Why Blasphemy is dangerous

[Estro Felino]

Finally, I condemn the cartoon competition and certainly don't believe it should be protected under freedom of speech because it is a campaign designed to put fuel on the fire.

With all due respect...satirical cartoons about Jesus are allowed here...so therefore...do you think there should be an exception ?

I fully agree with your last line. Very bad competition. "Freedom of Speech" should be to express yourself without hurting others in anyway IMHO.
.

Religions cannot be "hurt" because they have no feelings.
What shocks me is that Geert Wilders has been denied entrance to Britain...because of this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I've said before, I was an unbeliever for 27 years. I was taught evolution in school for years, the same as anyone else, and I rejected it then as nonsense. Long before I became a believer in the Bible.

I admitted that I was ignorant on the subject of science and evolution, and asked you to teach me so long as we didn't have to drag God into it, and you couldn't do it, and then blamed it on me!

Ridiculous.

You may have been "taught" but it is highly dubious if you learned. You had to have had a terrible teacher or not have been paying attention or worse for you to make that claim. But then you have shown a tendency to ignore actual evidence and follow your own prejudices. You could have benefited greatly from the thread that you fled. And don't blame me for your bad behavior. I explained how it did not matter but you prefer your myth.

If you demand that your false myth is true then of course I can't teach you science without referring to your version of God. One in which you, even though you do not realize it, call him a liar.

 

[stvdv]

12 jul 2018 stvdv 017 02

Perhaps, but he constantly displays a lack of understanding of almost every topic that he touches on here. That includes the Bible. When one's understanding is predicated upon the myths that one believes in it leads to a very distorted view of that book. If one understands that it is merely the best folklore that a rather primitive tribe (by today's standards) could come up with the Bible is not nearly so difficult to understand. When it comes to the sciences he knows almost nothing. Not due to a lack of intelligence, but due to the fact that the sciences contradict his interpretation of the Bible and he can't afford to let himself understand.

I truly believe that if he could put his beliefs on hold that he could understand the information that has been presented to him.

Except the word "Perhaps" which should be something like "Definitely" IMO.
The rest I fully agree. You restored my faith in atheists again.. You show a view very valuable points here. I have gone through myself also. First as 6 y old child "blind believing", then seeing the "injustice" in the Bible/Church/Priests declarations [ONLY Christians go to heaven and stuff] I ditched the Bible. Later understanding it was written in a time of savages and no digital recording system nor digital storing system, it does make sense some verses got changed along the way. If that were not the case, then even an atheist would agree this to be "a Divine Miracle" I think.

My best lesson was to realize "God concept is too high for me to understand, judge or reject, hence the word `believe`". Made me humble, and that opens communication possibility and stops the irritation caused by "My way is the highway", most religious people cling to. My Master hammered that one in "we know nothing for sure about God". And RF gave the experience of so many different views, that I could practice what my Master taught me "Indeed no one knows for sure; we just all believe".

Lao said "He who knows doesn't speak", so we won't get them tell us the Truth; most valuable information "If you search for Truth" .. But how to get it out of the "ones who know, but don't speak". First thought "you can't" ... you must find this yourself. But "the one knowing" showed us "the way to get Truth". We must practice what they taught us "by not speaking".

 

[Subduction Zone]

12 jul 2018 stvdv 017 02

Except the word "Perhaps" which should be something like "Definitely" IMO.
The rest I fully agree. You restored my faith in atheists again.. You show a view very valuable points here. I have gone through myself also. First as 6 y old child "blind believing", then seeing the "injustice" in the Bible/Church/Priests declarations [ONLY Christians go to heaven and stuff] I ditched the Bible. Later understanding it was written in a time of savages and no digital recording system nor digital storing system, it does make sense some verses got changed along the way. If that were not the case, then even an atheist would agree this to be "a Divine Miracle" I think.

My best lesson was to realize "God concept is too high for me to understand, judge or reject, hence the word `believe`". Made me humble, and that opens communication possibility and stops the irritation caused by "My way is the highway", most religious people cling to. My Master hammered that one in "we know nothing for sure about God". And RF gave the experience of so many different views, that I could practice what my Master taught me "Indeed no one knows for sure; we just all believe".

Lao said "He who knows doesn't speak", so we won't get them tell us the Truth; most valuable information "If you search for Truth" .. But how to get it out of the "ones who know, but don't speak". First thought "you can't" ... you must find this yourself. But "the one knowing" showed us "the way to get Truth". We must practice what they taught us "by not speaking".

I would disagree with your master somewhat. A proper belief is based upon what is observable and testable. Though I constantly run into creationists that do not understand how the theory of evolution can be tested and as a result believe that it can't. It is almost impossible to have a discussion on the subject with literalists because they can't let go of beliefs that were shown to be wrong over two hundred years ago.

And there may be a God out there. But without reliable evidence for one I lack belief.

 

[stvdv]

My Master hammered that one in "we know nothing for sure about God"

I would disagree with your master somewhat. A proper belief is based upon what is observable and testable. Though I constantly run into creationists that do not understand how the theory of evolution can be tested and as a result believe that it can't. It is almost impossible to have a discussion on the subject with literalists because they can't let go of beliefs that were shown to be wrong over two hundred years ago.

And there may be a God out there. But without reliable evidence for one I lack belief.

Maybe I was not clear about this or formulated it wrong. My Master explicitly includes evolution. Just "we know nothing for sure about God". That seems to be the same as you are saying I think [green part]. Evidence [beyond a doubt] is lacking, hence "we know nothing for sure about God".

And if Lao is right "The one who knows, does not speak" I expect "True Evidence on this" never to happen to be shared by speech.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My Master hammered that one in "we know nothing for sure about God"



Maybe I was not clear about this or formulated it wrong. My Master explicitly includes evolution. Just "we know nothing for sure about God". That seems to be the same as you are saying I think [green part]. Evidence [beyond a doubt] is lacking, hence "we know nothing for sure about God".

And if Lao is right "The one who knows, does not speak" I expect "True Evidence on this" never to happen to be shared by speech.

I will agree that we have no knowledge of God. I thought you were including worldly beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha , you are currently arguing just like a Flat Earth be!I ever who demands that God should not be brought up. Tell me, does a spherical Earth refute God? No? Good. By the same logic a world where the Adam and Eve story is a myth does not refute God either.

 

[Earthling]

@RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha , you are currently arguing just like a Flat Earth be!I ever who demands that God should not be brought up. Tell me, does a spherical Earth refute God? No? Good. By the same logic a world where the Adam and Eve story is a myth does not refute God either.

Thanks, I'll think about that. Have a nice day.

 

[KT Shamim]

With all due respect...satirical cartoons about Jesus are allowed here...so therefore...do you think there should be an exception ?

Religions cannot be "hurt" because they have no feelings.
What shocks me is that Geert Wilders has been denied entrance to Britain...because of this.

I believe anything that hurts people's sentiments must be regulated. Just like anti-semetic comments (what happened in WW2) are even legally regulated and rightly so. So, in the same manner any speech that is vitreol and hate and which clearly intends to add fuel to fire without reasoning and discussion should be banned and society should take a stand against such things.

Muslims in any case must adopt patience. Being Muslims they have a greater responsibility to follow their religion of peace and it is unfortunate that they themsevles enable it to be labelled is a religion not-of-peace.

But when trying to cure alcoholics we don't feed them more alcohol. That is the state of the West today unfortunately. To cure Muslims of their shameful reactions to blasphemy the "free world" feeds them with more blasphemy. Where is the sense in that?

 

[KT Shamim]

I would not be surprised either.
Most western people have not much empathy, hence the stupid cartoon competition, and think they can and should (be able to) say whatever they like.
Because their lack of empathy they also can't imagine such a threat will happen. They forget "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck"

Even if clerics don't gain power, soon the nukes will be available on ebay "so to speak". It's all about the Law of "supply and demand" [and some billionaires running the "show"]

I fully agree with your last line. Very bad competition. "Freedom of Speech" should be to express yourself without hurting others in anyway IMHO.

Indeed it is to put fuel on the fire.

Note 1: Using "Freedom of Speech without hurting others", Muslims should not say "Islam is the only/best way or so". This is putting fuel on fire also [soul trashing others]. Agreed???

Muslims should not say Islam is the only path. Salvation is God's decision as clearly stated in the following verse:
[Qur'an 2:63] "Surely, the Believers, and the Jews, and the Christians and the Sabians — whichever party from among these truly believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds — shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve."
[Qur'an 5:70] "Surely, those who have believed, and the Jews, and the Sabians, and the Christians — whoso believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds, on them shall come no fear, nor shall they grieve."

However, that begs the question "What was the point of Islam then?". And the answer is that it is still the best and perfect path and certainly one whose outright rejection is a major mistake. Though bottom-line God decides who goes to Heaven/Hell on a case-by-case basis ... not us.

So I agree with Islam not the only way. But I disagree in that I think Islam is the best way (by far if I might add).

Thinking Islam is the best way should not lead to any sense of supriority.
1. So-called Muslim might still end up in as much hell (if not more) than others for lack of practice.
2. It should lead to a sense of compassion and hurt that people are not accepting the truth ... but not superiority.

Note 2:

You better recheck Quran about the virgins IMHO "http://www.aviperry.org/political-b...n-of-72-virgins-in-islamic-paradise-come-from"
Despite the disclaimer by some Muslims, the truth is very clear. The 72 Virginsnotion has its origins in the Qur'an. Although the holy book does not specify the number as 72, it does say that those who fight in the way of Allah and are killed will be given a great reward. It goes on to stipulate that Muslims will be awarded with women in Islamic heaven. It even describes their physical attributes—large eyes (Q 56:22) and big, firm, round "swelling breasts" that are not inclined to sagging (Q 78:33). The Qur'an refers to these virgins as houri, companions of equal age, but the highly-flavored emphasis of their bodily characteristics, including their virginity, gave rise to many hadiths and other Islamic writings...

I'll look into it and do a thread on this, insha'Allah (God willing). jazakAllah (God bless you)

 

[stvdv]

Thank you for your helpful reply. Good to hear respectful Muslim replies. Very important observation you make "beware of superiority". Using frequently IMHO, in my humble opinion, is the perfect way to curb this. The Indian Scriptures also warn for this. Superiority, especially when spiritual, is called spiritual ego and almost impossible to cure, because it is spiritual arrogance. And arrogance is known to blind you [remember George Orwell's (animal farm) "All animals are equal but pigs are more equal"]. Pig stands for arrogance in this story, hence I think not eating pig is a very good diet restriction in Islam. Arrogant people are close to "think they are God" which obviously is a problem.

Muslims should not say Islam is the only path. Salvation is God's decision as clearly stated in the following verse:
[Qur'an 2:63] "Surely, the Believers, and the Jews, and the Christians and the Sabians — whichever party from among these truly believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds — shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve."

However, that begs the question "What was the point of Islam then?". And the answer is that it is still the best and perfect path and certainly one whose outright rejection is a major mistake. Though bottom-line God decides who goes to Heaven/Hell on a case-by-case basis ... not us.

So I agree with Islam not the only way. But I disagree in that I think Islam is the best way (by far if I might add).

Thinking Islam is the best way should not lead to any sense of supriority.
1. So-called Muslim might still end up in as much hell (if not more) than others for lack of practice.
2. It should lead to a sense of compassion and hurt that people are not accepting the truth ... but not superiority.

I'll look into it and do a thread on this, insha'Allah (God willing). jazakAllah (God bless you)

Below you made a good point,. To respect feelings of others I suggest my instead of the [saves even 1 character]. Same as: DonaldDuck instead of Muhammad cartoons
However, that begs the question "What was the point of Islam then?". And the answer is that it is still the best and perfect path and certainly one whose outright rejection is a major mistake. Though bottom-line God decides who goes to Heaven/Hell on a case-by-case basis ... not us.

No....respect: And the answer is that it is still the best and perfect path..........No Respect: Muhammad cartoons are nice
With.respect: And my answer is that it is still the best and perfect path.........With Respect: DonaldDuck cartoons are nice [1 word difference but now you clearly feel the difference]

So I agree with Islam not the only way. But I disagree in that I think Islam is the best way (by far if I might add).
1: I fully agree how you write it above, adding "I think" + "if I might add". Even I, who am quite sensitive, feel completely senang if worded the way you did
2: And I am happy surprised you write "So I agree with Islam not the only way". This implies other ways also reach to the goal [though you think Islam is the best way, by far, which is fine].
[Christians I met usually never would go that far to state that other ways also will have one reach the goal]

Might be good to have a POST on the "72 virgins" because that does give Islam a "funny" and "not to take serious" imago IMO.

May God Bless us all

 

[stvdv]

Finally, I condemn the cartoon competition and certainly don't believe it should be protected under freedom of speech because it is a campaign designed to put fuel on the fire.

Agreed !!!

With all due respect...satirical cartoons about Jesus are allowed here...so therefore...do you think there should be an exception ?

No there should be no exception. All should be forbidden. Muhammad, Jesus. I like the proverb: "Do unto other what you want them to do unto you".
So if you do "Muhammad cartoon" to a Muslim you hurt him so much he want to do "Nuke you" back. This is what you created in the first place.
And while nuking you the nuke might drop on Holland, and I get hurt because you needed so badly to hurt Muslims feeling. Still all fine to you?
Even the Pope [the Vatican one] recently declared a few times that we should not provoke in word or deed others by belittle etc. their religion.

But then of course I would love "Brave New World" or "Peace on Earth". I do not want "Nuked Earth". All psychiatrists know that words can impact more than deeds. But when words get "nuke" reactions then the impact from the deed is bigger. In India they call it "self created Karma". But you are free to create "a nuked earth" of course. But I VETO.

My Master said "Only speak if it improves the silence, and never hurt anyone. You can not always oblige, but you can always speak obligingly [equivalent to IMHO on RF]"

I fully agree with your last line. Very bad competition. "Freedom of Speech" should be to express yourself without hurting others in anyway IMHO.

Religions cannot be "hurt" because they have no feelings.
What shocks me is that Geert Wilders has been denied entrance to Britain...because of this.

I did not speak about 'hurting religions". It needs 1 angry guy with a "red button" and boom "Estro Felino Finito". It's ignorance to think "this won't happen".

 

[Estro Felino]

Agreed !!!


No there should be no exception. All should be forbidden. Muhammad, Jesus. I like the proverb: "Do unto other what you want them to do unto you".
So if you do "Muhammad cartoon" to a Muslim you hurt him so much he want to do "Nuke you" back. This is what you created in the first place.
And while nuking you the nuke might drop on Holland, and I get hurt because you needed so badly to hurt Muslims feeling. Still all fine to you?
Even the Pope [the Vatican one] recently declared a few times that we should not provoke in word or deed others by belittle etc. their religion.

But then of course I would love "Brave New World" or "Peace on Earth". I do not want "Nuked Earth". All psychiatrists know that words can impact more than deeds. But when words get "nuke" reactions then the impact from the deed is bigger. In India they call it "self created Karma". But you are free to create "a nuked earth" of course. But I VETO.

My Master said "Only speak if it improves the silence, and never hurt anyone. You can not always oblige, but you can always speak obligingly [equivalent to IMHO on RF]"




I did not speak about 'hurting religions". It needs 1 angry guy with a "red button" and boom "Estro Felino Finito". It's ignorance to think "this won't happen".

But they have the right, by law, to express themselves...that's the system of principles of European Enlightenment. So I support Geert Wilders, who is a great ally of my country, quite appreciated here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look...I think it is morally wrong to bash religions.
Do I like a cartoon contest like that? No.
But they have the right, by law, to express themselves...that's the system of principles of European Enlightenment. So I support Geert Wilders, who is a great ally of my country, quite appreciated here.

Why? I could equally claim it is morally wrong not to bash religions. Look at all of the harm that they do.

 

[Estro Felino]

Why? I could equally claim it is morally wrong not to bash religions. Look at all of the harm that they do.

Honestly...I really don't care if they bash any religion.
I was explaining to him that blasphemy laws don't belong in Europe...and in fact no journalist or writer has ever been silenced for bashing and criticizing religion, in my country.
In UK...three people like Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Lauren Southern were banned, and that's outrageous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Honestly...I really don't care if they bash any religion.
I was explaining to him that blasphemy laws don't belong in Europe...and in fact no journalist or writer has ever been silenced for bashing and criticizing religion, in my country.
In UK...three people like Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Lauren Southern were banned, and that's outrageous.

I agree that it is ridiculous and wrong to have those sorts of laws. I disagree with your sentence that it is morally wrong to bash religions. Religions should be bashed just as politicians should be. It helps to keep make them less dishonest.

 

[stvdv]

12 jul 2018 stvdv 017 25

But they have the right, by law, to express themselves...that's the system of principles of European Enlightenment. So I support Geert Wilders, who is a great ally of my country, quite appreciated here.

I also think Geert Wilders is very much needed. But there are smarter ways then "Muhammad Cartoon Competition". But the good thing is that now we have proof how dangerous the Islam is or better the Quran. Proof means written confirmation "If I had nukes I would nuke the Netherlands". Not just Geert Wilders but all 16 million people. All acts started with thought/word.
[So I do hope their eyes are opened now, how important it is to stop these Muslims threat to nuke the west]

 

[stvdv]

12 jul 2018 stvdv 017 26
Look...I think it is morally wrong to bash religions.

Why? I could equally claim it is morally wrong not to bash religions. Look at all of the harm that they do.

I believe this is not the smart way. See below. There is a much smarter way.

Honestly...I really don't care if they bash any religion.
I was explaining to him that blasphemy laws don't belong in Europe...and in fact no journalist or writer has ever been silenced for bashing and criticizing religion, in my country.
In UK...three people like Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Lauren Southern were banned, and that's outrageous.

Below I show that Muslims should not even be in non-Muslim countries, according to Quran verse.
UK is doing the opposite as they should do. They should ban Muslims, and allow above 3 IMO

I agree that it is ridiculous and wrong to have those sorts of laws. I disagree with your sentence that it is morally wrong to bash religions. Religions should be bashed just as politicians should be. It helps to keep make them less dishonest.

I believe it is better not to bash Islam/religion [below proofs why]
I believe it is better to bash all the bad acts done in name of religion
I believe it is better to bash all the violent verses in "so called Divine inspired Scriptures"

Better to get rid of a religion that is "dishonest" than bash them. Because: "What does not kill you makes you stronger"
You don't want to make ISIS stronger. Bashing will make them stronger

I wrote on RF Quran Forum a challenging POST. I was quite sure not 1 Muslim could debate that one
Many views, but not 1 dared to debate my post. So I guess I am correct in interpreting this verse

I found a verse in Quran that prohibits a Muslim to become a refugee in non-Muslim country
I love Aikido: The best way is to use the power of the enemy. Verses of their own Quran.

I believe it is much better to uproot wrong than bash wrong

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look...I think it is morally wrong to bash religions.


I believe this is not the smart way. See below. There is a much smarter way.


Below I show that Muslims should not even be in non-Muslim countries, according to Quran verse.
UK is doing the opposite as they should do. They should ban Muslims, and allow above 3 IMO



I believe it is better not to bash Islam/religion [below proofs why]
I believe it is better to bash all the bad acts done in name of religion
I believe it is better to bash all the violent verses in "so called Divine inspired Scriptures"

Better to get rid of a religion that is "dishonest" than bash them
Because: "What does not kill you makes you stronger"
You don't want to make ISIS stronger
Bashing will make them stronger

I wrote on RF Quran Forum a challenging POST.
I was quite sure not 1 Muslim could debate that one
Many views, but not 1 dared to debate my post.
So I guess I am correct in interpreting this verse
Normally they love to debate my verse interpretations

I found a verse in Quran that prohibits a Muslim to become a refugee in non-Muslim country
Normally Muslims like to defend and debate. This was a lost case for them, so not 1 Muslim even tried.
We have lots of trouble with violent Muslim refugees in Europe.
If you read and understand that verse you understand why you should never allow Muslim refugees IMO
Unless they follow Quran verse saying "drop Islam if you take refuge in non-Muslim country"

I love Aikido: The best way is to use the power of the enemy
Use this Quran verse to subdue them, meaning drop Islam when becoming refugee [Quran instructs them]
Quran is quite good if you know the verses well
Of course Imaams will never tell you this verse. You need to be creative and find it yourself

I believe it is much better to uproot wrong than bash wrong

perhaps we are using the word "bash" differently. I am for making fun of the bad actions that almost any group following a religion is guilty of performing. Whether it is the hypocritical science denial of some Christians or the thin skinned demands that others give Mohammed respect that he does not deserve.

 

[stvdv]

12 jul 2018 stvdv 017 31

perhaps we are using the word "bash" differently. I am for making fun of the bad actions that almost any group following a religion is guilty of performing. Whether it is the hypocritical science denial of some Christians or the thin skinned demands that others give Mohammed respect that he does not deserve.

Aha: I understand now. The word "bash" was the same. Only I differentiated in "Bash religion" and "Bash bad/stupid actions done in name of religion"
Thanks for telling me. Sometimes I take it too literal. I stayed a little too long in a church where they were bashing "atheism etc." not the actions they do but "their being atheist etc". But at least I know how they `really feel` about non-Christians. There Ad-Hominem attacks I find even more "bad" then the points you mentioned [which are also bad].