Blasphemy

QuaziWashboard

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
457
Reaction score
20
Points
34
austen27 said:
monster_magnet said:
Banal? So banal that its mere existence is controversial and offensive to lots of Chrstians...

...or so we're lead to believe. It feels like a bit of PR spin to be honest.
Exactly, create something just to offend and you get lors of free publicity.
Well it worked for the Sex Pistols.
 

monster_magnet

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 16, 2001
Messages
756
Reaction score
2
Points
49
Exactly, create something just to offend and you get lors of free publicity.
...

...or...create a conceptual peice of art which promotes questions about the validity of religious festivals in todays consumer society.

I think any who took offence need to take a long hard look at themselves before questioning the art and the artist.
 

Creamstick1

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
275
Reaction score
14
Points
49
You can't cause offence, you can only take offence.

You can't accidentally offend someone - offence is something stirred within a person, due to the person's individual sensibilities. So, if you find something offensive, it must be due to deliberate personal choices and feelings that you choose to have.

Objects, words and actions cannot cause anything. It's all in the eye of the beholder - a choice, then - between taking offence or not. Between allowing yourself to feel one way or another about something, based on your own personal feelings sensibilities.

I'm not saying that it's wrong to take offence to certain things, all I'm saying is that even if someone intends to cause offence, they can't - that's not how it works - it's too hit-and-miss. Who the hell knows who is going to take offence at what? It's impossible to predict.

So, it's left to the individual to take offence. I absolutely defend the right to take offence where I see something I think may be wrong. I absolutely defend everyone else's right to take offence to things they may think are wrong, but I also stand up for the rights of people who would do such things that I may take offence at (within the sphere of freedom of speech at least - there are things that everyone knows are wrong, and we'll leave it there - there's no excuse for child pornography, genocide, torture, rape etc.).

Sorry about the long rant, but it's been stewing for a while, with all the 'incitement to religious hatred' balls, and things like the main topic of this thread it's just brimming over. :) See, I can smile!
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,241
Reaction score
9,118
Points
284
Creamstick1 said:
I'm not saying that it's wrong to take offence to certain things, all I'm saying is that even if someone intends to cause offence, they can't - that's not how it works - it's too hit-and-miss. Who the hell knows who is going to take offence at what? It's impossible to predict.
Difficult to predict, perhaps, but surely not impossible?

We've seen the recent reaction of some Muslims to the cartoons about Mohammed, and the Christian church is currently split over the issue of gay clergy.

So many religious groups have strongly held beliefs, and it would be easy to cause deliberate offence by ridiculing their beliefs.

There used to be a saying, when someone had fallen out of favour, that 'he was as welcome as a pork chop in a synagogue'.

(Nowadays, we'd perhaps say 'in a mosque' - or perhaps not....!)
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,527
Reaction score
165
Points
114
The problem I have is that there are people who assume that it's always open season on Judaeo-Christianity....and who will immediately smear any Judaeo-Christian response to such attacks as "bigotry" and "censorship."
 

Creamstick1

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
275
Reaction score
14
Points
49
rynner said:
Difficult to predict, perhaps, but surely not impossible?
I'm thinking more in terms of scale (possibly not the right term) - if someone wanted to cause offence to christians, then surely all christians would be offended?

For example, the chocolate jesus - if the artist's intention was to cause offence to christians, then reason stands that he (or she) failed, as not every christian was offended.

Some took offence to it, some didn't.

It's a working model - if a person seeks to cause offence toward a certain section of the populace, who have a certain belief structure, it it can't possibly work - as some people will not be bothered by it.

Some will, some won't. It's always a failure, as some people, no matter how many similarities in taste, beliefs, etc. they may have with others, will always have differences too.

I may be explaining it badly - I think I'm using too many words to try and describe something simple, and it's coming out messy, but I just can't think of the right words.
 

lupinwick

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
1,645
Reaction score
2
Points
54
Just sounds absolutist to me.You're saying all christians (or whatever groups) have to be offended for it to work (ie. be offensive).

So by the same argument for a work to be in-offensive to christians it must not offend any.

However that cannot be the case. Perhaps the correct wording is "likely to cause offense", which will keep most people happy.
 

ted_bloody_maul

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,586
Reaction score
10
Points
69
Christians are not a unified group, of course. What's offensive to a Baptist might not be to a Roman Catholic and vice versa, for example. You wouldn't need to cause offence to all Christians for it to be offensive to some Christians. Of course, they may have chosen a specific form of Christianity over another (or over another religion or over atheism, for that matter) but that's a separate argument.
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,527
Reaction score
165
Points
114
ted_bloody_maul said:
What's offensive to a Baptist might not be to a Roman Catholic and vice versa
No, but what we've been seeing in recent years is Catholics and Baptists and other Christians forming a common front to counter attacks on Christianity and working as well together as a good baseball infield defense.

The Reformation's over.
 

ted_bloody_maul

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,586
Reaction score
10
Points
69
OldTimeRadio said:
ted_bloody_maul said:
What's offensive to a Baptist might not be to a Roman Catholic and vice versa
No, but what we've been seeing in recent years is Catholics and Baptists and other Christians forming a common front to counter attacks on Christianity and working as well together as a good baseball infield defense.

The Reformation's over.
Tell that to Father Paisley of Ballymena!! :lol:

Yes, there's a coming together of disparate sects within Christianity as a relatively homogenised political force given their common interests in a secularised world but there is still much to divide. I can assure you if you scrawled the letters "FTP"* on a wall in Glasgow you'd find devoted but separate bretherens expressing equally devoted but separate responses.

*To spare the sensitivities of the more timid and to counter the confusion of the more IT minded I'll simply explain that the last two letters stand for 'the pope'.
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,527
Reaction score
165
Points
114
Paisley's like the fisherman - you can tell him but you can't tell him much.

And "FTP" is very much an "in-house" argument. It doesn't involve an attack on Christianity, as such.
 

ted_bloody_maul

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,586
Reaction score
10
Points
69
OldTimeRadio said:
Paisley's like the fisherman - you can tell him but you can't tell him much.

And "FTP" is very much an "in-house" argument. It doesn't involve an attack on Christianity, as such.
True but it does demonstrate that attacks on one form of Christianity can be offensive to some but not others. For example, a joke about the pope might be considered to be offensive to Roman Catholics, perhaps more or less so depending on who is telling it, where it wouldn't be offensive to other groups.

Likewise there might be different levels of offence amongst different communities if Jesus was portrayed in a certain way regarding something like homosexuality, for instance. One group might decide that to suggest there was a possibilty that Jesus was gay was incorrect but not neccessarily an offensive proposition given their attitude towards homosexuality where another group might consider it a particularly vile slur, for instance. Even on a very basic level the contention that communion was merley symbolic rather than a literal transubstantiation might be considered insensitive or offensive depending on the way or circumstances in which it was expressed.
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,527
Reaction score
165
Points
114
The point I was originally attempting to make (admittedly not very well!) is that the half-dozen or so "salvation-essential doctrines" are shared en toto across Christian religions as different as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Church of England, Coptic Church, Lutheranism, Baptitism, Methodism, the Amish and Mennonites, Quakerism and so on.

Thus to attack the emphasis placed by Lutherans on the Blood Atonement, for example, is also an attack on Baptists and Catholics, since that same doctrine is just as central and just as sacred to them.
 

austen27

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 9, 2001
Messages
1,187
Reaction score
15
Points
69
OldTimeRadio said:
Thus to attack the emphasis placed by Lutherans on the Blood Atonement, for example, is also an attack on Baptists and Catholics, since that same doctrine is just as central and just as sacred to them.
If you’re going back to the Dean of St Alban's, what he actually said (as opposed to what was reported and commented on before the broadcast was made) was in line with Anglican, and Catholic, doctrine. The Rector at St Mary's Cottingham made the whole thing the subject of a sermon two weeks ago - "We do not have heretics as Deans in the Church of England". The whole controversy was created by journalists and picked up by evangelicals as a stick to beat "liberal" Christians with.
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,527
Reaction score
165
Points
114
austen27 said:
If you’re going back to the Dean of St Alban's, what he actually said (as opposed to what was reported and commented on before the broadcast was made) was in line with Anglican, and Catholic, doctrine. The Rector at St Mary's Cottingham made the whole thing the subject of a sermon two weeks ago - "We do not have heretics as Deans in the Church of England". The whole controversy was created by journalists and picked up by evangelicals as a stick to beat "liberal" Christians with.
That's a relief.

So can you tell me which of the direct quotes attributed to the Rev. Johns he did not make?
 

austen27

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 9, 2001
Messages
1,187
Reaction score
15
Points
69
OldTimeRadio said:
That's a relief.

So can you tell me which of the direct quotes attributed to the Rev. Johns he did not make?
The full script is here.

The phrases might be in there but the context makes all the difference.

As I understand it the theologial points he made are quite traditional ones. There is some good anylisis here:

http://aguyinthepew.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... ement.html

http://aguyinthepew.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... ffrey.html

I remeber a few years ago Father Toby Forward, who was then Vicar of St Alban's, Hull and is now a Canon at Liverpool Cathedral, telling a group that when ever a priest in the C of E tries to make any thological point it is twisted into something sensational. It happened to the Bishop of Durham all the time.
 

ted_bloody_maul

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
May 23, 2003
Messages
4,586
Reaction score
10
Points
69
austen27 said:
I remeber a few years ago Father Toby Forward, who was then Vicar of St Alban's, Hull and is now a Canon at Liverpool Cathedral, telling a group that when ever a priest in the C of E tries to make any thological point it is twisted into something sensational. It happened to the Bishop of Durham all the time.
Is he a progressive (sorry, couldn't resist that one :oops:)?
 

austen27

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 9, 2001
Messages
1,187
Reaction score
15
Points
69
ted_bloody_maul said:
austen27 said:
I remeber a few years ago Father Toby Forward, who was then Vicar of St Alban's, Hull and is now a Canon at Liverpool Cathedral, telling a group that when ever a priest in the C of E tries to make any thological point it is twisted into something sensational. It happened to the Bishop of Durham all the time.
Is he a progressive (sorry, couldn't resist that one :oops:)?
:)

(He is an Anglo-Catholic - and an author).
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,527
Reaction score
165
Points
114
austen27 said:
The full script is here.

The phrases might be in there but the context makes all the difference.
I might have some very minor quibbles with the full text (as I might with any article or sermon worth reading), but it is certainly theologically sound, without a whisper of heresy about it. The journalist does indeed seem to have performed a hatchet job of the Rev. Johns.
 

austen27

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 9, 2001
Messages
1,187
Reaction score
15
Points
69
OldTimeRadio said:
I might have some very minor quibbles with the full text (as I might with any article or sermon worth reading), but it is certainly theologically sound, without a whisper of heresy about it. The journalist does indeed seem to have performed a hatchet job of the Rev. Johns.
Yes, journalists are often desperate to make people look bad. I read an article in the Daily Mail (my mother reads it) some years ago about an actor where they quoted one of his friends as saying "No one will say a bad word about him". I think the friend meant he was well liked, but the journalist had interpreted this as meaning he was some sort of Mafia boss, intimidating everyone else into silence.

Back on theology, Father Toby gave the example of the Bishop of Durham saying "The resurrection was not just a conjuring trick with bones" - which was put into the newspaper headlines as "Resurrection ... conjuring trick with bones".
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,527
Reaction score
165
Points
114
The Australian press has made an especial art of this down the years but I didn't realize the same thing held true about the UK.

When Frank Sinatra disembarked from a plane in Oz some 40 years ago the first reporter he encountered on the tarmac asked, "Mr. Sinatra, are you a homosexual?"

"Of course not," Sinatra replied and walked on.

The next day's newspaper headline: SINATRA DENIES HOMOSEXUALITY!.
 

austen27

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 9, 2001
Messages
1,187
Reaction score
15
Points
69
OldTimeRadio said:
The Australian press has made an especial art of this down the years but I didn't realize the same thing held true about the UK.[/b].
A certain Australian, or former Australian, owns a lot of the British press now.
 

feen5

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
88
Points
79
The Australian press has made an especial art of this down the years but I didn't realize the same thing held true about the UK.

When Frank Sinatra disembarked from a plane in Oz some 40 years ago the first reporter he encountered on the tarmac asked, "Mr. Sinatra, are you a homosexual?"

"Of course not," Sinatra replied and walked on.

The next day's newspaper headline: SINATRA DENIES HOMOSEXUALITY!
Theres also the great LBJ story about a conversation between him and his aides during an election campaign and they were coming up with ideas when one of the aides said why don't we say he has sex with animals and another aide asked was that true, whereapon LBJ said it doesn't matter if it is or not but lets see the Bastard deny it .
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,527
Reaction score
165
Points
114
austen27 said:
A certain Australian, or former Australian, owns a lot of the British press now.
I'd forgotten that, or at least it refused to come front-and-center when I needed it.

Down, bad memory!
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
51,666
Reaction score
26,459
Points
309
Location
Eblana
India sect apologises over advert

A bit odd. Comics dress up as the Pope & Paisley and there are no riots.


India sect apologises over advert

Many of the Sikh protesters were armed
A religious sect in the Indian state of Punjab has apologised after its leader was accused of blasphemy against Sikhs.
The leader of the Dera Sacha Sauda (DSS) appeared in an advert dressed like Guru Gobind Singh, one of the Sikh religion's most revered figures.

The sect has now apologised to the Guru Gobind Singh directly.

The incident led to clashes earlier in May, and a general strike between Sikhs and members of the sect in which at least one person died.

A deadline set by Sikh leaders for DSS sites to be shut has passed with no reports of violence.

The sect claims it has 20 million members worldwide and says it is not a religion but a humanitarian organisation caring for its devotees.

Polarisation

Analysts say the DSS action has to be seen in the context of state elections held in Punjab in February.

Then the sect leader issued a public appeal for people to vote for the Congress party.

Religious sects have traditionally been subtle about their support for political parties - they have usually issued internal appeals asking their followers to vote for the political party of their choice.

Most Sikhs in Punjab support the state's governing party, Akali Dal.

Some analysts say Sikh leaders, angry at the direct intervention by the DSS in the elections, seized the opportunity to whip up popular sentiments of their community against the sect.

Although peace has prevailed in the state for the last decade or so, in the 1980s and the 1990s, Punjab was the site of a violent insurgency by Sikhs who desired an independent homeland.

In 1984 Indian security forces killed many Sikh militants after they seized the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the Sikh religion's most important site.

In revenge, Indira Gandhi, the then-prime minister, was shot dead by her Sikh bodyguards.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6697323.stm
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
51,666
Reaction score
26,459
Points
309
Location
Eblana
I think this fits here but: modd please move it to another satanist thread if you think it appropriate.

INDIA Satan Worshippers Suspected In Disappearance Of Consecrated Hosts
Satan

by By George Kommattathil

On 2008-11-7

KANNUR, India (UCAN) -- Catholics in a southern Indian village suspect the involvement of Satan worshippers in the disappearance of consecrated hosts from a shrine.


"We are very hurt that the Blessed Sacrament was stolen," Father Ancil Peter, pastor of Our Lady of Dolores Parish in Vellarivayal, told UCA News on Nov. 1. "We strongly suspect Satan worshippers are behind this horrific act."

The incident occurred at a popular shrine dedicated to Saint Anthony in Karaparambu, a substation of the parish in Kannur diocese, Kerala state, 2,350 kilometers south of New Delhi.

According to Father Peter, parishioners found the shrine open and the ciborium containing the holy hosts missing on Oct. 22 when they came for weekly Mass.

On the same day, parishioners gathered at the shrine to conduct special prayers to atone for the sacrilege. They recited the rosary and conducted adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and penitential services.

Police have registered a case but have yet to arrest anyone.

P. Paul, parish council secretary, said local Catholics suspect the hosts were taken to conduct a "Black Mass." The 42-year-old lay leader explained they "don't suspect Hindu fanatics because this is a Catholic stronghold." Catholics would have dismissed the incident as a case of theft if the intruders had taken money from the donation box, he added.

Father Clement Langen, Kannur diocese's financial administrator, told UCA News on Nov. 1, "It is heard that Black Mass is prevalent in this region" but that the Church has no "explicit evidence to prove it because Satanists keep their activities highly secretive."

Abraham Jacob, a lay evangelist who has researched the prevalence of Satanism and Freemasonry in Kerala, said he has heard of people stealing consecrated hosts from Catholic churches and giving them to Satan worshippers for huge amounts of money.

Jacob suspects Catholics and Muslims are involved in the Black Masses but has no solid proof where they hold them. A Black Mass, he explained, is a parody of the Catholic Mass in which God is mocked and the devil is worshipped.

Jacob said Church people began noticing missing consecrated hosts after the Church introduced the practice of receiving Communion in the hand. "We assume the missing consecrated hosts have gone to the Satanists," he continued. "But until the culprits are arrested, it is hard to confirm."

Father Harshid Dev, who manages a retreat center in Peratta, another village in Kannur district, has printed and distributed a leaflet on Satanism and the Black Mass to educate Catholics.

The priest, a member of the Indian Missionary Society, told UCA News on Nov. 1 that Satan worshippers spread their message through tattoos, t-shirts and upside-down crosses. "Satanic symbols are available across Kerala. This is part of a hidden agenda. Catholics are not fully aware of the challenging situation," he maintained.

Father Dev added that he had met three Catholic youths involved in Satanism when he was working in New Delhi a few years ago and managed to bring them back to the Catholic fold.

While he admits he has not yet met anyone involved in Satanism in Kerala, he wants the Church to seriously educate Catholics about the potential threat. "Unfortunately, even the Church people are unaware of the growing influence of Satanists in our society," he said.
 

segovius

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
317
Reaction score
22
Points
34
Slightly off-topic but I've never understood the Xian collective neurosis about Satanism. Strictly speaking Satanism is actually a Christian sect and one which could be argued for positively from Christian Scripture.

For example; Satanists accept the existence of both Satan, Jesus and God - just as Christians do. They merely differ in the belief that Satan is actually 'the good guy'.

In this there is quite a lot of Biblical support; for instance God lies to Adam in Genesis when he tells him that he will die if he eats the fruit. The Serpent (Satan?) tells Adam that God has lied to him and he will not die. Here the Serpent tells the truth and it is God who lies - Adam and Eve do not die after eating it.

Moreover, Eve is punished unjustly as she was not even created when God issued His prohibition. She therefore broke no law.

As is well known, God goes on to behave in a variety of maniacal manners ranging from genocide to common or garden murder and incitement to rape while Satan is playing no part in all these actions which will later be labelled as 'sins' and claimed to be caused by him whereas in fact, they were the sole preserve of Yahweh with Satan playing no role whatsoever in the mayhem accept - on God's orders - to go and torment Job.

But I digress....apologies.....
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,527
Reaction score
165
Points
114
segovius said:
Slightly off-topic but I've never understood the Xian collective neurosis about Satanism. Strictly speaking Satanism is actually a Christian sect and one which could be argued for positively from Christian Scripture.
Isn't that like arguing that the Nazis were a Jewish sect, since they used some language and terminology in common?

For example; Satanists accept the existence of both Satan, Jesus and God - just as Christians do. They merely differ in the belief that Satan is actually 'the good guy'.
The fact that I accept the existence of both Nazis and Communists DOESN'T make me either one of them!

In this there is quite a lot of Biblical support; for instance God lies to Adam in Genesis when he tells him that he will die if he eats the fruit. The Serpent (Satan?) tells Adam that God has lied to him and he will not die. Here the Serpent tells the truth and it is God who lies - Adam and Eve do not die after eating it.
But Adam DID die! He was no long immortal!

Moreover, Eve is punished unjustly as she was not even created when God issued His prohibition. She therefore broke no law.
Thus I am legally free to rob banks because the laws ag'in it were passed long before I was created?
 

Anome

Bibliomancer
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
5,560
Reaction score
647
Points
194
Location
Left, and to the Back
OldTimeRadio said:
segovius said:
Slightly off-topic but I've never understood the Xian collective neurosis about Satanism. Strictly speaking Satanism is actually a Christian sect and one which could be argued for positively from Christian Scripture.
Isn't that like arguing that the Nazis were a Jewish sect, since they used some language and terminology in common?
Not at all.

Satanism, as it is generally known, is actually a Christian heresy. This isn't because it shares the language of Christianity, but rather because the precepts of Satanism are derived from the Christian notion of Satan (despite what the Satanists might tell you). In a way, it is a reaction to the organised Christianity that was the norm.

Nazism, on the other hand, derived its precepts from the economic situation in Germany in the 30s, and fear of "the other", in a time honoured tradition of hate-based faiths. In many ways, it too is a Christian heresy. Although, not content with abusing their own religion, they went on to abuse Hinduism and Buddhism as well.

Of course, one could argue that Christianity is nothing more than a Jewish heresy, and so Nazism, being a Christian heresy, is in some way a Jewish heresy, but that's not really a fair interpretation.
 

OldTimeRadio

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,527
Reaction score
165
Points
114
Anome_ said:
Although, not content with abusing their own religion, they went on to abuse Hinduism and Buddhism as well.
In the case of Buddhism it depends upon how we are defining "abuse." A number of high echelon SS leaders were practicing Buddhists, especially Gen. Dr. Karl Haushofer, who had been initiated into a Buddhist sect (I believe in Japan) as early as 1907. Now these Nazis (and proto-Nazis) may have very well "abused" Buddhism by joining but it was certainly a different form of abuse than the sort they afterwards helped heap upon the Jews.
 
Top