Blasphemy

[Shantanu]

If it has to do with their god/buddha yes one should not make fun or make evil comments on someones belief, but asking question in a polite way is of course ok.

But example making fun in cartoon of Muslim prophet is a very bad way of blasphemy

For an Existentialist he or she has to assess the Reality that he faces and then decide whether he should engage in any act that is potentially blasphemous, For example it is never a good idea to say anything bad about Muslim faith whether one lives in India, Islamic country or the UK or Norway. This is because the Islamic religion can issue fatwas from an Ayatollah in Iran or some other Islamic Republic to have such a person killed for denigrating the Islamic faith as for Salman Rushdie. Islam is very protective of itself and can launch wars against States.

But if someone like me faces criticisms for his Existentialism faith from hate criminals they face no dangers in the UK State-hate so to protect myself and the practice of my faith I have had to decide how to deal with these blasphemers who have wreaked havoc on my faith. It is not easy but very torturous to do so. I have been doing that for nearly 20 years.

 

[Altfish]

Because it is a spiritual belief, just because you do not belive in something does not give a right to make bad comments on others belief. just like spiritual people must respect atheists.

No, you do not have to respect atheism.
Religion is an idea; if I think it is a bad idea, I should be able to say so. If you think atheism is a bad idea, you should be able to say so.

 

[Spirit of Light]

No, you do not have to respect atheism.
Religion is an idea; if I think it is a bad idea, I should be able to say so. If you think atheism is a bad idea, you should be able to say so.

Both Jesus and Buddha sakyamuni has been proven to have lived and given their teaching, so for those who follow their teaching will see that the teaching is real and is does that people become more enlighten.
I dont trash talk atheist, but i can say i am not agree in their view, but i respect that they think as they do

 

[JJ50]

Both Jesus and Buddha sakyamuni has been proven to have lived and given their teaching, so for those who follow their teaching will see that the teaching is real and is does that people become more enlighten.
I dont trash talk atheist, but i can say i am not agree in their view, but i respect that they think as they do

Jesus and Buddha probably did exist. I don't know much about Buddha, but as for Jesus the gospels were written years after he died. Unless it was written down at the time, it would be impossible to quote accurately what he was supposed to have said. As for the deeds attributed to him, if they aren't credible, it is more than likely they didn't happen in the way they were portrayed.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Jesus and Buddha probably did exist. I don't know much about Buddha, but as for Jesus the gospels were written years after he died. Unless it was written down at the time, it would be impossible to quote accurately what he was supposed to have said. As for the deeds attributed to him, if they aren't credible, it is more than likely they didn't happen in the way they were portrayed.

In the time of Both Buddha 2600 years ago and Jesus 2000 years ago it was very common that the teaching was done oral, and that they was used to memorize it to the best of their ability. yes a few words can have been told a little different after some years. but the main teaching is correct.
Unfortunatly today we see often that specially in christianity the teaching get changed becauee people today are not agree with it, and change it so it fit them instead of changing them self to fit the teaching.

Everything about spiritual path is to follow the teaching as it was when the teacher told it. But not follow as a slave, one must think why do Jesus or Buddha say this, what was the meaning, how can i make it in to my own life so i getthe benefit of the teaching.

 

[Altfish]

Both Jesus and Buddha sakyamuni has been proven to have lived and given their teaching, so for those who follow their teaching will see that the teaching is real and is does that people become more enlighten.
I dont trash talk atheist, but i can say i am not agree in their view, but i respect that they think as they do

I too respect religious people UNTIL they try to bring their influence upon my life.
So, as long as they stay in church or whatever is their religious buildings that is fine. But don't tell me who I can have sex with, when the shops can open, which pictures I can show, etc.

I still reserve the right to criticise their religion - not the person, I hasten to add, just the idea that they follow.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I too respect religious people UNTIL they try to bring their influence upon my life.
So, as long as they stay in church or whatever is their religious buildings that is fine. But don't tell me who I can have sex with, when the shops can open, which pictures I can show, etc.

I still reserve the right to criticise their religion - not the person, I hasten to add, just the idea that they follow.

Not to offend you, but you mean you can tell others that what they believe is just silly, but people can not comment on your way of life?

 

[Altfish]

Not to offend you, but you mean you can tell others that what they believe is just silly, but people can not comment on your way of life?

Not at all. If you look at my post #42 I said "If you think atheism is a bad idea, you should be able to say so."
I think that is clear, you can criticise my ideas and I can criticise your ideas.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Not at all. If you look at my post #42 I said "If you think atheism is a bad idea, you should be able to say so."
I think that is clear, you can criticise my ideas and I can criticise your ideas.

I am agree that constructive discussion is good, but not comments that will be hurtfull for some people.Personally i do not get angry at those who makr critique of Buddhism, but i can only say what i understand of buddhism. Honestly i know to little about Atheists to say much bad about that view.

But i can say i do not agree about all the critique Muslims has to listen to.

 

[JJ50]

In the time of Both Buddha 2600 years ago and Jesus 2000 years ago it was very common that the teaching was done oral, and that they was used to memorize it to the best of their ability. yes a few words can have been told a little different after some years. but the main teaching is correct.
Unfortunatly today we see often that specially in christianity the teaching get changed becauee people today are not agree with it, and change it so it fit them instead of changing them self to fit the teaching.

Everything about spiritual path is to follow the teaching as it was when the teacher told it. But not follow as a slave, one must think why do Jesus or Buddha say this, what was the meaning, how can i make it in to my own life so i getthe benefit of the teaching.

If Jesus was quoted correctly, he said somethings which were sensible and others which were silly, but then we all do that. He was just as human as the rest of us, imo.

 

[Earthling]

Here in the UK the crazy blasphemy law was repealed in 2008, it should never have been a crime in the first place. One should be able to say exactly what one wishes about any religion and its god, especially as they are more than likely to be human creations which don't exist in reality.

I don't know about any law in the U.K., it sounds like a crazy law, but what do you know about them being human creations and even if they were, like Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism and Taoism, why does that give you the right to disrespect them?

I guess you can if you like, but . . . what's the benefit?

 

[Jumi]

I bet there will, that crazy nonsense will be very bad for the UK if it goes ahead. The UK needs the EU, we are too small to stand alone these days.

Yes, well you got special treatment before because your economy is strong, don't expect it when you're back.

 

[Thief]

It could be morally right or wrong to criticize a religion. Depends on the circumstances.

as I recall scripture....

the Carpenter was given the scroll to read aloud
He then declared the words filled......in Him

what followed.....the congregatio turned on Him
took Him to a steep incline as if to throw Him down
perhaps to kill Him

I don't think He was trying to critize

but it almost got Him dead.....at the start of His ministry

 

[Revoltingest]

Well I wish she'd have a word with me.

She's giving us the silent treatment.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why would you have a need to talk badly about other religions? Is that not the ego that make someone want to trash talk other peoples belief?

Do you truly believe that disparaging words about what are likely delusions do not get many people to more critically examine why it is they hold such things as reality? Do you believe that people can always be calmly talked down out of delusional beliefs they may hold? Or (to my mind even worse) do you believe that the things that people believe without sufficient evidence - indeed, things that they have absolutely no way of demonstrating in even the most fundamental way - should be humored, and their stance justified to them by others' complacency?

Ridicule has its place as a useful tool. Say you're with friends and the subject being discussed is what you all find attractive in girls. One of your friends says some terribly judgmental things about requiring that any girl he date be of a particularly low weight and muscularly toned - and this friend himself is slovenly, overweight and does not exercise. What do you think is more effective in this situation?

1. Politely reminding him that he maybe shouldn't judge women on their appearance alone, else he may miss many opportunities. (this is the way to go about it without disparaging your friend, pointing out that he is over-weight, which would be you, yourself also judging based on weight, etc.)
2. Poking fun at him, telling him he isn't such a grand catch himself in the body-department, and reminding him that maybe he should work on having a standard set for himself before he expects anyone to be willing to meet his ridiculous standards. (this gets directly to the point, and you can use joking and banter to soften the blow, while still getting the message across, putting his views on display as ridicule-worthy, and forcing him to question them.)​

You can try and wear rose-colored glasses all the time, sure. But there will be people who smear crap onto them from time to time. If you're ready for it, and can mentally/emotionally smear back, then you actually help set boundaries for those people. Next time they won't be so quick to try smearing someone in the first place.

In the end... sometimes people simply need to get what's coming to them. Who else is going to do the job? God? As far as I have seen/experienced that's a big "nope".

 

[Spirit of Light]

Do you truly believe that disparaging words about what are likely delusions do not get many people to more critically examine why it is they hold such things as reality? Do you believe that people can always be calmly talked down out of delusional beliefs they may hold? Or (to my mind even worse) do you believe that the things that people believe without sufficient evidence - indeed, things that they have absolutely no way of demonstrating in even the most fundamental way - should be humored, and their stance justified to them by others' complacency?

Ridicule has its place as a useful tool. Say you're with friends and the subject being discussed is what you all find attractive in girls. One of your friends says some terribly judgmental things about requiring that any girl he date be of a particularly low weight and muscularly toned - and this friend himself is slovenly, overweight and does not exercise. What do you think is more effective in this situation?

1. Politely reminding him that he maybe shouldn't judge women on their appearance alone, else he may miss many opportunities. (this is the way to go about it without disparaging your friend, pointing out that he is over-weight, which would be you, yourself also judging based on weight, etc.)
2. Poking fun at him, telling him he isn't such a grand catch himself in the body-department, and reminding him that maybe he should work on having a standard set for himself before he expects anyone to be willing to meet his ridiculous standards. (this gets directly to the point, and you can use joking and banter to soften the blow, while still getting the message across, putting his views on display as ridicule-worthy, and forcing him to question them.)​

You can try and wear rose-colored glasses all the time, sure. But there will be people who smear crap onto them from time to time. If you're ready for it, and can mentally/emotionally smear back, then you actually help set boundaries for those people. Next time they won't be so quick to try smearing someone in the first place.

In the end... sometimes people simply need to get what's coming to them. Who else is going to do the job? God? As far as I have seen/experienced that's a big "nope".

To answer the first part of your question.

I dont judge other people based on their spiritual belief, i have enough with keeping my own spiritual life the way it should be lived, so no need to smear others for their way.
As a Buddhist my self i have no doubt in the teaching and see no reason to say others may be wrong or follow a false path.

1:About the discussion of females, i would say that size has nothing to do with how the person are. It is always how the person are within, Morality, ethic. and so.
2: There are no reason to make fun of those who are thin or those who are overweight. Nor is it a reason to make fun of those who struggle in life.

 

[Kapalika]

Blasphemy is not blind hate.
Blasphemy is saying or doing something against a being that doesn't exist.
If you criticise my politics, there's no law against that
If you criticise my musical taste, there's no law against that.
If you criticise my Mum & Dad there's no law against that.

So why is there a law against criticising imaginary friends?

Well I didn't say it was blind hate, I was qualifying if it comes from blind hate (aka blind use of). I have nothing against blasphemy in of itself I mean come on, I thought that would be clear given I'm a Satanist.

And I am not defending a law against criticizing religion or even blasphemy, so please don't misrepresent my views.

And you calling them "imaginary friends" adds no substance to this discussion, it's simply a meaningless insult.

Because it is a spiritual belief, just because you do not belive in something does not give a right to make bad comments on others belief. just like spiritual people must respect atheists.

They want respect but so many are not willing to return it.

 

[Altfish]

Well I didn't say it was blind hate, I was qualifying if it comes from blind hate (aka blind use of). I have nothing against blasphemy in of itself I mean come on, I thought that would be clear given I'm a Satanist.

And I am not defending a law against criticizing religion or even blasphemy, so please don't misrepresent my views.

And you calling them "imaginary friends" adds no substance to this discussion, it's simply a meaningless insult.

If in the 'Religion' section by your avatar it said "Satanist" then it would be clear - but it doesn't, it is blank.

I choose to say "Imaginary friend" - it isn't meaningless, maybe an insult, I'll accept that. But in a thread on Blasphemy it seemed appropriate

 

[Kapalika]

If in the 'Religion' section by your avatar it said "Satanist" then it would be clear - but it doesn't, it is blank.

I choose to say "Imaginary friend" - it isn't meaningless, maybe an insult, I'll accept that. But in a thread on Blasphemy it seemed appropriate

Ya it's clear at the moment but it's said Satanist and Hindu for like 3 years, sorry sometimes I blank it to see if people respond differently. I figure most of the older posters will recognize me though.

I do think it's meaningless because it doesn't really say anything, other than you think they don't exist. Well I think they do in some kind of transtheistic way, so what? It doesn't really say anything about the subject matter itself.

If you said that to me in real life that would be the end of the discussion. Similarly I wouldn't tolerate a friend or myself insulting an atheist with us for being an atheist. Atheism is an acceptable position within Hinduism and Satanism, so I have nothing against it but it seems a lot of atheists have anger at religion.

And again I don't think there should be any laws against blasphemy, or any criticism, but that goes both ways and people can be critical of criticism or blasphemy that they think its baseless or goes too far. Hence my earlier comments.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Here in the UK the crazy blasphemy law was repealed in 2008, it should never have been a crime in the first place. One should be able to say exactly what one wishes about any religion and its god, especially as they are more than likely to be human creations which don't exist in reality.

I'll never understand the UK and its hysterical laws that give special protections to fundamentalist Islam. For instance, sharia courts are still allowed in Britain, but a Catholic white girl who cricitized Islam is banned from the country. Islam and Islamic men are always given a free pass for bigotry, while the blame is always placed on white men (and in some cases white women) for all the world's problems.