politically incorrect and totally unacceptable to be seen to be having a go at people from those backgrounds. In fact, you would probably be looking at a jail sentence if you went far enough against certain groups.

Meanwhile it continues to be completely acceptable, fashionable even, to poke fun at Christians and Christianity in general and a lot of people who speak openly about their beliefs are quite often mocked and are figures of fun and the butt of many jokes.

People have a free rein to say pretty much whatever they like about Christianity without any real fear that they'll face any sort of punishment. Any Christian who complains is just supposed to "lighten up" or "get a sense of humour", which is the general mood from the people who have replied on this thread. I highly doubt we would see these sort of replies if we were talking about another section of society.

As it happens, I don't actually feel offended by the phrase in question on this thread and, no, it wasn't me who sent the PM! :wink:

I feel it should be the other way around. There should be no fear of taking the piss out of any religion.

Just because people believe in stuff that started as myths and stories hundreds or thousands of years ago should not mean the cannot be ridiculed.

Fair enough believing in god but pro scribing to any of the main religions is bs.

What do the Christians and Muslims, or any other, on this board think of Scientology?

[Twa Cairpets]

Indie, I think it's fair to say that most Christian believers are disturbed and upset to some degree by the use of the words 'Jesus' and 'Christ' as expletives or exclamations. I have to say that I am, and it's only because I'm such a thoroughly decent and tolerant chap that I haven't already issued the Doddie equivalent of a fatwa and invoked all the pestilences of the Book of Revelation on the heads of those concerned.

So if you hear horses' hoofs approaching down your street, and clouds of locusts blot out the sun in your neighbourhood, you'll know I'm on your case ...

As for the others - they know who they are. :wink:

I would think that most times, people don't mean anything directly offensive to Christianity or Christian believers as such - they're not deliberately targeting the Christian faith or going out of their way to be insulting. These expressions have become part and parcel of colloquial speech, and there's not a lot I or anyone else can do about it. Unless, of course, I seize power, set up a Holy Office of the Inquisition or its equivalent, and start arresting people and throwing them in jail.

Now historically this sort of thing usually escalated to torture and execution for really serious cases - eventually, for all cases. And not just in the culturally and superficially Christian ecclesiastical community. No one's so arrogant or judgemental as one of God's servants who knows better than God.

But I have the sneaking feeling that Jesus of Nazareth aka the Lord Jesus Christ might just be a little more upset and angry about people claiming to be His servants torturing and killing other people in His Name than about the fact that someone like yourself slipped out with 'Jesus wept' in the first place. He might even be upset enough at His alleged followers' cruelty to weep over it?

You won't, I suppose, have heard of Bishop Arnaud Amaric of Citeaux, Papal Legate to the Crusading army during the Crusade against the Albigensians or Cathars in the early 13th century? In 1209, when the Crusader army captured the city of Beziers, a great centre of the Cathar faith, one of the soldiers asked him how to tell the heretic Cathars from true Catholic believers. Arnaud's answer was, "Kill them all - God will know his own." Which the Crusaders proceeded to do - all 20,000 inhabitants of the city.

I would guess that on that day, Jesus wept.

Good post from Dodster the Godster
Are you mildly irritated or actually offended about blasphemy. I ask because I get annoyed when i hear people talking nonsense about my personal bugbear homeopathy, but it doesn't offend me that people are ignorant of what it is

And I do know about the Cathars... :greengrin

[--------]

Good post from Dodster the Godster
Are you mildly irritated or actually offended about blasphemy. I ask because I get annoyed when i hear people talking nonsense about my personal bugbear homeopathy, but it doesn't offend me that people are ignorant of what it is

And I do know about the Cathars... :greengrin


I know you know about the Cathars. I'm just glad that quote is from 1209, spoken by a Papal Legate (the Pope concerned was IIRC Innocent III which after what his army did to Beziers was a gold-medal performance in irony and black humour - but you know that too :greengrin) and not 1570 and spoken by one of my Calvinist forebears. Though some of my Calvinist forebears could be right pains in the butt as well.

As far as my own reaction goes, it depends on the context, it depends on what's said, it depends on the tone of voice and the look on the guy's face sometimes.

I don't like it when someone goes out of his or her way to deliberately cause offence. The scale of the offensiveness of what they say and the context in which they say it inevitably affects the degree to which I'm annoyed, upset or irritated. There have been occasions (not many) when someone has said something so obviously intended to cause hurt and upset that 'irritation' has become sheer rage. But I think that there the anger is as much about the fact that some idiot has gone out of his way to insult and hurt someone gratuitously, which is an ugly and unpleasant way to behave regardless of who exactly is the target of the insult.

(Thankfully, so far there's always been someone calmer around to stop me giving the guy the opportunity of turning the other cheek ... :wink:)

I would say that if a person values something deeply, then someone who goes out of his way to insult and denigrate that thing in that person's presence is asking for trouble on a very personal level, never mind at the level of religion or spirituality. If I insult a man's wife, he has every right to be angry with me, and to make his anger clear to me for example. I couldn't blame him if he decided to try to deck me - I would have stepped well over the line of acceptable banter in his eyes.

The same IMO applies to a person's religious beliefs? The more a person's faith matters to him or her, the quicker they'll be upset when someone makes fun of it.

I remember watching a match when a guy just along from me was constantly swearing and cursing. His favourite expression was 'Jesus Christ' - with another word, the present participle of a certain Anglo-Saxon verb, between the two halves of the name. What was odd was that when I finally lost my temper and told him to shut up, the people around us - including his own mates - supported me and not him. And I didn't ask him to stop, I told him, and I wasn't thinking too much about what might come next if he refused. I think he was a bit confused when I told him that the individual whose name he was abusing was a personal friend of mine, and that unless HE knew my friend as well as I knew my friend, he was to shut his mouth and stop insulting someone and something he knew absolutely nothing about.

Nowadays I would just tap him on the shoulder, ask him, "Do you know Jesus?", introduce myself, and go on to give him my testimony. That way he's either converted, or he leaves. :greengrin

Thing is, most people are OK about making fun of certain other people's beliefs and attitudes, but don't like it if others do it back to them. Isaac Hayes, the guy who voiced Chef in South Park, was apparently OK with everything South Park aimed at all sorts of people, their attitudes, and their beliefs - until SP targeted Scientology (Hayes is an active Scientologist). Then he left. Go figure.

[--------]

Good post from Dodster the Godster
Are you mildly irritated or actually offended about blasphemy. I ask because I get annoyed when i hear people talking nonsense about my personal bugbear homeopathy, but it doesn't offend me that people are ignorant of what it is

And I do know about the Cathars... :greengrin


I know you know about the Cathars.

I'm just glad that quote is from 1209, spoken by a Papal Legate (the Pope concerned was IIRC Innocent III which after what his army did to Beziers was a gold-medal performance in irony and black humour - but you know that too :greengrin) and not 1570 and spoken by one of my Calvinist forebears. Though some of my Calvinist forebears could be right pains in the butt as well.

As far as my own reaction goes, it depends on the context, it depends on what's said, it depends on the tone of voice and the look on the guy's face sometimes.

I don't like it when someone goes out of his or her way to deliberately cause offence. The scale of the offensiveness of what they say and the context in which they say it inevitably affects the degree to which I'm annoyed, upset or irritated. There have been occasions (not many) when someone has said something so obviously intended to cause hurt and upset that 'irritation' has become sheer rage. But I think that there the anger is as much about the fact that some idiot has gone out of his way to insult and hurt someone gratuitously, which is an ugly and unpleasant way to behave regardless of who exactly is the target of the insult, as it is about blasphemy as such.

(Thankfully, so far there's always been someone calmer around to stop me giving the guy the opportunity of turning the other cheek ... :wink:)

I would say that if a person values something deeply, then someone who goes out of his way to insult and denigrate that thing in that person's presence is asking for trouble on a very personal level, never mind at the level of religion or spirituality. If I insult a man's wife, he has every right to be angry with me, and to make his anger clear to me for example. I couldn't blame him if he decided to try to deck me - I would have stepped well over the line of acceptable banter in his eyes.

The same IMO applies to a person's religious beliefs? The more a person's faith matters to him or her, the quicker they'll be upset when someone makes fun of it.

I remember watching a match when a guy just along from me was constantly swearing and cursing. His favourite expression was 'Jesus Christ' - with another word, the present participle of a certain Anglo-Saxon verb, between the two halves of the name. What was odd was that when I finally lost my temper and told him to shut up, the people around us - including his own mates - supported me and not him. And I didn't ask him to stop, I told him, and I wasn't thinking too much about what might come next if he refused. I think he was a bit confused when I told him that the individual whose name he was abusing was a personal friend of mine, and that unless HE knew my friend as well as I knew my friend, he was to shut his mouth and stop insulting someone and something he knew absolutely nothing about.

Nowadays I would just tap him on the shoulder, ask him, "Do you know Jesus?", introduce myself, and go on to give him my testimony. That way he's either converted, or he leaves. :greengrin

Thing is, most people are OK about making fun of certain other people's beliefs and attitudes, but don't like it if others do it back to them. Isaac Hayes, the guy who voiced Chef in South Park, was apparently OK with everything South Park aimed at all sorts of people, their attitudes, and their beliefs - until SP targeted Scientology (Hayes is an active Scientologist). Then he left. Go figure.

[IndieHibby]

Indie, I think it's fair to say that most Christian believers are disturbed and upset to some degree by the use of the words 'Jesus' and 'Christ' as expletives or exclamations. I have to say that I am, and it's only because I'm such a thoroughly decent and tolerant chap that I haven't already issued the Doddie equivalent of a fatwa and invoked all the pestilences of the Book of Revelation on the heads of those concerned.

So if you hear horses' hoofs approaching down your street, and clouds of locusts blot out the sun in your neighbourhood, you'll know I'm on your case ...

As for the others - they know who they are. :wink:

I would think that most times, people don't mean anything directly offensive to Christianity or Christian believers as such - they're not deliberately targeting the Christian faith or going out of their way to be insulting. These expressions have become part and parcel of colloquial speech, and there's not a lot I or anyone else can do about it. Unless, of course, I seize power, set up a Holy Office of the Inquisition or its equivalent, and start arresting people and throwing them in jail.

Now historically this sort of thing usually escalated to torture and execution for really serious cases - eventually, for all cases. And not just in the culturally and superficially Christian ecclesiastical community. No one's so arrogant or judgemental as one of God's servants who knows better than God.

But I have the sneaking feeling that Jesus of Nazareth aka the Lord Jesus Christ might just be a little more upset and angry about people claiming to be His servants torturing and killing other people in His Name than about the fact that someone like yourself slipped out with 'Jesus wept' in the first place. He might even be upset enough at His alleged followers' cruelty to weep over it?

You won't, I suppose, have heard of Bishop Arnaud Amaric of Citeaux, Papal Legate to the Crusading army during the Crusade against the Albigensians or Cathars in the early 13th century? In 1209, when the Crusader army captured the city of Beziers, a great centre of the Cathar faith, one of the soldiers asked him how to tell the heretic Cathars from true Catholic believers. Arnaud's answer was, "Kill them all - God will know his own." Which the Crusaders proceeded to do - all 20,000 inhabitants of the city.

I would guess that on that day, Jesus wept.

Just read this. Outstanding. Thank you!

[--------]

Just read this. Outstanding. Thank you!


Thank you, kind sir.

I honestly don't believe that most people give a lot of thought to a lot of what they say; they don't intend deliberate offence, and unless I've misunderstood something somewhere, Christian believers are actually told not to judge others, since the judgement they use towards others will be the judgement they get from God. There's also quite a lot about forgiving people who offend you, and even praying for them.

Case in point - Billy Connolly. VERY funny man - a long time ago. He could have me rolling around on the floor in stitches - once upon a time. I was looking at a couple of clips of him NOW on YouTube. Just about every second word an expletive, but the audience still laughing along. This is sad.

I remember when he didn't have to say 'f***' or 'c***' to raise a laugh. Now he does it all the time. He looks to be just another ageing fat Weegie bloke - bad hair, bad skin, bad clothes, trying to be the centre of attention in the pub on a Friday night, tolerated because once upon a time he was a star.

He had a 'Crucifixion' sketch which I loathe - I have never found it funny, even on the basic level that the brutal and bloody execution of someone - anyone - isn't really something I choose to laugh about. Once upon a time I would have walked out on him if he started it. I still would - it's offensive in all sorts of ways.

But mostly I'm just sorry for him; he's withering away, a pathetic dried-up husk of what he once was.

Now I don't know if you would recognise the name George Burns, an American Jewish stand-up comic from the 50's. George was funny all his life, and He lived to be 100, still working. And he didn't have to say '****' OR '****'. to get a laugh.

What I'm saying is, if it's unintentional and unaware, why take offence? If it's intentional and deliberately offensive, it says far more about the man who says it than it does about the faith or the God he holds in contempt.

As Mr T would say - I pity the fool. :wink:

[IndieHibby]

What I'm saying is, if it's unintentional and unaware, why take offence? If it's intentional and deliberately offensive, it says far more about the man who says it than it does about the faith or the God he holds in contempt.


This summarises how I feel about it.

Being chastised for the casual use of said 'curse' just seems a little OTT.

There are far more eloquent ways to make your feelings known.

[sleeping giant]

Some absolute stunning posts on this thread.

Super stuff :flag:

[--------]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/girl-14-granted-bail-blasphemy-charge-075017818.html

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/muslim-cleric-held-over-pakistan-blasphemy-case-080712753.html

Nice.

[IndieHibby]

It's strange to think that, in our era of modern communication, that we can live in a country like the UK, yet little more than a 12hr journey can send you back in time to the Middle Ages.

Surely blashphemy laws' days are numbered....

[--------]

It's strange to think that, in our era of modern communication, that we can live in a country like the UK, yet little more than a 12hr journey can send you back in time to the Middle Ages.

Surely blashphemy laws' days are numbered....


I'm not holding my breath. :rolleyes:

[HibsMax]

It's strange to think that, in our era of modern communication, that we can live in a country like the UK, yet little more than a 12hr journey can send you back in time to the Middle Ages.

Surely blashphemy laws' days are numbered....

I think you're right because, and sorry to everyone whom I'm about to upset, but I think we'll make significant advancement to rule out the existence of God but most likely not in my lifetime.

If there is a God and if blasphemy is really that big of a deal, I'll take my chances and suffer the consequences later.

------------------

I had a couple of thoughts.

1. "God damn!" - who am I offending with that? Christians? Muslims? Everyone who believes in a God? I know that Mormons don't swear or blaspheme. When I worked with them this was a know fact that had to be respected. Someone said "God damn!" once and was given a friendly warning. What if the God in that persons mind was Thor? Why would a Christian be upset by that?

2. This is s little sillier. "Jesus wept". If we agree that the person saying that is not deliberately setting out to offend Christians, could it not be possible that the person is referring to one of the millions of people in the world named Jesus (hay-soos)?

[97hills]

http://i.imgur.com/sAXR2.jpg

[(((Fergus)))]

http://i.imgur.com/sAXR2.jpg

That's a brave attitude, particularly when the offended are making threats against your life ( “You might be a target in the streets. You may recruit some bodyguards, for your own safety.”):

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/channel-4-cancels-controversial-screening-of-islam-the-untold-story-documentary-after-presenter-tom-holland-is-threatened-8125641.html

Becomes more complicated when the lives of others are threatened or taken purely because they are a symbol of the country in which you hold citizenship.

[Hibrandenburg]

What about the American ambassador who was killed because someone else committed blasphemy. If god is so pissed off with blasphemers, then let him smite them or cast them into hell. Sad just ****ing sad.

[HibeeEmma]

Received a private message from another user objecting to my use of the phrase "Jesus Wept" on another thread. My gut instinct was to say GTF but I genuinely don't like to offend people unless they kick off first.

However I do feel my freedom of speech is being infringed upon and why the hell (oops I've probably done it again) should I conform to someone elses beliefs when I personaly consider those beliefs to be humbug?


Thoughts?

I don't think you have done anything wrong. In having respect for others, everyone has to acknowledge that people have different beliefs.

Religious and non-religious people are guilty of nit-picking each other for not having the same belief but messaging someone to say they object to blasphemy on here is a bit much. I would understand if it was Christian forum. I could find far worse on here than say "Jesus Wept"!

The person is not going to go through life avoiding society and their sinful ways.

[HibeeEmma]

Im really sure Jesus won't mind, he seems the forgiving sort,

:top marksThe irony of it all

I respect that a lot of people have religion in their life for one reason or another but they often turn out to be the most judgemental people, as if its a right.

Interesting topic though, I live in Nigeria where religion could not be more in your face yet at the same time have more people disobeying basic morals

[HibsMax]

:top marksThe irony of it all

I respect that a lot of people have religion in their life for one reason or another but they often turn out to be the most judgemental people, as if its a right.

Interesting topic though, I live in Nigeria where religion could not be more in your face yet at the same time have more people disobeying basic morals

Your last sentence reminded me of an incident that happened not long after I moved over here. My wife was driving (it was pissing down, bad conditions) and some guy with with a bumper sticker - "Real men love Jesus" - cut in front of her forcing her to break hard. I forget exactly what happened but she either flashed her lights or sounded her horn. He slams on the brakes and jumps out the car, runs towards us with "no idea" what on his mind. Luckily for us there was a lot of traffic, which had now stopped (I think a cab drive may have gotten out his cab quickly after seeing what was going down) and so he had second thoughts and got back in his car and drove off. He certainly didn't look like he was in a very spiritual moment though.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

After the resurrection of Jesus should his name not have been changed to The Jesus?

[Eyrie]

After the resurrection of Jesus should his name not have been changed to The Jesus?

Presumably he got to keep the miracles whilst being absolved of his previous sins.

[Dinkydoo]

Presumably he got to keep the miracles whilst being absolved of his previous sins.

:thumbsup:

[Betty Boop]

Violent protests all across the Middle East, Asia and North Africa. Protestors have scaled the walls and entered US embassies in Tunis and Khartoum.

[Sylar]

Violent protests all across the Middle East, Asia and North Africa. Protestors have scaled the walls and entered US embassies in Tunis and Khartoum.

It's a shame on two levels:

1) People will tar the entirety of Islam with the same "hate-filled" brush in light of these extreme idiots and

2) That people actually get so worked up about something like this. Anyone who takes something like that film seriously, really ought to reassess their lives...

Hopefully the authorities in these countries escalate from water cannons and deal with them post-haste.

[steakbake]

Hopefully the authorities in these countries escalate from water cannons and deal with them post-haste.

Some governments might see it as a useful distraction from having the ignorant mob's attention directed on them.

[--------]

After the resurrection of Jesus should his name not have been changed to The Jesus?


Presumably he got to keep the miracles whilst being absolved of his previous sins.


:thumbsup:


With respect, this wee exchange is a good example of people crossing the line to being offensive.

[Eyrie]

With respect, this wee exchange is a good example of people crossing the line to being offensive.

I think that illustrates how sensitive the subject of religion can be. To me, both remarks are clearly aimed at the situation with Rangers and not at Christianity. Having clarified that, I have no problem apologising to you.

[ancienthibby]

I think that illustrates how sensitive the subject of religion can be. To me, both remarks are clearly aimed at the situation with Rangers and not at Christianity. Having clarified that, I have no problem apologising to you.

Eyrie,

Can you please kindly refer me to any reference in this thread up to your post, that speaks to 'clearly aimed at the situation with Rangers...'?

Thanks.

[Betty Boop]

It's a shame on two levels:

1) People will tar the entirety of Islam with the same "hate-filled" brush in light of these extreme idiots and

2) That people actually get so worked up about something like this. Anyone who takes something like that film seriously, really ought to reassess their lives...

Hopefully the authorities in these countries escalate from water cannons and deal with them post-haste.

Maybe the extreme idiot who made the video, should have a look in the mirror. This guy incidentally is a Coptic Christian who has been taken in for questioning, aided and abetted by Pastor Terry Jones, the Koran burning nutcase. The region is a tinderbox already,without these nutters poring oil on the fire.

[--------]

I think that illustrates how sensitive the subject of religion can be. To me, both remarks are clearly aimed at the situation with Rangers and not at Christianity. Having clarified that, I have no problem apologising to you.


I don't see anything to suggest that Rangers were the main target of either remark.

But I have no problem accepting your apology.

[Eyrie]

Eyrie,

Can you please kindly refer me to any reference in this thread up to your post, that speaks to 'clearly aimed at the situation with Rangers...'?

Thanks.
The post which I was replying to was a reference to Rangers now being known as The Rangers.

After the resurrection of Jesus should his name not have been changed to The Jesus?

Other posters have read my reply differently, hence the apology.

[Hibbyradge]

http://imageshack.us/a/img849/3689/christiansandmuslims.jpg

[Hibrandenburg]

http://imageshack.us/a/img849/3689/christiansandmuslims.jpg

That could be posted in Arabic in reverse too.

[Hibbyradge]

That could be posted in Arabic in reverse too.

:agree:

[Sylar]

Maybe the extreme idiot who made the video, should have a look in the mirror. This guy incidentally is a Coptic Christian who has been taken in for questioning, aided and abetted by Pastor Terry Jones, the Koran burning nutcase.

Where we agree. I don't get the motivation behind it, other than to stir up tension. It was neither informative nor satirical so if it was supposed to be a balanced and well constructed argument, it failed and it if was supposed to be funny, it also failed.

It's put the lives of many American government employees and troops (as well as British equivalent) at risk and has resulted in loss of life. That's something which will be on his conscience and he should probably face some very hard questions, if not action!

However, if these people are not sensible enough to look at this as a video from one individual and dismiss it as the bitter, hateful and ill-advised mess that it is, it says more about them than the moron who created and distributed it.

Over the years, there have been numerous films which take aim at other religions (Dogma, The Magdalene Sisters, Monty Python: The Meaning of Life to name a few which address Christianity) either satirically, comedically or critically. I don't recall global wide riots as a result of them.

And those are big budget examples which are perhaps not so comparable. There are certainly a plethora of examples out there of similar low budget films which have properly ripped into other faiths.

[IndieHibby]

With respect, this wee exchange is a good example of people crossing the line to being offensive.

I really didn't want to follow this up, but can't help myself, so please forgive me.

To me, this is funny because it draws a parallel between the 'resurrection' of The Rangers and the 'actual' resurrection of Jesus.

My question (and it is genuine, not intended to be provocative) is how does this offend you?

[Saorsa]

After the resurrection of Jesus should his name not have been changed to The Jesus?


Presumably he got to keep the miracles whilst being absolved of his previous sins.:hilarious

[Twa Cairpets]

I really didn't want to follow this up, but can't help myself, so please forgive me.

To me, this is funny because it draws a parallel between the 'resurrection' of The Rangers and the 'actual' resurrection of Jesus.

My question (and it is genuine, not intended to be provocative) is how does this offend you?

I'd be interested in this answer too.

I can see why it might irritate, but why would it offend? This is where the whole question of blasphemy is somewhat absurd.

Take the current muslim outrage - a crappy, dubbed over film which had tiny, tiny viewing figures is seen suddenly to be the worst thing in the world by hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, none of whom have seen it or have, i suspect, the first notion of what its actually about. I've not seen it, but have looked at some of the more unbiased reports about it and it appears just to be a tawdry bit of propaganda by an idiot. Suddenly it is representative of the USA and the West.

Artificially drummed up outrage and offence by religious leaders with hugely double standards - you cant say anything about our religion but we'll shout at your right to free speech and burn your flags, and act many Americans would get very upset about (something I also think is daft. It's a flag, not a person).

I believe Islam is a religion about 500 years behind christianity in its evolution - that doesnt make it better or worse, but as its developed in countries which for the most have not developed to the same extent as the west, its easier for it to be manipulated in this way. The video isnt the issue, its the faux outrage of the reaction, claiming blasphemy, that is.

If you live in a society where free speech is accepted, then blasphemy needs to be accepted as a part of it as well, otherwise you have state mandated religion. This isn't a charter for intolerance, as there's a difference between blaspheming and bigotry. It's also not a mandate for abuse - saying "You're a fool becuase you believe in God" is not the same as saying "I believe you're belief in God is foolish" - the latter is acceptable, the former isnt, in my view.

Bit rambling, apologies....

[Hibbyradge]

I'd be interested in this answer too.

I can see why it might irritate, but why would it offend? This is where the whole question of blasphemy is somewhat absurd.

Take the current muslim outrage - a crappy, dubbed over film which had tiny, tiny viewing figures is seen suddenly to be the worst thing in the world by hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, none of whom have seen it or have, i suspect, the first notion of what its actually about. I've not seen it, but have looked at some of the more unbiased reports about it and it appears just to be a tawdry bit of propaganda by an idiot. Suddenly it is representative of the USA and the West.

Artificially drummed up outrage and offence by religious leaders with hugely double standards - you cant say anything about our religion but we'll shout at your right to free speech and burn your flags, and act many Americans would get very upset about (something I also think is daft. It's a flag, not a person).

I believe Islam is a religion about 500 years behind christianity in its evolution - that doesnt make it better or worse, but as its developed in countries which for the most have not developed to the same extent as the west, its easier for it to be manipulated in this way. The video isnt the issue, its the faux outrage of the reaction, claiming blasphemy, that is.

If you live in a society where free speech is accepted, then blasphemy needs to be accepted as a part of it as well, otherwise you have state mandated religion. This isn't a charter for intolerance, as there's a difference between blaspheming and bigotry. It's also not a mandate for abuse - saying "You're a fool becuase you believe in God" is not the same as saying "I believe you're belief in God is foolish" - the latter is acceptable, the former isnt, in my view.

Bit rambling, apologies....


http://imageshack.us/a/img211/7906/alienreligion.jpg

[--------]

I'd be interested in this answer too.

I can see why it might irritate, but why would it offend? This is where the whole question of blasphemy is somewhat absurd.

Take the current muslim outrage - a crappy, dubbed over film which had tiny, tiny viewing figures is seen suddenly to be the worst thing in the world by hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, none of whom have seen it or have, i suspect, the first notion of what its actually about. I've not seen it, but have looked at some of the more unbiased reports about it and it appears just to be a tawdry bit of propaganda by an idiot. Suddenly it is representative of the USA and the West.

Artificially drummed up outrage and offence by religious leaders with hugely double standards - you cant say anything about our religion but we'll shout at your right to free speech and burn your flags, and act many Americans would get very upset about (something I also think is daft. It's a flag, not a person).

I believe Islam is a religion about 500 years behind christianity in its evolution - that doesnt make it better or worse, but as its developed in countries which for the most have not developed to the same extent as the west, its easier for it to be manipulated in this way. The video isnt the issue, its the faux outrage of the reaction, claiming blasphemy, that is.

If you live in a society where free speech is accepted, then blasphemy needs to be accepted as a part of it as well, otherwise you have state mandated religion. This isn't a charter for intolerance, as there's a difference between blaspheming and bigotry. It's also not a mandate for abuse - saying "You're a fool becuase you believe in God" is not the same as saying "I believe you're belief in God is foolish" - the latter is acceptable, the former isnt, in my view.

Bit rambling, apologies....


Maybe 'irritate' IS a better word, TC.

FWIW, I'd say that comparing the death and resurrection of Christ - which is the heart and foundation-stone of the Christian faith - to the grubby goings-on surrounding RFC Old-co/New-co and friends DOES annoy and offend me. The death and resurrection of Christ IS the Gospel, and it's on Christ's death and resurrection that a Christian bases his or her faith - the most precious thing we have. Now I don't LIKE people using Christ's name as a swear-word, expletive, of even really an interjection, but I can accept that many people do so use that name without really giving thought to what it signifies or how other people might feel.

Interjecting those jokes into what was a fairly serious and courteous discussion jarred me, and seemed to me to be done with a degree of malice. Now on that last point I may be wrong, and if so, I apologise. Perhaps 'intention' would be a better word than 'malice'.

However, I would say again - even throwaway jokes about Mohammed nowadays are accepted as being offensive and can be interpreted as inciting racial hatred. If I make those jokes and someone hears me and reports me, you can be sure I'll be in the tabloids a couple of days later. I have no problem in curbing my wit at the expense of that particular individual - I don't find much of what he had to say very funny at all, but if the non-religious world can be frightened into respecting HIS name by accusations of racism and threats of violent retaliation, maybe the same world could just extend a wee bit of the same respect to the name of Jesus Christ?

[ancienthibby]

Maybe 'irritate' IS a better word, TC.

FWIW, I'd say that comparing the death and resurrection of Christ - which is the heart and foundation-stone of the Christian faith - to the grubby goings-on surrounding RFC Old-co/New-co and friends DOES annoy and offend me. The death and resurrection of Christ IS the Gospel, and it's on Christ's death and resurrection that a Christian bases his or her faith - the most precious thing we have. Now I don't LIKE people using Christ's name as a swear-word, expletive, of even really an interjection, but I can accept that many people do so use that name without really giving thought to what it signifies or how other people might feel.

Interjecting those jokes into what was a fairly serious and courteous discussion jarred me, and seemed to me to be done with a degree of malice. Now on that last point I may be wrong, and if so, I apologise. Perhaps 'intention' would be a better word than 'malice'.

However, I would say again - even throwaway jokes about Mohammed nowadays are accepted as being offensive and can be interpreted as inciting racial hatred. If I make those jokes and someone hears me and reports me, you can be sure I'll be in the tabloids a couple of days later. I have no problem in curbing my wit at the expense of that particular individual - I don't find much of what he had to say very funny at all, but if the non-religious world can be frightened into respecting HIS name by accusations of racism and threats of violent retaliation, maybe the same world could just extend a wee bit of the same respect to the name of Jesus Christ?

What he said:agree::agree::agree:

[Eyrie]

Interjecting those jokes into what was a fairly serious and courteous discussion jarred me, and seemed to me to be done with a degree of malice. Now on that last point I may be wrong, and if so, I apologise. Perhaps 'intention' would be a better word than 'malice'.

I've already explained my intention so your apology is accepted. However the rest of your post gives me a better understanding of why you were offended which is appreciated.

[Twa Cairpets]

Maybe 'irritate' IS a better word, TC.

FWIW, I'd say that comparing the death and resurrection of Christ - which is the heart and foundation-stone of the Christian faith - to the grubby goings-on surrounding RFC Old-co/New-co and friends DOES annoy and offend me. The death and resurrection of Christ IS the Gospel, and it's on Christ's death and resurrection that a Christian bases his or her faith - the most precious thing we have. Now I don't LIKE people using Christ's name as a swear-word, expletive, of even really an interjection, but I can accept that many people do so use that name without really giving thought to what it signifies or how other people might feel.

Interjecting those jokes into what was a fairly serious and courteous discussion jarred me, and seemed to me to be done with a degree of malice. Now on that last point I may be wrong, and if so, I apologise. Perhaps 'intention' would be a better word than 'malice'.

However, I would say again - even throwaway jokes about Mohammed nowadays are accepted as being offensive and can be interpreted as inciting racial hatred. If I make those jokes and someone hears me and reports me, you can be sure I'll be in the tabloids a couple of days later. I have no problem in curbing my wit at the expense of that particular individual - I don't find much of what he had to say very funny at all, but if the non-religious world can be frightened into respecting HIS name by accusations of racism and threats of violent retaliation, maybe the same world could just extend a wee bit of the same respect to the name of Jesus Christ?

I think its a shift in balance the other way that is needed - not a reduction in the tolerance and acceptance of blasphemy towards chrisitianity, but a reduction in the sensitivity of muslims to perceived blasphemy towards Allah or Mohammed.

I'm not in favour of unthinking abuse, but as I said in my last post, I reckon Islam is at least 500 years behind christianity in terms of it maturity. It is to the credit of christianity that it can exist in a society that is largely and increasingly secular without resorting for the most part - in this country at least - to extremism and manufactured outrage.

[Jack]

I think we should build a blumming great big wall round the terrorist states (defined by those who want to blow us up), and not let anyone in or out i.e. no gate. A human cannon ball thingy can be employed for anyone found to be on the wrong side of the wall.

[97hills]

Maybe 'irritate' IS a better word, TC.

FWIW, I'd say that comparing the death and resurrection of Christ - which is the heart and foundation-stone of the Christian faith - to the grubby goings-on surrounding RFC Old-co/New-co and friends DOES annoy and offend me. The death and resurrection of Christ IS the Gospel, and it's on Christ's death and resurrection that a Christian bases his or her faith - the most precious thing we have. Now I don't LIKE people using Christ's name as a swear-word, expletive, of even really an interjection, but I can accept that many people do so use that name without really giving thought to what it signifies or how other people might feel.

Interjecting those jokes into what was a fairly serious and courteous discussion jarred me, and seemed to me to be done with a degree of malice. Now on that last point I may be wrong, and if so, I apologise. Perhaps 'intention' would be a better word than 'malice'.

However, I would say again - even throwaway jokes about Mohammed nowadays are accepted as being offensive and can be interpreted as inciting racial hatred. If I make those jokes and someone hears me and reports me, you can be sure I'll be in the tabloids a couple of days later. I have no problem in curbing my wit at the expense of that particular individual - I don't find much of what he had to say very funny at all, but if the non-religious world can be frightened into respecting HIS name by accusations of racism and threats of violent retaliation, maybe the same world could just extend a wee bit of the same respect to the name of Jesus Christ?

Is one of the few good things about Christianity is that thousands of jokes, criticisms or any form of blasphemy does not result in riots and attacks? When you suggest extending the same respect to Christ I think you've missed the point. There is absolutely no respect from me and many others to any religion. Only fear that when ridiculous views are ridiculed then death warrants are issued. I should add that I'm referring to something like The Satanic Verses rather than this movie which judging by reports sounds like a ridiculous piece of work also!

As I tried to show before through someone who speaks far better about this topic then I could ever do is that what right do you have to be offended? There's a social acceptance to not offend others certainly within friends, families and communities but outwith that there is nothing. Only this view that ridiculous views deserve ridicule and that can be directed at any of the religions and non-religions.

[hibsbollah]

I think we should build a blumming great big wall round the terrorist states (defined by those who want to blow us up), and not let anyone in or out i.e. no gate. A human cannon ball thingy can be employed for anyone found to be on the wrong side of the wall.

Im sure theres a body of opinion in the Arab world that feels the same about us...

[RyeSloan]

I thought the following article from The Economist was pretty interesting and relevant considering the topic of this thread:


TO JUDGE solely by its high number of blasphemy cases, Pakistan seems to be a nation of wanton profanity where the Koran is routinely desecrated and the prophet Muhammad insulted. Yet given that the crime of blasphemy is punishable by death, that 97% of Pakistanis are Muslim, and that the remainder are an intimidated and largely impoverished sliver, then the country’s many blasphemy cases more obviously represent an abuse of both religion and the law.

The case of Rimsha Masih, a Christian girl, underlines that interpretation. On August 16th she was arrested in her slum on the outskirts of the capital, Islamabad, and charged with blasphemy after a neighbour and a local cleric claimed that she had burned pages of the Koran. A 500-strong mob swiftly gathered outside her family’s one-room home, causing the whole Christian community of the area to flee in terror of reprisals.

Rimsha’s parents, now in protective custody, say that she is just 11 and has Down’s syndrome. A medical report submitted to an Islamabad court says that she is about 14, seems uneducated, and has a mental age “below her chronological age”. Whether 11 or 14, she is a juvenile under the law, yet she has been held in solitary confinement at an adult maximum-security jail—an experience that her lawyer says has traumatised her. The court has repeatedly refused to give her bail after frivolous objections raised by the lawyer for the accusing neighbour.

The blasphemy law under which Rimsha has been arrested dates back to colonial times, but it was given teeth in the 1980s by the dictator of the day, General Zia ul Haq, who promoted Islamism. Over 1,000 blasphemy cases have since been brought, many on the flimsiest of evidence. When they do not drag on for years, they lead to convictions on hearsay. Dozens of accused have been murdered, in or out of jail. In July a mentally disturbed Muslim man, arrested for blasphemy in the Punjab city of Bahawalpur, was dragged out of the police station by a crowd of 2,000 and set on fire. In 2009 accusations of blasphemy led a mob to attack Christians in Gojra in Punjab province. At least eight were burned to death. Most blasphemy cases turn out to be about something else, often settling personal scores or grabbing property. In Rimsha’s case, the aim seems to have been to drive several hundred Christian families from the area for good.

Yet her case offers a chink of light. This time neighbours neither killed the girl nor burned down her house. A plucky mullah, Tahir Ashrafi, often associated with hardline causes, has championed Rimsha, calling her a “daughter of the nation”. He has brought a few other clerics with him.

And, for the first time, the state has pushed back. Over the weekend one of her accusers, the local imam, was himself arrested and charged with blasphemy, after his deputy said that he had seen the imam tear up pages of the Koran in order to fabricate evidence against the girl. Rimsha’s torment is so extreme that the local media and some of the population have for once taken the side of the accused. Many of the law’s victims are Muslims, which could drag the issue into the political mainstream. Last year 20 of 26 cases of blasphemy involved allegations against Muslims, according to the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. Even if repeal seems impossible, some see a chance to reform the blasphemy law—demanding a higher burden of evidence for accusations, for instance.

However, the coalition government led by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) is weak. It believes that changing the law is of interest only to the country’s religious minorities, a tiny liberal class and the meddling West. In 2011 two of the PPP’s leaders were gunned down after criticising the law. With a general election due in the next few months, this timid government looks unlikely to defang a venomous law, even as a scintilla of hope shows for poor Rimsha.

[--------]

Is one of the few good things about Christianity is that thousands of jokes, criticisms or any form of blasphemy does not result in riots and attacks? When you suggest extending the same respect to Christ I think you've missed the point. There is absolutely no respect from me and many others to any religion. Only fear that when ridiculous views are ridiculed then death warrants are issued. I should add that I'm referring to something like The Satanic Verses rather than this movie which judging by reports sounds like a ridiculous piece of work also!

As I tried to show before through someone who speaks far better about this topic then I could ever do is that what right do you have to be offended? There's a social acceptance to not offend others certainly within friends, families and communities but outwith that there is nothing. Only this view that ridiculous views deserve ridicule and that can be directed at any of the religions and non-religions.


As far as I can understand your syntax (which could be clearer) I take your point, which seems to be that it's OK to be as offensive and insulting to anyone you disagree with just because you disagree with them.

Which is fairly safe over the internet but maybe a wee bit risky face-to-face.

I find it hard to credit that you live in fear of death threats from multifarious religious groups and communities for expressing your contempt for their "ridiculous" views.

I would suggest that a failure to extend courtesy and respect towards people we disagree with - however "ridiculous" we might find their views and attitudes - is the root of sectarian hatred and bigotry that blights our society and many other societies throughout the world.

I would hope that if I ever were to get to know you well, I would find I could respect many of your views and opinions, despite the fundamental disagreements between us.

What I cannot respect is your attitude that opinions, views and beliefs YOU don't share are therefore by definition "ridiculous", and that you and folks like you have the right to be as boorish, offensive and ill-mannered as you choose towards those who hold them. If I adopted that attitude to (for example) the Roman Catholic members of the community in which I live, I would be rightly accused of inciting religious and ethnic hatred.
Basically, as far as I can tell from this post you're a non-religious bigot, mate. Just as bad as the religious ones. :cb

[--------]

I think its a shift in balance the other way that is needed - not a reduction in the tolerance and acceptance of blasphemy towards chrisitianity, but a reduction in the sensitivity of muslims to perceived blasphemy towards Allah or Mohammed.

I'm not in favour of unthinking abuse, but as I said in my last post, I reckon Islam is at least 500 years behind christianity in terms of it maturity. It is to the credit of christianity that it can exist in a society that is largely and increasingly secular without resorting for the most part - in this country at least - to extremism and manufactured outrage.


How about a move towards a situation where religious folks - of whatever religion - try to be less judgemental and sensitive over other people's motives, while society generally (which means people - individual people) is more courteous and considerate towards the various strands of belief and culture in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society?

I mean, if I were totally absolutely positively brutally frank about what I thought of each and every poster on this forum, I'd rightly be banned. (Truly, there are some right trumpets posting on here, but I don't always tell them so. Nor, I suspect, do YOU, TC. :wink:)​ Part of the cost of civilisation is that we tolerate and respect even those with whom we disagree.

[Eyrie]

Is one of the few good things about Christianity is that thousands of jokes, criticisms or any form of blasphemy does not result in riots and attacks? When you suggest extending the same respect to Christ I think you've missed the point. There is absolutely no respect from me and many others to any religion. Only fear that when ridiculous views are ridiculed then death warrants are issued. I should add that I'm referring to something like The Satanic Verses rather than this movie which judging by reports sounds like a ridiculous piece of work also!

As I tried to show before through someone who speaks far better about this topic then I could ever do is that what right do you have to be offended? There's a social acceptance to not offend others certainly within friends, families and communities but outwith that there is nothing. Only this view that ridiculous views deserve ridicule and that can be directed at any of the religions and non-religions.

As an devout atheist I find this post ridiculous and the poster deserving of ridicule rather than respect.

[Twa Cairpets]

How about a move towards a situation where religious folks - of whatever religion - try to be less judgemental and sensitive over other people's motives, while society generally (which means people - individual people) is more courteous and considerate towards the various strands of belief and culture in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society?

I mean, if I were totally absolutely positively brutally frank about what I thought of each and every poster on this forum, I'd rightly be banned. (Truly, there are some right trumpets posting on here, but I don't always tell them so. Nor, I suspect, do YOU, TC. :wink:)​ Part of the cost of civilisation is that we tolerate and respect even those with whom we disagree.

One of the reasons why religion generates lack of tolerance is that it is inherently judgmental as an institution, and that tends to be regardless of which religion it is. People react to that pre-judgment, and the inevitable result is intolerance and polarisation. Courtesy and tolerance is a laudable and admirable goal, but from a religious perspective that may require some of the core principles to be discarded - sin, worship, prayer, obedience etc, and from an atheist position it needs an acceptance that some people choose to believe something that is (to the atheist) bizarre and wrong. Both things are difficult to do, I think.

I clearly think that those of faith are factually incorrect in believing what they do and that their beliefs can, in a wider society, be detrimental. I also accept that many people of faith gain strength and personal fortitude from that faith, and that it inspires them in their behaviour - again I think they're reasoning is wrong, but the outcome is, for them and possibly others around them, positive. To actively and deliberately say things that are hurtful to them directly is wrong - it's essentially just abuse.

However, frank discussion around the nature of faith and to react against judgment proclaimed in the name of faith is fair and the blasphemy card in those instances shouldn't I think, be played - all that does is inflame the situation.

I do agree with 97hills that religion per se should be afforded no special privilege in terms of protection, but I don't think people should by default be castigated as being ridiculous as a result of their faith, that's just rude if nothing else. The statement he made that ridiculous views should be ridiculed is only valid if the views are directed towards you, or are being used as a platform for wider societal morality - then they should be challenged and debated. I object deeply to religion being used as a justification for any legislation, but if people want to hold personal views, and share them amongst their faith community, there's nothing wrong with that and those of opposing views shouldn't involve themselves in it or cincern themselves with it.

[hibsbollah]

I think its a shift in balance the other way that is needed - not a reduction in the tolerance and acceptance of blasphemy towards chrisitianity, but a reduction in the sensitivity of muslims to perceived blasphemy towards Allah or Mohammed.

I'm not in favour of unthinking abuse, but as I said in my last post, I reckon Islam is at least 500 years behind christianity in terms of it maturity. It is to the credit of christianity that it can exist in a society that is largely and increasingly secular without resorting for the most part - in this country at least - to extremism and manufactured outrage.

I don't think the maturity of the religion itself has anything to do with levels of tolerance. The Koran Is no more or less tolerant than the Bible. It's about society and economics. In places like Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and in countries across the middle east there is third world poverty, lack of basic education, mass illiteracy, rural agricultural areas with one (usually octogenarian) tribal elder running the show, multiple wars, guns throughout the population, widespread corruption, women with no power in society etc etc.

transfer these socio-economic conditions to any Christian society and you'd have the same retrenchment towards fundamentalist religion and intolerance.

[Hibrandenburg]

This might sound absurd, but is there an atheist equivalent to blasphemy? I'd really like to know what I'm allowed to get upset about regarding my non beliefs.

[Twa Cairpets]

I don't think the maturity of the religion itself has anything to do with levels of tolerance. The Koran Is no more or less tolerant than the Bible. It's about society and economics. In places like Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and in countries across the middle east there is third world poverty, lack of basic education, mass illiteracy, rural agricultural areas with one (usually octogenarian) tribal elder running the show, multiple wars, guns throughout the population, widespread corruption, women with no power in society etc etc.

transfer these socio-economic conditions to any Christian society and you'd have the same retrenchment towards fundamentalist religion and intolerance.

Yep, fair point. The two are intertwined. The relative backwardness of the society supports the religion and vice versa.

[steakbake]

This might sound absurd, but is there an atheist equivalent to blasphemy? I'd really like to know what I'm allowed to get upset about regarding my non beliefs.

I find being preached at or having evangelist literature handed to me relatively irritating. Or being door stepped by believers. It assumes I either have no beliefs or whatever ones I have are insufficient. Or the fact that a belief in the hereafter and a high position in the CoE will result in a seat in the Lords and being able to influence government policies for all.

[Hibrandenburg]

I find being preached at or having evangelist literature handed to me relatively irritating. Or being door stepped by believers. It assumes I either have no beliefs or whatever ones I have are insufficient. Or the fact that a belief in the hereafter and a high position in the CoE will result in a seat in the Lords and being able to influence government policies for all.
I'd describe that scenario as irritating too. However if I understand the meaning of blasphemy (and I'm trying) then it goes further than irritation and is actually insulting. I think if someone can give me an example of something that I find offensive regarding my non belief, then maybe I can get my head round it.

[97hills]

As far as I can understand your syntax (which could be clearer) I take your point, which seems to be that it's OK to be as offensive and insulting to anyone you disagree with just because you disagree with them.

Which is fairly safe over the internet but maybe a wee bit risky face-to-face.

I find it hard to credit that you live in fear of death threats from multifarious religious groups and communities for expressing your contempt for their "ridiculous" views.

I would suggest that a failure to extend courtesy and respect towards people we disagree with - however "ridiculous" we might find their views and attitudes - is the root of sectarian hatred and bigotry that blights our society and many other societies throughout the world.

I would hope that if I ever were to get to know you well, I would find I could respect many of your views and opinions, despite the fundamental disagreements between us.

What I cannot respect is your attitude that opinions, views and beliefs YOU don't share are therefore by definition "ridiculous", and that you and folks like you have the right to be as boorish, offensive and ill-mannered as you choose towards those who hold them. If I adopted that attitude to (for example) the Roman Catholic members of the community in which I live, I would be rightly accused of inciting religious and ethnic hatred.
Basically, as far as I can tell from this post you're a non-religious bigot, mate. Just as bad as the religious ones. :cb

You'd make a good journalist.

I mention that after no amount of blasphemy is issuing a fatwa demanding the death of Salman Rushdie acceptable. This is what I feel is ridiculous. However you make the jump to assume that I currently live in fear of this sort of reprisal. Firstly, as you mentioned, I'm certainly not a good enough writer to even get published in the metro, never mind becoming a multi-million pound author. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it was in response to the statement that Christ is not respected in the same way as Muhammad because saying "for God's sake!" when you stub your toe is acceptable but using Muhammad's name in vein can literally make your death more valuable.

You also seem to suggest that I believe it's ok to be deliberately offensive just as long as it is the perpetrators opinion. No. Do I believe its ridiculous to base your entire outlook on life based on a book written many hundred years ago? Of course I do. Do I believe it's wrong to to rape a woman and do I find that notion offensive? Bloody right I do. It's certainly quite a bit above just being offended! However, the ridiculous part to me is that if your moral basis was taken entirely off that book then there are circumstances where you would not find the latter offensive.

I never mentioned that those views outwith my own are all ridiculous. I am not a one person moral authority after all! I respect a huge number of different views. I love different views. I respect a hell of a lot of religious people. If all Christians were like my gran then I would probably love Christianity. Unfortunately though, that is not the case and there are far fewer arranged flower vases because of it. I think that's a shame. However, once again, the bridge you made between finding some religious views ridiculous and finding all views that are not my own as ridiculous is a bit far fetched.

Finally you extrapolate my view that ridiculous views deserve ridicule to the point where I can no longer be within a community whose views are different to my own, have a conversation with anyone who has what I consider to be a ridiculous view and perhaps more worryingly that this is the source of bigotry. If you analyse anyone's beliefs/views I'm sure you will always find something that you find ridiculous. However, to assume that makes me a bigot is a bit of a step too far. Mainly because I don't think you actually understand what a bigot is. Definitions from google:

Bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

And just to clarify...

Prejudice: Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

On those definitions, the accusation you made against me is pretty serious. As we know, bigotry is illegal if nothing else. All my opinions are based on the morals I have learned through being a member of society, being a son, being a friend, being a student and perhaps most importantly, reading as often as I can about the great thinkers of our time. These stories fascinate me because one of the most basic views I hold is that why, when the human race has taken massive leaps through the people within that race, do we still treat the words within a book written hundreds of years ago as the pinnacle of human existence? That morals are not innate through thousands of years of living within communities but are only taught to us through one book?

If you want to argue on any of these topics please go ahead. I will fill in all the gaps you assumed were there within your post. I will try my best to explain my point of view entirely through evidence and reason. If you happen to stumble upon a topic where I'm not sure and if your evidence and reason seems more plausible than mine then I will change my opinion. Imagine that! A world where everyone's opinion can grow, can change, or can listen to a multitude of opinions and use them within your own outlook on life. Or would you just base it off one book with no sequel?

[Twa Cairpets]

I'd describe that scenario as irritating too. However if I understand the meaning of blasphemy (and I'm trying) then it goes further than irritation and is actually insulting. I think if someone can give me an example of something that I find offensive regarding my non belief, then maybe I can get my head round it.

It's not blasphemy, but I am furious when I have on occasion been essentially accused of child neglect by not raising my kids in the church or having them baptised.
Maybe not quite offensive, but the closest I can get to your question!

[Dinkydoo]

Doddie, I apologise if my :thumbsup: irritated you.

I found the comparison between JC's resurrection and whether or not he should be allowed to keep his past accomplishments to the Rangers scenario quite witty, without even considering that it could be interpreted as a snide dig at Christianity - which in fairness to the person who posted it, I don't think it was meant to be either.

[hibsbollah]

Yep, fair point. The two are intertwined. The relative backwardness of the society supports the religion and vice versa.

Topically...

Imagine is on BBC1 now about Salman Rushdies new book about his experiences of fatwa.

[Jack]

Im sure theres a body of opinion in the Arab world that feels the same about us...

FANTASTIC! :aok:

Perhaps we/USA could super fund the building industry instead of the arms industry.

And as an ignorant slob, I’ll suggest the Arabs supply the sand. :duck:

[--------]

You'd make a good journalist.

I mention that after no amount of blasphemy is issuing a fatwa demanding the death of Salman Rushdie acceptable. This is what I feel is ridiculous. However you make the jump to assume that I currently live in fear of this sort of reprisal. Firstly, as you mentioned, I'm certainly not a good enough writer to even get published in the metro, never mind becoming a multi-million pound author. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it was in response to the statement that Christ is not respected in the same way as Muhammad because saying "for God's sake!" when you stub your toe is acceptable but using Muhammad's name in vein can literally make your death more valuable.

You also seem to suggest that I believe it's ok to be deliberately offensive just as long as it is the perpetrators opinion. No. Do I believe its ridiculous to base your entire outlook on life based on a book written many hundred years ago? Of course I do. Do I believe it's wrong to to rape a woman and do I find that notion offensive? Bloody right I do. It's certainly quite a bit above just being offended! However, the ridiculous part to me is that if your moral basis was taken entirely off that book then there are circumstances where you would not find the latter offensive.

I never mentioned that those views outwith my own are all ridiculous. I am not a one person moral authority after all! I respect a huge number of different views. I love different views. I respect a hell of a lot of religious people. If all Christians were like my gran then I would probably love Christianity. Unfortunately though, that is not the case and there are far fewer arranged flower vases because of it. I think that's a shame. However, once again, the bridge you made between finding some religious views ridiculous and finding all views that are not my own as ridiculous is a bit far fetched.

Finally you extrapolate my view that ridiculous views deserve ridicule to the point where I can no longer be within a community whose views are different to my own, have a conversation with anyone who has what I consider to be a ridiculous view and perhaps more worryingly that this is the source of bigotry. If you analyse anyone's beliefs/views I'm sure you will always find something that you find ridiculous. However, to assume that makes me a bigot is a bit of a step too far. Mainly because I don't think you actually understand what a bigot is. Definitions from google:

Bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

And just to clarify...

Prejudice: Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

On those definitions, the accusation you made against me is pretty serious. As we know, bigotry is illegal if nothing else. All my opinions are based on the morals I have learned through being a member of society, being a son, being a friend, being a student and perhaps most importantly, reading as often as I can about the great thinkers of our time. These stories fascinate me because one of the most basic views I hold is that why, when the human race has taken massive leaps through the people within that race, do we still treat the words within a book written hundreds of years ago as the pinnacle of human existence? That morals are not innate through thousands of years of living within communities but are only taught to us through one book?

If you want to argue on any of these topics please go ahead. I will fill in all the gaps you assumed were there within your post. I will try my best to explain my point of view entirely through evidence and reason. If you happen to stumble upon a topic where I'm not sure and if your evidence and reason seems more plausible than mine then I will change my opinion. Imagine that! A world where everyone's opinion can grow, can change, or can listen to a multitude of opinions and use them within your own outlook on life. Or would you just base it off one book with no sequel?



My reply was to your post and what you said in that post.

But you're right. Neither I nor any of my fellow-Christians and colleagues have more than one book on our bookshelves, and we never listen to anyone who doesn't agree with us.

Perhaps, in the light of the history of the 20th century, you might point out to me some of the "massive leaps" (forward, I assume you mean, though you don't make that clear) in morality and ethics and toleration of others the human race has taken over the past 200 years?

[grunt]

Interesting thread. I was really quite surprised by the negative reactions to what I thought were two funny and topical one liners about Rangers. But there you go. I also agree with the comment quoted from Stephen Fry - there does seem to have developed over the last few years a practice whereby people feel it necessary to voice their "offendedness". I guess it's all part of the wider social communication brought about by social networks such as this. It is an interesting phenomenon.

[Dinkydoo]

Perhaps, in the light of the history of the 20th century, you might point out to me some of the "massive leaps" (forward, I assume you mean, though you don't make that clear) in morality and ethics and toleration of others the human race has taken over the past 200 years?

The abolishment of slavery and the death penalty (in the UK at least) and equal rights for women are pretty large steps in the right direction within the past ~200 years

[Betty Boop]

The abolishment of slavery and the death penalty (in the UK at least) and equal rights for women are pretty large steps in the right direction within the past ~200 years

Equal rights for women ? You are having a laugh ! Women are still paid less than men, which was proven when councils up and down the country, were forced to pay out millions in compensation. Women are also still discriminated against, in the workplace in terms of promotion and executive postions. Women are also hugely under-represented in Parliament and the cabinet, which currently consists of three female ministers. A long way to go until we can claim equality for women in the UK.

[RyeSloan]

My reply was to your post and what you said in that post.

But you're right. Neither I nor any of my fellow-Christians and colleagues have more than one book on our bookshelves, and we never listen to anyone who doesn't agree with us.

Perhaps, in the light of the history of the 20th century, you might point out to me some of the "massive leaps" (forward, I assume you mean, though you don't make that clear) in morality and ethics and toleration of others the human race has taken over the past 200 years?


What about human rights legislation, age discrimination acts, right to vote, sexual equality acts, race discrimination act etc etc.

I'm sure you are not but it does come across that you are suggesting that we have not seen any progession in such things since 1812 which would seem a rather bizzare stance to take.

Morality is of course a more subjuctive topic...who's morals are we taking as the benchmark?

[97hills]

My reply was to your post and what you said in that post.

But you're right. Neither I nor any of my fellow-Christians and colleagues have more than one book on our bookshelves, and we never listen to anyone who doesn't agree with us.

Perhaps, in the light of the history of the 20th century, you might point out to me some of the "massive leaps" (forward, I assume you mean, though you don't make that clear) in morality and ethics and toleration of others the human race has taken over the past 200 years?

The reply and accusations were not based on what I said but what you assumed I would say if I had written in more detail. However, you have just done it again in the middle paragraph. At no point do I mention that all Christians only read one book. I was mocking that exact thought. I know there are groups who attempt to live their life in that exact manner but thank god they are a tiny minority!

Therein is the part that I find interesting because you've expanded your life beyond the words of the bible. Now that could be through being part of a community, through your own reading or countless other sources of information. So if you're capable of improving beyond the bible, why do you need the bible?

It seems other posters have already pointed out the massive leaps the human race has made in the past 2000 years or so. I really hope that was tongue in cheek because it is a pretty big list!

[McHibby]

This is really interesting.
Whilst I don't believe in God, many of my pals are Christians or Muslims and I would certainly never intentionally offend anyone.

My initial thoughts were that if someone PM'd me about 'blaspheming' I'd not be happy about it. To be honest I am not even sure why, it's just a gut feeling. If someone said something like 'thank God for that' after we had scored would it be acceptable for me to PM them and say, 'Look I don't believe in God and I find your reference to Him offensive. Can you please refrain from doing this in future?' Would that be ok? I don't think it would, one it's totally and utterly ridiculous and two, my beliefs are no more important than anyone else's. I would never dream of trying to impose my idea of acceptable/moral behaviour onto others, but that is kind of what the Phantom PM-er is doing.

[97hills]

What about human rights legislation, age discrimination acts, right to vote, sexual equality acts, race discrimination act etc etc.

I'm sure you are not but it does come across that you are suggesting that we have not seen any progession in such things since 1812 which would seem a rather bizzare stance to take.

Morality is of course a more subjuctive topic...who's morals are we taking as the benchmark?

It is certainly an interesting thought because what we deem to be morally sound today will no doubt change from generation to generation. I'm pretty sure some parts of my moral stance will be considered awful in 100 years. However, the important point is that there is no exact benchmark because it is always up for debate in an attempt to improve. This mark will always move on and forward but if you take the words of one book as that benchmark then you will always be restricted in how far you can move away from it.

[--------]

What about human rights legislation, age discrimination acts, right to vote, sexual equality acts, race discrimination act etc etc.

I'm sure you are not but it does come across that you are suggesting that we have not seen any progession in such things since 1812 which would seem a rather bizzare stance to take.

Morality is of course a more subjuctive topic...who's morals are we taking as the benchmark?


Political purges? Ethnic cleansing? The Holocaust? Stalin's Red Terrors? The civil wars following the break-up of Yugoslavia? A civil war in China that went on for decades? The Great War? The Second World War? Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The development of chemical and biological weapons? Rwanda? Vietnam? Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? Need I go on?

Yes, I AM saying that the human race in its essentials hasn't advanced one split millimetre since the time of the Romans, the Hittites, the Aztecs, whoever.

Religious or unbeliever, atheist or believer, we're all pretty screwed.

The idea of the "moral evolution" of the human race is a myth made up by idiots.

We're the same nasty pieces of work we always were.

[steakbake]

Political purges? Ethnic cleansing? The Holocaust? Stalin's Red Terrors? The civil wars following the break-up of Yugoslavia? A civil war in China that went on for decades? The Great War? The Second World War? Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The development of chemical and biological weapons? Rwanda? Vietnam? Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? Need I go on?

Yes, I AM saying that the human race in its essentials hasn't advanced one split millimetre since the time of the Romans, the Hittites, the Aztecs, whoever.

Religious or unbeliever, atheist or believer, we're all pretty screwed.

The idea of the "moral evolution" of the human race is a myth made up by idiots.

We're the same nasty pieces of work we always were.

The human is an inherrently violent and duplicitous species, given to territorialism, expansive power games and subjugating each other.

In my opinion, religion can be a way of perfecting the human to rise above some of those base instincts. Instead though, because it is constructed by humans (setting aside any debate about the source of the religion and whether there are validity in the claims of their origin), its earthly organisation is given to the same flaws as the humans that create it.

Essentially, organised religion is as given to the same corruption and the lower aspects of humanity as organises it: suspicion/hostility/subjugation of "the other", power plays and a need to expand, conquer and increase territory to legitimise and validate it.

We can never be divine because we approach it in too human a way.

[Dinkydoo]

Equal rights for women ? You are having a laugh ! Women are still paid less than men, which was proven when councils up and down the country, were forced to pay out millions in compensation. Women are also still discriminated against, in the workplace in terms of promotion and executive postions. Women are also hugely under-represented in Parliament and the cabinet, which currently consists of three female ministers. A long way to go until we can claim equality for women in the UK.

Ok, I should have said, MORE equal rights for women - I don't think I was claiming total equality anyway; though this is what we should be aiming for.

What Doddie was inferring is that the human race has not made any progress in morality, ethics and the tolerance of others, and if it has, then it is negated by several of the atrocities that he has referred to in his latest post; which is a pretty morbid outlook to be honest.

The Equality Act 2010 pretty much outlines that, amongst other things, a person cannot be at a disadvantage within the workplace due to their race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, pregnancy, marriage/civil partnership, disability or gender reassignment. If there is a problem with equal pay between sexes then there is legislation out there to help employees fight that; we can't physically force EVERY employer (no matter how big or small) to promote equal opportunities for everyone, but we can make it painfully expensive for any employer who loses a grievance under the Equality Act.

[hibsbollah]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/srpuHQQiq06KCN7UW24NA7A/view.m?id=15&gid=world/2012/sep/20/religious-intolerance-on-rise-worldwide&cat=top-stories

Massive increase in restrictions on religious freedom, just in the last two years, according to this report. And the UK doesnt come out of it well either.

[Twa Cairpets]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/srpuHQQiq06KCN7UW24NA7A/view.m?id=15&gid=world/2012/sep/20/religious-intolerance-on-rise-worldwide&cat=top-stories

Massive increase in restrictions on religious freedom, just in the last two years, according to this report. And the UK doesnt come out of it well either.

Thanks for the link.
I've read the Pew Forums summary of their original report and some of the sections of the full report, and I have to say I think the way it has been reported in the Guardian (and the report itself in many instances) is misleading in its conclusions.

By way of example:
- It says 75% of the worlds population live in countries that limited freedom of religion to some extent. This is clearly not the same as 75% of the worlds population have their religious freedom limited, which is what it could/will be taken to mean.
- The Guardian says the UK is inbetween Kenya and Burma. The report explicitly says that position/rank in the table is not relevant due to the small difference in figures between the countries in a section.
- The criteria for intolerance are misleading. If a religious institution has been banned, then that is counted as intolerance, even if it is a terrorist organisation with a religious base.
-There is no weighting that I can see for multicultural countries like the UK where diversity and freedom of religion is more likely to create religious tension. If you live in a single religion country, the opportunity for religious unrest is clearly lower so you are marked positively for that. The results may show a reduction of tolerance for a particualr religion in a particular country, but it doesn't mean that religion itself is less tolerated.
- There is little acknowledgement in what I've read of the the fact that it is religious states that impose the religious restrictions.

Some of the results using the criteria they have are clearly ludicrous. While I'm a major fan of evidence and research, I would take some convincing that data that show Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Haiti to be countries with less religious hostility than the UK is not in some way fairly fundamentally flawed.

[Twa Cairpets]

Political purges? Ethnic cleansing? The Holocaust? Stalin's Red Terrors? The civil wars following the break-up of Yugoslavia? A civil war in China that went on for decades? The Great War? The Second World War? Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The development of chemical and biological weapons? Rwanda? Vietnam? Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? Need I go on?

Yes, I AM saying that the human race in its essentials hasn't advanced one split millimetre since the time of the Romans, the Hittites, the Aztecs, whoever.

Religious or unbeliever, atheist or believer, we're all pretty screwed.

The idea of the "moral evolution" of the human race is a myth made up by idiots.

We're the same nasty pieces of work we always were.

Doddie, I think this is very shaky ground you're on here.

The fact that bad things have happened in modern times doesn't mean that societies haven't advanced, in particular in the West. it's not necessarily a religion/atheism thing. Advances in effective killing technology have allowed appalling humans to be more efficiently appalling, but to suggest that in general at least the human condition in the UK isn't better today than it was 200 years ago is patently absurd.
In the UK we do have more equality, we do have better healthcare, we do have children being educated rather than working, we don't have servitude, people actively fight for the rights of disabled people and any number of other changes in attitude which can only be described as advances in morality. There are of course lots of examples where all of the things I've listed can be falsified by example, but in general they are true, and examples to the contrary do not invalidate the general position.

[hibsbollah]

Thanks for the link.
I've read the Pew Forums summary of their original report and some of the sections of the full report, and I have to say I think the way it has been reported in the Guardian (and the report itself in many instances) is misleading in its conclusions.

By way of example:
- It says 75% of the worlds population live in countries that limited freedom of religion to some extent. This is clearly not the same as 75% of the worlds population have their religious freedom limited, which is what it could/will be taken to mean.
- The Guardian says the UK is inbetween Kenya and Burma. The report explicitly says that position/rank in the table is not relevant due to the small difference in figures between the countries in a section.
- The criteria for intolerance are misleading. If a religious institution has been banned, then that is counted as intolerance, even if it is a terrorist organisation with a religious base.
-There is no weighting that I can see for multicultural countries like the UK where diversity and freedom of religion is more likely to create religious tension. If you live in a single religion country, the opportunity for religious unrest is clearly lower so you are marked positively for that. The results may show a reduction of tolerance for a particualr religion in a particular country, but it doesn't mean that religion itself is less tolerated.
- There is little acknowledgement in what I've read of the the fact that it is religious states that impose the religious restrictions.

Some of the results using the criteria they have are clearly ludicrous. While I'm a major fan of evidence and research, I would take some convincing that data that show Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Haiti to be countries with less religious hostility than the UK is not in some way fairly fundamentally flawed.

The report is really dealing with 'social hostility related to religion'. Whether this is primarily about a) secularists showing prejudicial hostility to believers of whatever faith or b) Religion stirring up antagonism to other sects/faiths, isnt all that clear ans obviously depends on the country in question.

Whichever, its good evidence of increased faith related conflict.

[Twa Cairpets]

The report is really dealing with 'social hostility related to religion'. Whether this is primarily about a) secularists showing prejudicial hostility to believers of whatever faith or b) Religion stirring up antagonism to other sects/faiths, isnt all that clear ans obviously depends on the country in question.

Whichever, its good evidence of increased faith related conflict.

It may in some areas, but the brush strokes to define the rankings and levels of hostility I think are misleading. For the UK to be marked as more hostile to religion than the vast majority of countries listed is patently bonkers. The metric of measurement have weightings that aren't fair or relevant. If the government has shut down a quasi-religions institution for being, say, a front for terrorism or a tax scam, that counts to the hostility matrix more than a country where the government hasn't shut such an organisation down because they weren't allowed in the first place!

I dont think Pew has an agenda, by the way, i just think the methodology in the report is flawed, and the reported statistics in terms of percentages are explained or particualrly valid. There's a big difference between and increase from to 20% of something and and increase of 20%. (A 20% increase of something very small is a very small increase, but sounds significant. its how the Daily Mail plan their health scare headlines).

Sadly, almost no-one will go back and read the source data, which will mean the headline of "Report shows increase in religious intolerance" will become the received and repeated truth

[VickMackie]

Ok, I should have said, MORE equal rights for women - I don't think I was claiming total equality anyway; though this is what we should be aiming for.

What Doddie was inferring is that the human race has not made any progress in morality, ethics and the tolerance of others, and if it has, then it is negated by several of the atrocities that he has referred to in his latest post; which is a pretty morbid outlook to be honest.

The Equality Act 2010 pretty much outlines that, amongst other things, a person cannot be at a disadvantage within the workplace due to their race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, pregnancy, marriage/civil partnership, disability or gender reassignment. If there is a problem with equal pay between sexes then there is legislation out there to help employees fight that; we can't physically force EVERY employer (no matter how big or small) to promote equal opportunities for everyone, but we can make it painfully expensive for any employer who loses a grievance under the Equality Act.

My work operate on performance related pay. This is judged each year. There are no fixed salaries for a particular job.

Most women take time off for maternity leave of 6-12 months. They are unlikely to get a payrise in line with the salary pot for that year.

Year on year increases will naturally be less because of the missing year or years taken off for maternity.

Therefore, given that salary increase are restricted by the amount of money available the company shouldn't just bump those on maternity, or paternity, leave up to the same salary of someone who worked their ass off for that year and contribute to the success of the company.

This is why I think there are descrepancies still, and always will be.

And on the subjects of council, from another poster, I read that male cleaners that were paid less than the females tried to argue for equal pay and were told to bolt!

[--------]

Doddie, I think this is very shaky ground you're on here.

The fact that bad things have happened in modern times doesn't mean that societies haven't advanced, in particular in the West. it's not necessarily a religion/atheism thing. Advances in effective killing technology have allowed appalling humans to be more efficiently appalling, but to suggest that in general at least the human condition in the UK isn't better today than it was 200 years ago is patently absurd.
In the UK we do have more equality, we do have better healthcare, we do have children being educated rather than working, we don't have servitude, people actively fight for the rights of disabled people and any number of other changes in attitude which can only be described as advances in morality. There are of course lots of examples where all of the things I've listed can be falsified by example, but in general they are true, and examples to the contrary do not invalidate the general position.


If you limit your argument to one small country, TC, you can argue for advancement.

Over the world, though? You won't convince me we've really advanced at all. What you're talking about here is a very thin, very vulnerable veneer of decency over the same old, same old.

For example - more equality? Really? Politically? Political power's more readily accessible to more people today than 50-60 years ago? I mean REAL political power, not just the privilege of putting a cross on a piece of paper to choose between three or four political parties whose 'principles' and 'policies' - providing they actually have any of either - are to all intents and purposes utterly indistinguishable from one another.

Economic equality? The gap between the richest 7-8% in the UK and the poorest in the population is arguably much wider than it was when I was a boy, or even in my father's boyhood between the wars. I agree that the poorest in this country are possibly less miserable than they were between the wars, but I have a nasty feeling that that's because our economy freeloads on the suffering of the poor of other countries whom you and I never see and really don't want to think about. It's not our coal-miners dying of silicosis these days, it's third-world miners ... dying of silicosis. Our poor don't actually starve to death in our streets - that only happens in the third world. (What a convenient expression that is - 'third world'. makes all the suffering and exploitation seem so far, faaaaaar awaaaaaaay ....)

As for servitude, we don't have black slaves calling us 'Massa' or 'Bwana', and the Anglo-Indian Raj is long gone, but what about the replica football strips, the football boots just like the ones Wayne Rooney or Christiano Ronaldo wears, the footballs in all the bright colours, the cheap and cheerful clothes sold in our supermarkets - women and kids in sweat-shops in Indonesia, China, Pakistan ring any bells? It's not just the pirated versions that are manufactured out of the sweat and tears of the dispossessed. Slavery exists still in the 21st century world - it's just moved house so as not to offend delicate Western sensibilities.

Truth is, Western civilisation has advanced in appearance by moving the scandals out of sight, or by allowing abuses to take place within the UK by turning a blind eye.

And you're right - it's not a religion/atheism/secularism thing. It's a human nature thing.

Remember what G K Chesterton replied to 'The Times' when the newspaper asked him to contribute to a series of articles entitled "The Problem With The World"?

“Dear Sirs, I am. Sincerely yours, G.K. Chesterton”.

We're the problem with the world - human beings. You, me and everyone else, mate. :wink:

[--------]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/srpuHQQiq06KCN7UW24NA7A/view.m?id=15&gid=world/2012/sep/20/religious-intolerance-on-rise-worldwide&cat=top-stories

Massive increase in restrictions on religious freedom, just in the last two years, according to this report. And the UK doesnt come out of it well either.


And another (don't know if it's already been posted, but here goes anyway):

http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/

That's the top article right now dated September 14: "Declaration of Religious Rights."

[Twa Cairpets]

And another (don't know if it's already been posted, but here goes anyway):

http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/

That's the top article right now dated September 14: "Declaration of Religious Rights."

Copied from the link. I think this sums up my views pretty precisely:


Religious list of Rights.

You have the right to practice your religion, during your personal time. Specifically, in the privacy of your own home or place of worship, in peace, and without being mistreated or interrupted.
You have the right to wear whatever you choose to wear as a sign of your religion, in public places. Unless specific dress codes are in place, your right to wear whatever you choose should not be infringed.
You have the right not to be discriminated against when applying for work, or in any other form.
You have the right (to a limit. Set out in the list of non-rights) to educate your children in your religion.
You have the right to marry whomever you wish, providing it is consensual, and both are over the age of 16.
You have the right, in any country, to practice your religion. No country should be described in terms of religion.
You have the right to verbally criticise democracy, science, homosexuality, abortion, atheism or anything else you find particularly disturbing to your own personal beliefs. This is a basic right, enshrined by your right to freedom of expression.
You have the right, within any country, to buy property – just as any other person – and use it for religious means; i.e – if you have bought the land, you have the right to build a Church/Mosque or any other place of Worship.
You have the right to protest peacefully.
You have the right believe whatever you wish to believe.
You have the right to say whatever you wish.
————————————————————
Religious list of non-Rights.

You do not have the right to kill people, burn property, or injure anybody simply because you’re ‘offended’.
You do not have the right to ban freedom of expression; this includes any criticism, mockery, or literature that YOU deem to be ‘offensive’ to your religion. If you’re offended, deal with it. Protest if you wish. But deal with it.
You do not have the ‘divine’ right to any land. This includes Jerusalem. This includes the West Bank.
You do not have the right to instant and unquestioning ‘respect’ for your religion by threat, or force. You want your religion to be respected, then act respectable.
You do not have the right to oppress and kill people based on their sexuality. Shades of sexuality are natural to our species. If you disagree, keep your bigotry to yourself.
You do not have the right to oppress scientific advancement.
You do not have the right to mutilate a child’s genitals.
You do not have the right to oppress women. It doesn’t matter if your Holy Book tells you that a man is more important than a woman. We are no longer living in the 7th century. We have moved on.
You do not have the right to a woman’s uterus.
You do not have the right to force marriages.
You do not have the right to impose religious law on any nation. Law must be ascribed through democratic means.
You do not have the right to invent history, and present it as fact.
You do not have the right to bypass the law of the land in favour of religious ‘law’.
You do not have the right to educate children in a way that is anti-semetic, racist, sexist, or homophobic for the promotion of a particular religious agenda (i.e – the Palestinian Liberation Authority’s violently anti-semetic text books in schools). This is where freedom of expression must be limited; the education of children.
You do not have the right to put an end to freedom of expression, protest, belief, association, sexuality.

[--------]

Copied from the link. I think this sums up my views pretty precisely:


Pretty well mine too, TC.

[Twa Cairpets]

If you limit your argument to one small country, TC, you can argue for advancement.

Over the world, though? You won't convince me we've really advanced at all. What you're talking about here is a very thin, very vulnerable veneer of decency over the same old, same old.

For example - more equality? Really? Politically? Political power's more readily accessible to more people today than 50-60 years ago? I mean REAL political power, not just the privilege of putting a cross on a piece of paper to choose between three or four political parties whose 'principles' and 'policies' - providing they actually have any of either - are to all intents and purposes utterly indistinguishable from one another.

Economic equality? The gap between the richest 7-8% in the UK and the poorest in the population is arguably much wider than it was when I was a boy, or even in my father's boyhood between the wars. I agree that the poorest in this country are possibly less miserable than they were between the wars, but I have a nasty feeling that that's because our economy freeloads on the suffering of the poor of other countries whom you and I never see and really don't want to think about. It's not our coal-miners dying of silicosis these days, it's third-world miners ... dying of silicosis. Our poor don't actually starve to death in our streets - that only happens in the third world. (What a convenient expression that is - 'third world'. makes all the suffering and exploitation seem so far, faaaaaar awaaaaaaay ....)

As for servitude, we don't have black slaves calling us 'Massa' or 'Bwana', and the Anglo-Indian Raj is long gone, but what about the replica football strips, the football boots just like the ones Wayne Rooney or Christiano Ronaldo wears, the footballs in all the bright colours, the cheap and cheerful clothes sold in our supermarkets - women and kids in sweat-shops in Indonesia, China, Pakistan ring any bells? It's not just the pirated versions that are manufactured out of the sweat and tears of the dispossessed. Slavery exists still in the 21st century world - it's just moved house so as not to offend delicate Western sensibilities.

Truth is, Western civilisation has advanced in appearance by moving the scandals out of sight, or by allowing abuses to take place within the UK by turning a blind eye.

And you're right - it's not a religion/atheism/secularism thing. It's a human nature thing.

Remember what G K Chesterton replied to 'The Times' when the newspaper asked him to contribute to a series of articles entitled "The Problem With The World"?

“Dear Sirs, I am. Sincerely yours, G.K. Chesterton”.

We're the problem with the world - human beings. You, me and everyone else, mate. :wink:

There is validity in what you say, but the point that terrible things still happen doesn't mean that all good things are invalidated.

I don't think its possible to care for everyone in the world to the same degree. That sounds harsh, but its true. It's one of the reasons why disaster appeals focus on the plight of one child rather then the plight of thousands - it personalises the issues to an individual rather than a faceless mass. Most people will look to improve the lot of those around them and their immediate society, and, as I'm fortunate enough to have been brought up in Scotland at this point in time, I'm pretty happy that in comparison to any other point in history in this country my lot is better than it would have been in terms of health provision, access to education, work and leisure; political, religious freedom and freedom of sexuality should I so desire. Whether or not the parties are different or not is a moot point - I can vote and influence things should I so desire.

The gap between rich and poor is a meaningless yardstick to measure how society is. If the poorest are on average better off than they were in terms of quality of living, then things have advanced in absolute if not relative terms, which is good.

I'm not saying Scotland or the World is Utopia - far from it. But from the perspective of any other point in history - even, I'd suggest, relatively modern history - the freedoms and moral stances we have now would be seen as being incredible and unthinkable.

How does this relate to blasphemy? I think if you restrict the opportunity for people to debate or challenge any status quo - be it religious or political, then the opportunity to advance as a society in terms of morality and freedom and opportunity is hindered. if something is untouchable by definition, it cannot be changed, which means it cant be advanced.

[--------]

There is validity in what you say, but the point that terrible things still happen doesn't mean that all good things are invalidated.

I don't think its possible to care for everyone in the world to the same degree. That sounds harsh, but its true. It's one of the reasons why disaster appeals focus on the plight of one child rather then the plight of thousands - it personalises the issues to an individual rather than a faceless mass. Most people will look to improve the lot of those around them and their immediate society, and, as I'm fortunate enough to have been brought up in Scotland at this point in time, I'm pretty happy that in comparison to any other point in history in this country my lot is better than it would have been in terms of health provision, access to education, work and leisure; political, religious freedom and freedom of sexuality should I so desire. Whether or not the parties are different or not is a moot point - I can vote and influence things should I so desire.

The gap between rich and poor is a meaningless yardstick to measure how society is. If the poorest are on average better off than they were in terms of quality of living, then things have advanced in absolute if not relative terms, which is good.

I'm not saying Scotland or the World is Utopia - far from it. But from the perspective of any other point in history - even, I'd suggest, relatively modern history - the freedoms and moral stances we have now would be seen as being incredible and unthinkable.

How does this relate to blasphemy? I think if you restrict the opportunity for people to debate or challenge any status quo - be it religious or political, then the opportunity to advance as a society in terms of morality and freedom and opportunity is hindered. if something is untouchable by definition, it cannot be changed, which means it cant be advanced.


Um, I dunno. Just sort of arrived here, sort of. :confused:

To recap, I'd say that while I AM offended - maybe hurt/upset is a better way to put it - by certain comments, jokes, references to Christianity, or maybe rather to Jesus himself, I would rather not live in a society where the law prevented people from expressing themselves freely without fear of a Spanish (or Islamic, or Communist Party, or Committee for Political Correctness, or whatever) Inquisition hauling them off to the police station and attaching electrodes to their soft bits. Or alternatively a lynch-mob forming. Which happens a lot too often these days.

If something goes over the line in my view, I tend to say so, politely.

Or I try to, at least, but sometimes I say too much myself. Which in turn offends other people.

Which leads to an argument, which, I confess, I rather enjoy - which I shouldn't, but I'm not perfect yet.

Bottom line, I don't think any society can safely legislate for something as vague and hard to define as blasphemy without endangering other basic human rights like freedom of speech and expression and the freedom from persecution for one's beliefs and opinions.

Does that mean we're in agreement?

[Twa Cairpets]

Um, I dunno. Just sort of arrived here, sort of. :confused:

Sorry it wasn't a question! It should have said "So, how does...." My error. :wink:

To recap, I'd say that while I AM offended - maybe hurt/upset is a better way to put it - by certain comments, jokes, references to Christianity, or maybe rather to Jesus himself, I would rather not live in a society where the law prevented people from expressing themselves freely without fear of a Spanish (or Islamic, or Communist Party, or Committee for Political Correctness, or whatever) Inquisition hauling them off to the police station and attaching electrodes to their soft bits. Or alternatively a lynch-mob forming. Which happens a lot too often these days.

If something goes over the line in my view, I tend to say so, politely.

Or I try to, at least, but sometimes I say too much myself. Which in turn offends other people.

Which leads to an argument, which, I confess, I rather enjoy - which I shouldn't, but I'm not perfect yet. (Oh I dont know Doddie, isn't there a little Cathar in you? :wink:)

Bottom line, I don't think any society can safely legislate for something as vague and hard to define as blasphemy without endangering other basic human rights like freedom of speech and expression and the freedom from persecution for one's beliefs and opinions.

Does that mean we're in agreement?

You know what Doddie, I think we are.

I think someone needs to start a thread about evolution to get things back in the proper cosmic order...:greengrin

[--------]

You know what Doddie, I think we are.

I think someone needs to start a thread about evolution to get things back in the proper cosmic order...:greengrin


(Oh I dont know Doddie, isn't there a little Cathar in you? :wink:)

WOOOHH!

That must be a real contender for the "Most Obscure Historical Joke In A Hibs.Net Posting Award" for 2012.

:not worth

I think there probably is. :cb

[RyeSloan]

If you limit your argument to one small country, TC, you can argue for advancement.

Over the world, though? You won't convince me we've really advanced at all. What you're talking about here is a very thin, very vulnerable veneer of decency over the same old, same old.

For example - more equality? Really? Politically? Political power's more readily accessible to more people today than 50-60 years ago? I mean REAL political power, not just the privilege of putting a cross on a piece of paper to choose between three or four political parties whose 'principles' and 'policies' - providing they actually have any of either - are to all intents and purposes utterly indistinguishable from one another.

Economic equality? The gap between the richest 7-8% in the UK and the poorest in the population is arguably much wider than it was when I was a boy, or even in my father's boyhood between the wars. I agree that the poorest in this country are possibly less miserable than they were between the wars, but I have a nasty feeling that that's because our economy freeloads on the suffering of the poor of other countries whom you and I never see and really don't want to think about. It's not our coal-miners dying of silicosis these days, it's third-world miners ... dying of silicosis. Our poor don't actually starve to death in our streets - that only happens in the third world. (What a convenient expression that is - 'third world'. makes all the suffering and exploitation seem so far, faaaaaar awaaaaaaay ....)

As for servitude, we don't have black slaves calling us 'Massa' or 'Bwana', and the Anglo-Indian Raj is long gone, but what about the replica football strips, the football boots just like the ones Wayne Rooney or Christiano Ronaldo wears, the footballs in all the bright colours, the cheap and cheerful clothes sold in our supermarkets - women and kids in sweat-shops in Indonesia, China, Pakistan ring any bells? It's not just the pirated versions that are manufactured out of the sweat and tears of the dispossessed. Slavery exists still in the 21st century world - it's just moved house so as not to offend delicate Western sensibilities.

Truth is, Western civilisation has advanced in appearance by moving the scandals out of sight, or by allowing abuses to take place within the UK by turning a blind eye.

And you're right - it's not a religion/atheism/secularism thing. It's a human nature thing.

Remember what G K Chesterton replied to 'The Times' when the newspaper asked him to contribute to a series of articles entitled "The Problem With The World"?

“Dear Sirs, I am. Sincerely yours, G.K. Chesterton”.

We're the problem with the world - human beings. You, me and everyone else, mate. :wink:

Sorry but just not getting this line of argument. Just becasue bad things still happen doesn't mean there hasnt been progress. To try and state the world has not moved on from 200 years ago because there is still poor working conditions in the world is frankly just daft, as is using terms like the third world...just where do you see it referred to as such these days?

Almost every metric you care to view shows significant progress in terms of life expectancy, poverty reduction, living standards and human rights....

One look at the UN millennium goals shows a concerted world wide effort to improve basic areas of living for huge swathes of the worlds population.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2012/Progress_E.pdf

You mention China as a nation to find sweat shops and I'm sure there is plenty yet China has seen a remarkable decline in poverty levels even as income inequality has grown.

Add in the work of the likes of the Bill Gates foundation the impact of micro finance and mobile payment systems etc etc and you see a picture of rapid change.

We clearly see the world in very different lights, I see one of relentless progress that slowly but surely is lifting millions of people's living standards (over 600m moved above the poverty line in the last two decades according to some calculations) you see one punctured by the worst examples of humans exploiting others.....I would suggest that both of them are not mutually exclusive and just because there are far too many examples of the latter does not mean the former does not exist.

[--------]

Sorry but just not getting this line of argument. Just becasue bad things still happen doesn't mean there hasnt been progress. To try and state the world has not moved on from 200 years ago because there is still poor working conditions in the world is frankly just daft, as is using terms like the third world...just where do you see it referred to as such these days?

Almost every metric you care to view shows significant progress in terms of life expectancy, poverty reduction, living standards and human rights....

One look at the UN millennium goals shows a concerted world wide effort to improve basic areas of living for huge swathes of the worlds population.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2012/Progress_E.pdf

You mention China as a nation to find sweat shops and I'm sure there is plenty yet China has seen a remarkable decline in poverty levels even as income inequality has grown.

Add in the work of the likes of the Bill Gates foundation the impact of micro finance and mobile payment systems etc etc and you see a picture of rapid change.

We clearly see the world in very different lights, I see one of relentless progress that slowly but surely is lifting millions of people's living standards (over 600m moved above the poverty line in the last two decades according to some calculations) you see one punctured by the worst examples of humans exploiting others.....I would suggest that both of them are not mutually exclusive and just because there are far too many examples of the latter does not mean the former does not exist.


Just because "bad things" still happen? :rolleyes:

I guess you COULD call the Khmer Rouge and the rest of the list "bad things" right enough. But they're happening in small countries, far away, so we don't really need to bother ourselves too much, hm?

Change is one thing. Advance is something else. You'll perhaps forgive me if I don't see the growth of an internet-led world cyber-economy, with all the checks and accountability that entails, as progress. Not when human nature hasn't changed one tiny bit in recorded history that I can see.

And China may well have seen an increase in many people's disposable income. It's also seen an increase in the number of people imprisoned for religious and political dissidence over the past 20 years or so. Still shooting thieves in the back of the head, too. And not so long ago they were forcing women to have abortions if they already had one child - though THAT particular piece of dialectical materialist nonsense seems to be backfiring these days - do a Google of "china ageing population problems" why don't you?

O brave new world that has such people in it!

[97hills]

Just because "bad things" still happen? :rolleyes:

I guess you COULD call the Khmer Rouge and the rest of the list "bad things" right enough. But they're happening in small countries, far away, so we don't really need to bother ourselves too much, hm?

Change is one thing. Advance is something else. You'll perhaps forgive me if I don't see the growth of an internet-led world cyber-economy, with all the checks and accountability that entails, as progress. Not when human nature hasn't changed one tiny bit in recorded history that I can see.

And China may well have seen an increase in many people's disposable income. It's also seen an increase in the number of people imprisoned for religious and political dissidence over the past 20 years or so. Still shooting thieves in the back of the head, too. And not so long ago they were forcing women to have abortions if they already had one child - though THAT particular piece of dialectical materialist nonsense seems to be backfiring these days - do a Google of "china ageing population problems" why don't you?

O brave new world that has such people in it!

I've read your posts and still cannot believe that anyone could possibly think the human race as a whole is not better off than it was hundreds of years ago. I personally think its quite obvious decade to decade never mind century to century. I really don't envy you on such a bleak outlook on life.

Now I've seen in other posts that you aren't really able to consider a society in general rather than refer to specific examples. So any clear example I have of us progressing can be 'negated' by an other example of times when we were not so great.

So, my question would be what's the point in this discussion? You have probably indirectly highlighted one of the worst characteristics with the human race - that many believe we are not capable of progressing. That we are, in essence the same as we always were and that we are not going to change. If that were true then please burn all the books you own. Never ever have a debate on morality, religion, ethics etc. After all, the point of these thread is to collaborate and therefore improve the way we think. Now we're a tiny example of this. However, if no debate in human history has ever improved the race then what's the point in them? I don't post just to be contrarian or to kick-start an anti-religious campaign. I do it because I believe it's right and if one person through reading these posts has stopped and really thought about these topics then in that tiny moment, the human race has got slightly better. Even if there are still the same evil people out there as there always has been, then those of us who question and try to improve everything will make up for them in terms of advancement. Whether they are pioneers in the civil rights movement, philanthropists trying to narrow the divide in the standard of living between the rich and the poor or the scientists making medical breakthroughs that means those that are born now are likely to live past 100 years old. They all strive to make us better and without a shadow of a doubt we are better off because of it

[--------]

I've read your posts and still cannot believe that anyone could possibly think the human race as a whole is not better off than it was hundreds of years ago. I personally think its quite obvious decade to decade never mind century to century. I really don't envy you on such a bleak outlook on life.

Now I've seen in other posts that you aren't really able to consider a society in general rather than refer to specific examples. So any clear example I have of us progressing can be 'negated' by an other example of times when we were not so great.

So, my question would be what's the point in this discussion? You have probably indirectly highlighted one of the worst characteristics with the human race - that many believe we are not capable of progressing. That we are, in essence the same as we always were and that we are not going to change. If that were true then please burn all the books you own. Never ever have a debate on morality, religion, ethics etc. After all, the point of these thread is to collaborate and therefore improve the way we think. Now we're a tiny example of this. However, if no debate in human history has ever improved the race then what's the point in them? I don't post just to be contrarian or to kick-start an anti-religious campaign. I do it because I believe it's right and if one person through reading these posts has stopped and really thought about these topics then in that tiny moment, the human race has got slightly better. Even if there are still the same evil people out there as there always has been, then those of us who question and try to improve everything will make up for them in terms of advancement. Whether they are pioneers in the civil rights movement, philanthropists trying to narrow the divide in the standard of living between the rich and the poor or the scientists making medical breakthroughs that means those that are born now are likely to live past 100 years old. They all strive to make us better and without a shadow of a doubt we are better off because of it



Society's made up of specific examples, and in my own defence the examples I've cited from 20th-century history and pretty big specifics. A couple of hundred million deaths caused by the direct action of human beings isn't exactly nit-picking.

But I don't have a 'bleak' outlook on life. I just don't trust human nature; the thing we seem to be best at doing seems to me to be finding new and improved ways to torment one another.

[Eyrie]

But I don't have a 'bleak' outlook on life. I just don't trust human nature; the thing we seem to be best at doing seems to me to be finding new and improved ways to torment one another.

This is one of the main reasons that I'm an atheist. I can't reconcile the existence of a benevolent deity with the existence of evil. Does the earlier reference to Catharism mean that you take a dualist view of the matter, or is there another explanation?

[--------]

This is one of the main reasons that I'm an atheist. I can't reconcile the existence of a benevolent deity with the existence of evil. Does the earlier reference to Catharism mean that you take a dualist view of the matter, or is there another explanation?


No. I'm not a dualist.

The reference to the Cathars was partly a response to my reference to the "Kill them all ..." quote which dates back to the Roman Church's crusade against the Cathars in the early 13th century, and my comment that I wasn't 'perfect'.

Most of the Cathars were what was known as 'credentes' - believers. Cathars believed in re-incarnation, that each soul lived through a series of lives in the flesh, slowly progressing through those lives towards spiritual perfection.

The most important ordinance/sacrament in the Cathar religion was what was known as the 'consolamentum', a ceremony at which a 'credens' would take solemn and binding vows to live a chaste, holy, and righteous life until death. (Personally, I don't see how anyone can live such a life, but that's a wider argument.) Anyhow, when a 'credens' had taken these vows, he/she was sealed and accepted as a 'perfectus' (male) or a 'perfecta' (female), a status they held as long as they didn't either fall into sin or deny the Cathar world/view.

My apologies if I'm telling you stuff here you already know - I took it that TC was making an extremely scholarly and totally obscure pun on my use of the word 'perfect'.

With my minister's hat on, I'm absolutely clear that Catharism was a departure from orthodox Roman 'Christianity' as practised in the 13th century.

But then, what I believe is rooted in an equally radical departure from orthodox Roman 'Christianity' as practised in the 16th century.

Someone like Arnaud, who told the Crusaders to 'kill them all - God will know his own' would have been as delighted to burn me to death as he was to burn the Cathars who were unfortunate enough to fall into his hands.

So with my human Christian hat on, I can say honestly that I would never set fire to someone just because he disagreed with me. Or drown, behead, hack to pieces, throw over a cliff, torture, imprison or stone him or her either. So as far as Catharism is concerned, I might not agree with them, but my sympathies are all with them and against "Innocent" (what a joke that was) III and the Crusaders.

Theologically, I would consider myself a Calvinist.

But a NICE one. :angelic:

MOST of the time. :devil:

And before anyone starts, I am NOT going to discuss predestination or election on Hibs.net.



PS: If you're interested, and haven't yet read them, I can recommend two books by Stephen O'Shea - "The Perfect Heresy", which is a general introduction to the subject of the Albigensian Crusade, and "The Friar of Carcassonne", about Bernard Delicieux, a friar who faced up to the Inquisition in Carcassonne towards the end of the extirpation of the Cathars from Provence. Also Rene Weis: "The Yellow Cross - the Story of the Last Cathars", which is exactly what it says on the tin. All available on Amazon. Umberto Eco's novel "The Name of the Rose" (also a film - good one - with Sean Connery, Christian Bale, F Murray Abraham, Michael Lonsdale) ties into the subject as well.

[Twa Cairpets]

No. I'm not a dualist.

The reference to the Cathars was partly a response to my reference to the "Kill them all ..." quote which dates back to the Roman Church's crusade against the Cathars in the early 13th century, and my comment that I wasn't 'perfect'.

Most of the Cathars were what was known as 'credentes' - believers. Cathars believed in re-incarnation, that each soul lived through a series of lives in the flesh, slowly progressing through those lives towards spiritual perfection.

The most important ordinance/sacrament in the Cathar religion was what was known as the 'consolamentum', a ceremony at which a 'credens' would take solemn and binding vows to live a chaste, holy, and righteous life until death. (Personally, I don't see how anyone can live such a life, but that's a wider argument.) Anyhow, when a 'credens' had taken these vows, he/she was sealed and accepted as a 'perfectus' (male) or a 'perfecta' (female), a status they held as long as they didn't either fall into sin or deny the Cathar world/view.

My apologies if I'm telling you stuff here you already know - I took it that TC was making an extremely scholarly and totally obscure pun on my use of the word 'perfect'. It was. I was rather proud of it:greengrin

With my minister's hat on, I'm absolutely clear that Catharism was a departure from orthodox Roman 'Christianity' as practised in the 13th century.

But then, what I believe is rooted in an equally radical departure from orthodox Roman 'Christianity' as practised in the 16th century.

Someone like Arnaud, who told the Crusaders to 'kill them all - God will know his own' would have been as delighted to burn me to death as he was to burn the Cathars who were unfortunate enough to fall into his hands.

So with my human Christian hat on, I can say honestly that I would never set fire to someone just because he disagreed with me. Or drown, behead, hack to pieces, throw over a cliff, torture, imprison or stone him or her either. So as far as Catharism is concerned, I might not agree with them, but my sympathies are all with them and against "Innocent" (what a joke that was) III and the Crusaders.

Theologically, I would consider myself a Calvinist.

But a NICE one. :angelic:

MOST of the time. :devil:

And before anyone starts, I am NOT going to discuss predestination or election on Hibs.net.

PS: If you're interested, and haven't yet read them, I can recommend two books by Stephen O'Shea - "The Perfect Heresy", which is a general introduction to the subject of the Albigensian Crusade, and "The Friar of Carcassonne", about Bernard Delicieux, a friar who faced up to the Inquisition in Carcassonne towards the end of the extirpation of the Cathars from Provence. Also Rene Weis: "The Yellow Cross - the Story of the Last Cathars", which is exactly what it says on the tin. All available on Amazon. Umberto Eco's novel "The Name of the Rose" (also a film - good one - with Sean Connery, Christian Bale, F Murray Abraham, Michael Lonsdale) ties into the subject as well.

I'd read O'Shea which is excellent, but not the others - I'll give them a go.

[--------]

I'd read O'Shea which is excellent, but not the others - I'll give them a go.


I realise on second thoughts I may have been too hard on Innocent III.

In retrospect, he may have been guilty of nothing more serious than a clerical terror.

Sorry, I'll get back to my book. :devil:

[Eyrie]

PS: If you're interested, and haven't yet read them, I can recommend two books by Stephen O'Shea - "The Perfect Heresy", which is a general introduction to the subject of the Albigensian Crusade, and "The Friar of Carcassonne", about Bernard Delicieux, a friar who faced up to the Inquisition in Carcassonne towards the end of the extirpation of the Cathars from Provence. Also Rene Weis: "The Yellow Cross - the Story of the Last Cathars", which is exactly what it says on the tin. All available on Amazon. Umberto Eco's novel "The Name of the Rose" (also a film - good one - with Sean Connery, Christian Bale, F Murray Abraham, Michael Lonsdale) ties into the subject as well.
Thanks for the detailed answer and I won't press further on my original question about the existence of evil.

I've got Sumption's Albigensian Crusade but haven't read it for years. May be worth digging it out to rediscover what happened to the Cathars in more detail.


I realise on second thoughts I may have been too hard on Innocent III.

In retrospect, he may have been guilty of nothing more serious than a clerical terror.

Sorry, I'll get back to my book. :devil:
The actions of that pope are further proof that even a relatively benign religion like Christianity can go off the rails at times due to human nature. And the pun proves you can as well :top marks

[PeeJay]

Theologically, I would consider myself a Calvinist.


Now I think I am beginning to glimpse why you have such a decidely gloomy outlook on humanity, which I must admit confused me. (This is apart from your being a Hibs fan, I guess, which in intself could perhaps account for much of the gloom :greengrin). I did wonder why you seemed to reference all the bad traits of humanity (of which without doubt the list is inexhaustible) to the exclusion of anything good (one could surely make a claim here to an inexhaustible list too IMO?). You may well reply NO to that, I suppose. Your pessimistic philosophy is clearly bedded in your Calvinism, so I decided to research the Calvinist doctrine you referred to (something in which I must admit I am not particularly well-versed in).

"Let it stand, therefore, as an indubitable truth, which no engines can shake, that the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God, that he cannot conceive, desire, or design anything but what is wicked, distorted, foul, impure and iniquitous; that his heart is so thoroughly envenomed by sin, that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness, their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with fetters of wickedness"

Would I be correct in saying for you to be a "good Calvinist" you must believe in this doctrine, i.e. a philosophy/faith based - yet again - on original sin and "Adam" - someone I don't believe actually existed. The text above from John Calvin and his "Institutes of the Christian Religion" I found to be shocking in the extreme, yet par for the course, I guess, in the area of religious faith. Now it seems to me that your Calvinist religious faith "clouds" your judgment of your fellow human beings - your faith practically prescibes a "bleak" outlook, does it not?

The "5 Points of Calvinism" seem to demand a pessimistic view of anything that a human being does in this life, and indeed anything he/she attempts, and the Calvinist version of God references a deity who has already decided at some point before time began for humans who will be saved and who will not be saved, regardless of what he/she does or doesn't do in this life.

I live in Germany: this country, and most of its people have undergone a tremendous transformation during the last half of the last century. Does this not represent to you a sign that humankind can learn from its mistakes and progress in a positive way? Or - in your Calvanistic view - would you suggest that Germany and its people are simply practising some form of hypocrisy, and deceit, just waiting to unleash some more "wickedness" somewhere down the line? Many people in Europe have worked hard at engineering peace in Europe on a scale never before experienced in this part of the world: it happened on your doorstep, yet your posts seem to simply ignore such developments? I find myself wondering: how can this be, and then I read Calvin's nonsense (again IMO).

I wonder if you can accept that some of "us" do not allow our judgement to be clouded by outmoded religious faiths (IMO), nor do we allow ourselves to be disenchanted by humankind's obvious failings, particularly while there are so many good things about this world, and many good things that have been achieved: things that are plain for all to see unless of course, one recalls or believes , e.g. Calvin's words (obviously not exclusively), then we have to paint the picture black to suit the faith.

I must admit I find the Calvanistic concept of "Total Depravity or Total Inability" from the 5 points to be so much more offensive to my intelligence and my very being than some satirical cartoon, or indeed any idiotic video or even a funny (or not) joke about Jesus, which seems to have raised your hackles in this thread. I could not get past the initial lines of this concept without decrying it as - IMO - nonsense (or words to that effect). Therein lies the crux of my disdain with all things religious I suppose; it seems perfectly in order for the many religious faiths (not looking at any one in particular) to proclaim that "we" non-believers are all sinners and as such doomed as Calvin claims, and so on. And "we" simply have to respect "your" views and "your" beliefs and "your" touchy/sensitive souls when someone exercises their perfectly acceptable right to free expression of view. I respect your right to believe in anything you wish - Calvin, et al - but I fail to see where the religiously minded have the right to demand my respect for their particular belief, which I may consider to be utter nonsense, and which more often than not makes me out to be a "sinner" or worse. How about "earning" my respect for your faith, rather than demanding it?

As to blasphemy: it is not so long ago that blasphemers - such as myself - could be stoned to death, burnt at the stake, garroted - indeed the list of religiously pursued religious punishments for the non-religious was in itself pretty inexhaustible by all accounts. Society has "progressed" since those dark days - secular society, I guess! - and I personally believe any law of blasphemy has no part in a secular society. I rejoice in my right to reject your or any religion and the faith involved in any form of discussion, forum or public debate or in satirical magazines, etc. I don't believe my right to do so should be imposed on by religious communities seeking to define the parameters by which secularists or indeed believers of other faiths can discuss anything religious. Religious communities have no right to demand restrictions on freedom of expression in a secular society. It may upset the religious: so be it: it is no big deal.

I appreciate that you have stated that you prefer a society in which freedom of expression is allowed, so my post is not aimed at you in particular, although you did say you were offended by a joke I myself thought was quite humorous. So this is actually a long-winded way of asking you: if you could step back briefly from your religious views, would you still have the same outlook of a human race you consider to be untrustworthy? Does faith prevent people from seeing the bigger picture?

[--------]

Thanks for the detailed answer and I won't press further on my original question about the existence of evil.

I've got Sumption's Albigensian Crusade but haven't read it for years. May be worth digging it out to rediscover what happened to the Cathars in more detail.


The actions of that pope are further proof that even a relatively benign religion like Christianity can go off the rails at times due to human nature. And the pun proves you can as well :top marks


My apologies if that last comment caused offence - I can only plead the example of a much greater Christian writer than myself in defence of using bad jokes in the pursuit of justice and truth - Jonathan Swift.

Do you know his "Modest Proposal"? Now that IS tasteless, but it's probably the greatest piece of satire in the English language.

[Jack]

Doddie, would you rather be living now or at sometime in the past?

I think we're better off where we are. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, still a lot better than any time in the past. IMO.

[--------]

Doddie, would you rather be living now or at sometime in the past?

I think we're better off where we are. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, still a lot better than any time in the past. IMO.


I'm not sure that question's answerable. Materially, in the western world at least, we're certainly better off, but that's materially. In other ways, I'm not so sure. There are lots of things about modern society - even in the blessed and prosperous west - that leave me profoundly disturbed and uneasy.

One thing - I'm grateful I'm not of my father's or grandfather's generations - they had to go to war and some of them didn't come home. But if I were in the position I am now, as a parish minister, I'd have to say the in most past centuries I'd have more respect, status, and influence than I do now, and comparatively speaking I'd be a lot higher up the food-chain - better income and perks compared to folks around me that I have now, for sure. A lot more job security, certainly. A comfortable parish in 18th or 19th century Scotland? Tempting, to say the least. :wink:

But in every generation there are the folks who are struggling, the folks on easy street, the folks with power and influence, the dispossessed, the disenfranchised, the top dogs - does the way human society work ever really change? I don't think so, which is why I'm not sure I can answer you. People get by in the age they're born in. We have to.

[ancienthibby]

Doddie, would you rather be living now or at sometime in the past?

I think we're better off where we are. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, still a lot better than any time in the past. IMO.

Jack,

Your post, being directed to 'The Great Dodster', perhaps I can add my reply now that he has posted his own.

I'd like to take issue with your second and third sentences.

Your first sentence is right if you confine the debate to material/wealth matters.

However, if you consider moral issues, then I, for one, come to a quite different conclusion.

Two examples, first paedophilia and second, domestic/neighbourhood and family violence.

In the first example, I doubt as a mature adult if I had heard much about this subject 25 years ago. Now, thanks to the internet, the breadth and depth of this atrocity is breath-taking and, apparently, growing. I just can't get my head around the news stories about this or that other offender in the dock who might have 100,000 paedophile images on his computer! An d that does not even begin to address the matter of the hundreds od thousands of people who actually make this filth.

Better off? Not by a long shot.

The second example I offer is that of what I call domestic/neighbourhood violence.

I am old enough to remember when Glasgow was known as the knife capital of the UK but thanks to an enlightened judge that image was overthrown.

Now, it seems every community in the country is at risk from knife crime. There is not a week goes by but another story emerges of a knife crime, especially, it seems, among school kids down south. On top of that there are an equally-frightening number of violent domestic incidents where a parent kills his children, then hangs himself, or where, as in last week, police are drawn into confrontation with a gunman and lose out.

On top of that you could add that in some sections of society, family honour killings are the norm. We have examples of these in our society.

Better off? Not by a long shot.

And, may I say, I am fully aware, for example, of huge strides in the medical treatment of some devastating diseases (of which I am a grateful beneficiary) but any claims to 'a morally better-off world' are hugely challenge-able, I would suggest.

[ancienthibby]

Now I think I am beginning to glimpse why you have such a decidely gloomy outlook on humanity, which I must admit confused me. (This is apart from your being a Hibs fan, I guess, which in intself could perhaps account for much of the gloom :greengrin). I did wonder why you seemed to reference all the bad traits of humanity (of which without doubt the list is inexhaustible) to the exclusion of anything good (one could surely make a claim here to an inexhaustible list too IMO?). You may well reply NO to that, I suppose. Your pessimistic philosophy is clearly bedded in your Calvinism, so I decided to research the Calvinist doctrine you referred to (something in which I must admit I am not particularly well-versed in).

"Let it stand, therefore, as an indubitable truth, which no engines can shake, that the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God, that he cannot conceive, desire, or design anything but what is wicked, distorted, foul, impure and iniquitous; that his heart is so thoroughly envenomed by sin, that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness, their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with fetters of wickedness"

Would I be correct in saying for you to be a "good Calvinist" you must believe in this doctrine, i.e. a philosophy/faith based - yet again - on original sin and "Adam" - someone I don't believe actually existed. The text above from John Calvin and his "Institutes of the Christian Religion" I found to be shocking in the extreme, yet par for the course, I guess, in the area of religious faith. Now it seems to me that your Calvinist religious faith "clouds" your judgment of your fellow human beings - your faith practically prescibes a "bleak" outlook, does it not?

The "5 Points of Calvinism" seem to demand a pessimistic view of anything that a human being does in this life, and indeed anything he/she attempts, and the Calvinist version of God references a deity who has already decided at some point before time began for humans who will be saved and who will not be saved, regardless of what he/she does or doesn't do in this life.

I live in Germany: this country, and most of its people have undergone a tremendous transformation during the last half of the last century. Does this not represent to you a sign that humankind can learn from its mistakes and progress in a positive way? Or - in your Calvanistic view - would you suggest that Germany and its people are simply practising some form of hypocrisy, and deceit, just waiting to unleash some more "wickedness" somewhere down the line? Many people in Europe have worked hard at engineering peace in Europe on a scale never before experienced in this part of the world: it happened on your doorstep, yet your posts seem to simply ignore such developments? I find myself wondering: how can this be, and then I read Calvin's nonsense (again IMO).

I wonder if you can accept that some of "us" do not allow our judgement to be clouded by outmoded religious faiths (IMO), nor do we allow ourselves to be disenchanted by humankind's obvious failings, particularly while there are so many good things about this world, and many good things that have been achieved: things that are plain for all to see unless of course, one recalls or believes , e.g. Calvin's words (obviously not exclusively), then we have to paint the picture black to suit the faith.

I must admit I find the Calvanistic concept of "Total Depravity or Total Inability" from the 5 points to be so much more offensive to my intelligence and my very being than some satirical cartoon, or indeed any idiotic video or even a funny (or not) joke about Jesus, which seems to have raised your hackles in this thread. I could not get past the initial lines of this concept without decrying it as - IMO - nonsense (or words to that effect). Therein lies the crux of my disdain with all things religious I suppose; it seems perfectly in order for the many religious faiths (not looking at any one in particular) to proclaim that "we" non-believers are all sinners and as such doomed as Calvin claims, and so on. And "we" simply have to respect "your" views and "your" beliefs and "your" touchy/sensitive souls when someone exercises their perfectly acceptable right to free expression of view. I respect your right to believe in anything you wish - Calvin, et al - but I fail to see where the religiously minded have the right to demand my respect for their particular belief, which I may consider to be utter nonsense, and which more often than not makes me out to be a "sinner" or worse. How about "earning" my respect for your faith, rather than demanding it?

As to blasphemy: it is not so long ago that blasphemers - such as myself - could be stoned to death, burnt at the stake, garroted - indeed the list of religiously pursued religious punishments for the non-religious was in itself pretty inexhaustible by all accounts. Society has "progressed" since those dark days - secular society, I guess! - and I personally believe any law of blasphemy has no part in a secular society. I rejoice in my right to reject your or any religion and the faith involved in any form of discussion, forum or public debate or in satirical magazines, etc. I don't believe my right to do so should be imposed on by religious communities seeking to define the parameters by which secularists or indeed believers of other faiths can discuss anything religious. Religious communities have no right to demand restrictions on freedom of expression in a secular society. It may upset the religious: so be it: it is no big deal.

I appreciate that you have stated that you prefer a society in which freedom of expression is allowed, so my post is not aimed at you in particular, although you did say you were offended by a joke I myself thought was quite humorous. So this is actually a long-winded way of asking you: if you could step back briefly from your religious views, would you still have the same outlook of a human race you consider to be untrustworthy? Does faith prevent people from seeing the bigger picture?



From the Five Points of Calvinism, I am looking forward to your understanding of Irresistible Grace, which is the kernel of the writer's exposition.

[Jack]

Thank you for your replies chaps.

I certainly agree with Doddie that there are professions that are now less respected than they were, I dare say there are many more and those that have been elevated - the court jester being one that immediately springs to mind but then I think just about the whole entertainment industry is out of control.

Ancient. I have a bit of an issue with your reply. I think mainly on the grounds of better reporting of pedophiles, for example. Modern technology certainly does play a part but I dread to think of the abuse individual children, in particular, would have been subject to in the past.

Also there was a program on the telly just recently around the judicial system, comparing modern with its earlier days 17/18th century. There were all sorts of heinous crimes being committed. I think the thing that got me most in general about this was that lower classes were generally found guilty and punished horribly while the upper classes in the unlikelihood of ever reaching court were innocent.

Again IMO the crimes have always been there, we just didn't know what was going on the next village.

Maybe I will be able to give a fuller reply when I'm at a PC.

[Eyrie]

My apologies if that last comment caused offence - I can only plead the example of a much greater Christian writer than myself in defence of using bad jokes in the pursuit of justice and truth - Jonathan Swift.
I took as much offence as you intended, ie none.


Do you know his "Modest Proposal"? Now that IS tasteless, but it's probably the greatest piece of satire in the English language.
Had to google it, (http://www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/swift/modest.html) but well worth reading even if it has made me hungry ....

[--------]

From the Five Points of Calvinism, I am looking forward to your understanding of Irresistible Grace, which is the kernel of the writer's exposition.


IIRC, John's own 'kernel' so to speak could be summed up as 'sola gratia, sola fidei, sola scriptura' - 'grace alone, faith alone, scripture alone', based on Paul's declaration in Ephesians 2 - "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

It's the grace of God, working through the Word - the Word Written and Made Flesh- to give birth to saving faith in the heart of the believer, that faith being rooted and fixed in the Word made flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ, the embodiment and final demonstration of God's purposes of salvation in the world.

My understanding of irresistible grace? When God wants you, He'll have you no matter how hard you run or where you hide, and once he has you, he'll never let you fall or let any lasting harm come to you in this world or the next.

[--------]

I took as much offence as you intended, ie none.

Had to google it, (http://www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/swift/modest.html) but well worth reading even if it has made me hungry ....


So glad you enjoyed it. If I were ever cast away on a desert island, I'd want my copy of the Proposal with me.

One of my very favourite pieces of writing.

[Twa Cairpets]

IIRC, John's own 'kernel' so to speak could be summed up as 'sola gratia, sola fidei, sola scriptura' - 'grace alone, faith alone, scripture alone', based on Paul's declaration in Ephesians 2 - "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

It's the grace of God, working through the Word - the Word Written and Made Flesh- to give birth to saving faith in the heart of the believer, that faith being rooted and fixed in the Word made flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ, the embodiment and final demonstration of God's purposes of salvation in the world.

My understanding of irresistible grace? When God wants you, He'll have you no matter how hard you run or where you hide, and once he has you, he'll never let you fall or let any lasting harm come to you in this world or the next.

I was going to duck out of this debate on the basis that we'd agreed on something, but I need to flag this last bit up. Given your somewhat pessimistic outlook on the nature of men and mankind, isn't it a tricky one to claim that for those who God chooses no harm befalls them? Evidence would suggest that it is some of the most devout who have suffered the most through the ages. I can take your point about future/everlasting salvation based on unquestioning faith (even if I dont believe it to be true), but the "no lasting harm in this world" claim just cant be sunstantiated, unless the counter to it is that God comes only to a tiny, tiny number of people.

[--------]

I was going to duck out of this debate on the basis that we'd agreed on something, but I need to flag this last bit up. Given your somewhat pessimistic outlook on the nature of men and mankind, isn't it a tricky one to claim that for those who God chooses no harm befalls them? Evidence would suggest that it is some of the most devout who have suffered the most through the ages. I can take your point about future/everlasting salvation based on unquestioning faith (even if I dont believe it to be true), but the "no lasting harm in this world" claim just cant be sunstantiated, unless the counter to it is that God comes only to a tiny, tiny number of people.


No LASTING harm, TC. Future/everlasting salvation's the point - there's no suggestion that believers won't struggle in this life; the promise is that through those struggles we will have peace and the presence of Christ to comfort and strengthen us. Psalm 23 - "Though I go through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for you are with me, your rod and staff comfort me"?

Or, "These things I have spoken to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." (John 16.33) It's quite clear that Jesus warns his disciples - and through them, believers today - that just as he himself suffered persecution and death, so they (we) will in our own lives in this world - John 15.20.

I didn't really want to get into this either. There are some who would say that God indeed only comes to a tiny number of people, though how they square that with what the Bible says about a 'multitude greater than any man can number' gathered around the throne of God in heaven, I'm really not sure. There's also a perversion of the doctrine of irresistible and prevenient grace that turns the whole thing on its head - if you're in, you're in for eternity, and you can do as much wrong as you want to and God will still automatically forgive you - what Hogg portrays in his "Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner". That's not what Calvin says, nor is it what Paul is saying in Ephesians, nor is it anywhere in the Old or New Testaments.

[Twa Cairpets]

No LASTING harm, TC. Future/everlasting salvation's the point - there's no suggestion that believers won't struggle in this life; the promise is that through those struggles we will have peace and the presence of Christ to comfort and strengthen us. Psalm 23 - "Though I go through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for you are with me, your rod and staff comfort me"?

Or, "These things I have spoken to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." (John 16.33) It's quite clear that Jesus warns his disciples - and through them, believers today - that just as he himself suffered persecution and death, so they (we) will in our own lives in this world - John 15.20.

I didn't really want to get into this either. There are some who would say that God indeed only comes to a tiny number of people, though how they square that with what the Bible says about a 'multitude greater than any man can number' gathered around the throne of God in heaven, I'm really not sure. There's also a perversion of the doctrine of irresistible and prevenient grace that turns the whole thing on its head - if you're in, you're in for eternity, and you can do as much wrong as you want to and God will still automatically forgive you - what Hogg portrays in his "Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner". That's not what Calvin says, nor is it what Paul is saying in Ephesians, nor is it anywhere in the Old or New Testaments.




Cool - that makes sense. I dont agree with it, but it makes sense... :wink:

[ancienthibby]

No LASTING harm, TC. Future/everlasting salvation's the point - there's no suggestion that believers won't struggle in this life; the promise is that through those struggles we will have peace and the presence of Christ to comfort and strengthen us. Psalm 23 - "Though I go through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for you are with me, your rod and staff comfort me"?

Or, "These things I have spoken to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." (John 16.33) It's quite clear that Jesus warns his disciples - and through them, believers today - that just as he himself suffered persecution and death, so they (we) will in our own lives in this world - John 15.20.

I didn't really want to get into this either. There are some who would say that God indeed only comes to a tiny number of people, though how they square that with what the Bible says about a 'multitude greater than any man can number' gathered around the throne of God in heaven, I'm really not sure. There's also a perversion of the doctrine of irresistible and prevenient grace that turns the whole thing on its head - if you're in, you're in for eternity, and you can do as much wrong as you want to and God will still automatically forgive you - what Hogg portrays in his "Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner". That's not what Calvin says, nor is it what Paul is saying in Ephesians, nor is it anywhere in the Old or New Testaments.





A defining post, Doddie!

Pleased to see you emphasise 'lasting' as that is key to all of how the Lord deals with his people.

I was given a terminal diagnosis 4.5 years ago and since then, I have known nothing but God's Comfort Grace and Mercy leading me every step of the way on my 'Big C' journey.

Indeed I can say without a shadow of doubt, that having my illness has a been a huge blessing to me, as it has allowed God to reveal His immeasur-able Grace and mercy to me in shedloads every day.

[Hibby D]

When I began reading this thread I was desperate to get to the end so I could say "Oh oh, I too have been on the receiving end of one of you-know-who's private PM's telling me not to take his lord's name in vain". My intention was to then pontificate at length as to how he's no right to "preach" to me blah blah blah...

But then you guys went and got all heavy and technical and from where I'm sitting it may as well have been a conversation in Hebrew, or about it, because I became totally lost, and yes I admit, somewhat bored.

So back to the OP, if indeed it actually digressed.


I use "fir god's sake" occasionally, and "jeezus" or "jeezo" frequently. I also use sweary words too. The F word being a particular favourite. I don't, as a rule, use them as a tool in order to disrepect anyone; they're simply words I use. I don't think about it in any depth but I gues I probably would refrain from using them in certain circumstances; but not many, and certainly not on .net :wink:

I actually found it extremely annoying to receive a PM telling me to refrain from taking his lord's name in vain. Insulting too!

Now I just find it funny, and a bit weird :dunno:

[Greentinted]

Like the lady above, I too became engrossed in the quasi-intellectual digression this thread departed into. I find it ludicrous in this day and age that myth and fable can be deemed offensive in anyway shape or form, particularly to those blessed (by serendipity) with an enquiring mind. It does demonstrate though, how, religion has spread its dubious tentacles easily through the ages as it lends itself to insidious bullying through intellectual might. Dress anything up in erudite convolution and sesquipidalianism and the masses can be intellectually intimidated into acceptance.
If people have faith and it comforts them then fine and dandy, but organised religion has proved itself more than a force for malevolence consistently than any other man-made construct. While I recognise this may be deemed disrespectful to those who subscribe to the teachings in the fable anthologies I also recognise the ridiculous proposition that because someone belongs to any faith they should be disproportionately respected; perhaps those who are offended can petition their various designated ephemeral saviours for solace or indeed equalisation.
For example, using the word 'Jesus' in an exasperated tone can be deemed offensive by the religiously (christian) sensitive - odd given that we know not with any degree of veracity that the man in question was anything other than as much a 'god' as you or I. The same, I aver (in the interest of respect) would apply to the words 'god', allah', 'jehovah', 'mohammed' or any other designation applied by the devotees of superstitious folk-tales to their focus of worship.

[Kato]

I've never understood why atheists feel the need to invoke a religious figure's name on such a regular basis.

[Hibby D]

I've never understood why atheists feel the need to invoke a religious figure's name on such a regular basis.

Because it's learned behaviour I guess. As meaningful, or as meaningless, as "bollox" or "sh**" or oopsadaisy.
Not used in order to cause offence; certainly not by me, and I am genuinely perplexed at why anyone would choose to interpret it as such.

[HibsMax]

<snip>
Umberto Eco's novel "The Name of the Rose" (also a film - good one - with Sean Connery, Christian Bale, F Murray Abraham, Michael Lonsdale) ties into the subject as well.

Christian Slater. :wink:

[Saorsa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk:hilarious

:top marks

[HibsMax]

I've never understood why atheists feel the need to invoke a religious figure's name on such a regular basis.
Why not? Surely there isn't a list of words that can only be used by certain people? I am more agnostic than atheist but I say "Jesus Christ" or "Oh my God" on occasion. Perhaps people don't actually "feel the need", rather, they just use terms that are common to them. I actually think that there are lots of phrases / words that people use on a daily basis without them actually knowing the etymology. Speaking for myself, whenever I used one of the phrases I mentioned before, it's not out of a need, at least not out of a religious need. It's just something I say. There are many other phrases I could choose to use, sometimes consciously, other times not so much.


Because it's learned behaviour I guess. As meaningful, or as meaningless, as "bollox" or "sh**" or oopsadaisy.
Not used in order to cause offence; certainly not by me, and I am genuinely perplexed at why anyone would choose to interpret it as such.

:agree:

[--------]

Christian Slater. :wink:



Indeed, Max. Christian Slater. My bad. :idiot:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

My bad.

Oh no Doddie! any phrase you like, just not that one.

I've really no idea why I dislike it so much though!

[--------]

Oh no Doddie! any phrase you like, just not that one.

I've really no idea why I dislike it so much though!



Sorry. My bad.





Doh! :doh:


:wink:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I asked for that I suppose. :-)

[HibsMax]

Indeed, Max. Christian Slater. My bad. :idiot:

I only know that because The Name of the Rose is one of my favourite films. I have the book but, sigh, it lays in my office unread.

I must read more
I must read more
I must read more
...

[--------]

I only know that because The Name of the Rose is one of my favourite films. I have the book but, sigh, it lays in my office unread.

I must read more
I must read more
I must read more
...


The novel's well-worth the read, Max. It's a bit heavier and more complex than the film, but actually the film captures the essence of the book very well IMO.

[Hibernia&Alba]

As an atheist I don't think blasphemy is possible, but I wouldn't go out of my way to use terms that would obviously upset someone. It's just a matter of being sensitive to context. Laws against blasphemy are, however, outrageous to me. Religion should be no more protected from criticism/ridicule than anything else.

[Johnny0762]

I watched a documentary last night where Prof Hawkins rubbished the claims of an Almighty Creator.

Why do people believe in something they'll never see, something they know deep down just isn't and cannot be factually possible?:confused:

[Scouse Hibee]

I watched a documentary last night where Prof Hawkins rubbished the claims of an Almighty Creator.

Why do people believe in something they'll never see, something they know deep down just isn't and cannot be factually possible?:confused:


Are you talking about Hibs winning the Scottish Cup :greengrin

[Hibernia&Alba]

[/B]Are you talking about Hibs winning the Scottish Cup :greengrin

Now that's blasphemy! Never say never :greengrin