1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Blasphemy

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Wu Wei, Mar 3, 2021.

  1. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    6,482
    Ratings:
    +5,567
    Religion:
    none
    Euthyphro postulates that morality is that what the gods like.
    The dilemma Socrates presents to him then is this:

    Is something moral because the gods like it or
    do the gods like something because it's moral?

    The first horn makes morality subjective and a simple matter of "because I say so".
    The second horn makes the gods superfluous because moral things are moral in their own good.

    On which one do you want to die?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    6,482
    Ratings:
    +5,567
    Religion:
    none
    It's simple: when you say that killing is wrong because the gods don't like it, it is religious morality. When you deduce the wrongness of killing to a first principle other than the gods, it is rational morality.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  3. icehorse

    icehorse Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,686
    Ratings:
    +6,108
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    I was NOT comparing the two. I was attempting to point out that IDEAS - in general - must be criticize-able.

    As for the existence of rights, again, "rights" are a man-made idea. We decide which rights we want to have or fight for.

    I think we better darn well fight to retain our right to criticize IDEAS.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    6,482
    Ratings:
    +5,567
    Religion:
    none
    In #20 you argue Darski should be punished because he broke the law (hurt somebodies feeling). When Poland (represented by its jurisprudence) hurt my feeling, how should Poland be punished.
    To help you understand consider this example: Russian dissident Navalny was convicted by a Russian court. The west was eager to lay sanction upon Russia for following their laws that didn't concur with our laws. What kind of sanctions would be appropriate for Poland?
     
  5. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    25,165
    Ratings:
    +10,737
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    Let me give the story in brief.
    Shishupala was the son of Damagosha, sister of the Krishna's father Vasudeva. So she was Krishna's aunt. Shishupala was a very hot-heade man and a friend of Kauravas. He was very jealous of Krishna and used to abuse him. Knowing the power of Krihna, Damaghosha took a promise from Krishna that he would excuse Shishupala a hundred times. When Shushupala abused Krishna for the hundredth and one time, Krishna killed him with his discuss.

    But then, Shishupala and his friend Dantavakra (one with deformed teeth) actually were the gate-keepers of Lord Vishnu's heaven, Jai and Vijay, who had been cursed by sages to be born as humans. So, it is natural that when they died, they went back to Lord Vishnu (Krishna).

    My vote is not to cause offense to follower of any religion, there is already so much strife. Try to educate people. Most of what people believe is evidently false.
     
    #85 Aupmanyav, Mar 4, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2021
  6. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest I have the kavorka
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    184,110
    Ratings:
    +62,411
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Fake.
    We shouldn't be forced to.
    But we might anyway.
    We have the right to be revolting.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. ecco

    ecco Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    13,105
    Ratings:
    +6,470
    Religion:
    atheist



    Often, blasphemy or rudeness or offense is in the eye of the beholder. CNN did a report on Q anon and Anderson Cooper interviewed a person who posted that Anderson Cooper should be / will be executed because he is a member of the cabal that drinks the blood of children. As (one part) of the evidence, the Q follower referred to this picture of young AC with his mother.

    [​IMG]

    The source of the Q-nuts outrage and anger is the folk art in the background. To the Q's, it is a blasphemous picture of Mary above a naked child with blood being drained.

    Cooper explained that it was a sacred work showing Mary lovingly standing above the resurrected body of Jesus.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  8. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,184
    Ratings:
    +2,787
    Hypocrites are justifying themselves with "freedom". Like little kids.

    There should not be blasphemy laws. Its a given. But justifying it based on "freedom" is hypocrisy. Childish. IMHO.
     
  9. joe1776

    joe1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2017
    Messages:
    4,432
    Ratings:
    +1,701
    Religion:
    None
    I have to disagree with you on this point. Whether an act is blasphemous, rude or ought to be seen as offensive can only be determined by an uninvolved group of people, a group unbiased on the relevant issue, just as such a group might determine whether an act is fair or unfair or morally wrong or justified. We see this happen in courtrooms all over the world.
     
  10. Fallen Prophet

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    210
    Ratings:
    +40
    That's ridiculous. Anyone can rip up any book they want.

    Although - I do personally consider the destruction of books to be a heinous crime. Personally not legally.

    The OP asked "is the freedom to offend an important right?"

    This is why my comment was political.

    Because - at least in the West - only those on the left and the anti-religious have the freedom to offend - not those on the right or the religious.
     
  11. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    72,257
    Ratings:
    +28,161
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    This happened in Poland. Where such things are not legally protected acts. If they were then there wouldn't even be an issue to have this OP.
    Court Rules Against BEHEMOTH Frontman In Bible-Tearing Case
    Then how did Rush Limbaugh make a career as a shock jock? How does Ann Coulture pull it off?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. stvdv

    stvdv Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    11,964
    Ratings:
    +6,721
    Religion:
    Sanathana Dharma [The Eternal Religion]
    Blasphemy
    When there is "Freedom of Religion", how can Blasphemy exist? That is impossible; you can't have it both ways.

    Freedom of Religion tells us, that we are free to practise our Religion, in a way how we choose
    Blasphemy is the opposite, and tells us that we are not free to express our feelings, beliefs the way we feel

    IF someone steps on a picture of Mother Mary, expressing his feelings/beliefs
    THEN that is how he feels/believes, hence he acts perfectly within "Freedom of Religion"

    Note:
    Of course he should NOT step on a Mother Mary picture belonging to someone else
    Unless the person told him to do so (even then it is still his own free choice to make:D)

    KEY in all of this is, that people should stick to what they believe
    Problems starts when people think and tell others how they SHOULD believe
    Proving the absurdity of claiming Blasphemy should be honored within Freedom of Religion
    @stvdvRF
     
    #92 stvdv, Mar 4, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. Fallen Prophet

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    210
    Ratings:
    +40
    I know - I read the OP - which is why I answered the questions of the OP.

    I do believe that this is an issue. He shouldn't be punished in any way.

    Court Rules Against BEHEMOTH Frontman In Bible-Tearing Case

    Rush Limbaugh was no "shock jock".

    Both he and Ann Coulter have been harassed, kicked out of places and denied the right to speak at events for years.

    I like how you have only two examples of those who beat the odds.

    People on social media claimed that Trump was an illegitimate President for years with no repercussions.

    If anyone makes similar claims now about Biden - they are banned.

    Homosexuals and transgenders can call all Christians the worst names in the book with no repercussions.

    If anyone claims that homosexuality is wrong or that a man cannot be a woman - they are banned.

    It's all one-sided and you'd have to be blind not to see it.
     
  14. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    72,257
    Ratings:
    +28,161
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    He was a real life troll.
    Where? Many have made those claims here. But they generally aren't well received here because this forum does have a most Left Wing audience.
    Social media is a private company. People agree to abide by a set of rules to use those platforms.
    Snowflakes are the sort who cry when they have the penalties they agreed to applied to them when they violate the rules they agreed to follow in order to use the platform.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    72,257
    Ratings:
    +28,161
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    There is no right to be entitled and privileged to speak at a private facility, and the owners of the private facility do have the right to ban people from the premises and revoke prior-granted permissions.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. Musing Bassist

    Musing Bassist Mihi Quaestio Factus Sum

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,756
    Ratings:
    +1,325
    Religion:
    Ordinariate Catholic
    I'm not disputing that. I even said you should be free to criticize Catholicism all you want. My point is that stomping on pictures of the Virgin Mary isn't criticism, it's being a hurtful, attention seeking arse. I'm not convicted there is a right to publicly desecrate religious objects. Whether or not you should face criminal charges for doing so is another question. In Poland you do face that potential.

    Well no I disagree. I think there are fundamental rights inherent to humans as rational creatures in the image of God. But you are right in that if you deny any transcendent reality then it's true, your rights are but according to the will of your political masters. Power is the only god.

    Again, desecration isn't a criticism. Sure, there's nothing stopping me buying a Qur'an and burning it. But do you think doing so is going to change any minds? Or will it simply push the Muslims who see my shenanigans to double down in their "harmful ideas". Because that's another thing I rarely see considered. To what end are my actions directed?
     
    #96 Musing Bassist, Mar 4, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2021
  17. Fallen Prophet

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    210
    Ratings:
    +40
    You only think that because you disagreed with him.

    His motivation for doing and saying what he did was not to get a rise out of people - but to share what he believed to be true.

    Not here then - but on other platforms.
    What does "not well received" mean?


    If I were to say that I believed that a man cannot become a woman - does "not well received" mean that you'd report me to administrators and try to get me censured or banned?

    Our freedom to share our opinions should be absolute - in my opinion.

    It should not matter which aisle we are in politically.

    I mean - I've had conversations with people who have said things I don't like, agree with or offend me - but I'd never try to force them to stop.

    BTW - sharing an opinion is different than harassment or trying to insult someone.

    Obviously if I were calling someone names or following them on the site - that should be handled - but not just sharing what we believe.

    That's not what is happening though.

    For example - a guy I watch on YouTube was recently banned from Twitter because he shared evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election that he verified personally.

    He looked up voter roles from the in various States - found hundreds of bogus residences - then went to those locations personally to prove that these people who voted did not use the address of their actual residence.

    They were all parking lots, open fields, hospitals, community centers - one was an underpass.

    He shared links of that footage on Twitter and they banned him for sharing "unverified information" and "inciting violence".

    The links were him verifying the information and he never once incited violence.

    These big tech media giants censure people for bogus reasons that do not violate their terms of service at all.

    So - let me get this straight - any platform can change their rules whenever a new President is elected?

    So - when one President is in office - it is okay for people to say the worst things about him - but when a President of the other lane is elected - they can change their minds and not let anyone voice their opinions?

    Just like how a restaurant can choose to serve people of one persuasion and then deny service to someone of a different persuasion?

    And you are okay with them punishing people even when they do not violate their rules?
     
  18. Fallen Prophet

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    210
    Ratings:
    +40
    If an event is cancelled due to mobs threatening violence - that's censorship. That's like the brown ****s of Nazi Germany.

    Sure - the owners made the decision - but is it true freedom when they are forced to make that decision with a gun to their head?

    And BTW this happened at public facilities too.
     
  19. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    72,257
    Ratings:
    +28,161
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    He flaunted the risks of smoking. Said he even wanted a medal for his cigar smoking.
    He's now dead of lung cancer.

    Oh. Of course.:rolleyes:

    It means it won't be a popular opinion, and it will be used as clay pigeons for "debate skeet shot." You won't be banned or get a warning, but we may play "whack-a-post" with science journals as our mallets. It's not some sort of mob threat, but you won't be popular here with it.

    Yes, but that depends. Here, that could mean going against the rules we all agreed to in order to use this web site.

    Big whoop? Are we supposed to give you a cookie?
    Lots of us do that here sans announcement. It's something we all have to do in order just to function in our society. It's called "being an adult."

    Have to stop you there because there are private companies. You have to agree to their rules to use them.

    No, they can change them at any time, without notification, for any reason, and they can terminate your privilege of use any time, without warning, and we've all agreed to this dozens, possibly hundreds of times (if not thousands for some).
    Canceling due to threats of violence is something that happens. It's not censorship, and the owners of the private establishment are well within their rights to do so, because they are the ones who own it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. icehorse

    icehorse Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,686
    Ratings:
    +6,108
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    Freedom of speech is most important when it's risky.

    If you're saying that my choice is between being a slave to a god or a slave to "political masters", then I think that's a false dilemma.

    Who's to be the judge?
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...