Blasphemy, blas-for-you...

Status
Not open for further replies.

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Not if it's being used as a criterion for possible banning, as outlined in the Ethics & Morality guidelines. We all need to know the conditions and limits under which a remark qualifies as blasphemy.

Personally, as I've explained elsewhere, I feel it's an ill-conceived standard.
Sure it is - at least on a board the purpose of which is the discussion of religious beliefs there is no place for it.
(Notwithstanding the fact that I am against censorship altogether) I do understand the desire to minimize personal attacks in favour of objective discussion of views and beliefs.
There is no need for a standard like "blasphemy" which - as far as I can see - can have no purpose other than obscuring the distinction between personal attack and discussion of a belief.
 
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,296
1,213
60
✟50,122.00
Faith
Christian
Let me put something out there, and judge it on its blasphemy:

Christianity isn't about the death and life of Jesus, but about learning to love one another. Christ didn't teach people to die for God, but to love him, and serve him by loving others. God is less concerned with individual sin, and doesn't sit and record each petty sin, as we don't do that for those whom we love. On the contrary, he simply asks us to love, and that sin (lying, cheating, stealing) cuts us off from one another, and is not loving, and in so, makes us cut ourselves off, or become less in tune to God. God is literally that thing that we call love, in its most pure, healing, humble feeling. We do not die and go to heaven, to sit at the throne of God, and tell him that he is so great. Jesus came as a poor boy, born in a manger. He washed the feet of others, and did not demand that others praise him, or wash his feet. He bowed to John the Baptist, and asked him to baptize him. He was very humble. His problem, like many after him, is that he challenged those in power, namely, the Pharisees, who claimed to be the authorities on the Scripture. He told them that they were white washed tombs, because they were only holy on the outside, and rotten on the inside. They used their power to exhalt themselves, and condemn others. They imposed a huge number of ridiculous laws, such as, how many steps you can take on the Sabbath, while Christ didn't wash his hands before eating, healed on the Sabbath, etc. He showed that the Father is not about a laundry list of petty sins that are to be obeyed, but rather, that if one is living in love, they will know with common sense that
it is loving and good to heal someone on the Sabbath, because it is a loving action, and needs immediate attention.

This was a threat to the Pharisees. He called them vipers brood, and snakes. He told them that they made followers that were twice as fit for hell as they were themselves, that they not only shut the doors of heaven, but refuse to allow others to enter.

Martin Luther King made the mistake of trying to release the White Power that people of color were under, and paid for it with his life. JFK did the same, and was also killed for the threat of Civil Rights - for people to be treated fairly, and to act in love towards your neighbor. People who challenge the system usually are met as a threat to those in power, and thus, eliminated. I don't believe that God the Father commanded the death of Jesus, but that man decided to kill Jesus because he was a threat to the system of those in power, and the powerless.

Christ said that unless one becomes like a child, he will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I spent some time, being a Buddhist, to meditate on this. What was it that children had that we were to become? I came to this conclusion: that one God asks - the only thing that God really asks, is for us to love God by loving others. I thought, "surely you're joking. The bible is full of rules, and commandments, and people focus so much on sin, and Jesus' death pardoning our sin." What came to me is this: People don't demand such a price to forgive, and how much greater is the love of God? How much more mercy does God have than man, in his perfection? We are to strive to be perfect like God, and all that means, is to love wastefully. If we are asked for a minute of our time, give hours. If we are asked to walk a mile, walk 3. Give more than you are asked. Forgive before it's even asked. Bury your pride and ask forgiveness and say that you are sorry for anyone that you have wronged. Simply put, love your neighbor as yourself. That is what it means to become like a child. It's so simple, that few can figure it out. It's not really about dying to God, but loving God, and loving each other, and all of the sin, the things that harms yourself or your relationships with one another, will fall away. The world will become one, and live as one. People will respect, trust, and support one another, rather than living in fear. That is all that God asks. God loves us no matter what we do, no matter how much we resist him. He loves us, we reject him. He send his son to teach us, we accept or reject or are angered by him, but he continues to love. He waits for us simply to love him back. It is not us who are trying to get the attention of God, but God that is standing on his head, trying to get our attention. It is not God commanding to love him, but his love that draws us, like the prostitute, to him, without condemnation, without judgement, with mercy, and humbleness and hope.

It's not saying the right prayer. It's not saying enough Hail Marys. It's not about this or that sin. It's not about accepting Jesus into your heart, because God is not separated from any of us, but is a part of us. (that is the voice we hear; that is our conscience). He is with us all the time, understands us better than we understand ourselves, sees us not as filthy rags, but the beauty of our own divinity, our creativity, our capacity to love and to sacrifice ourselves for others. We are truly a reflection of God.

So, all that he ever has asked is to treat others in love, and to go beyond what we are asked. It is simple, like the answer of a child. And all children know this - that the most important thing is not what you do wrong, but just treating others the way you want to be treated.

Is this blasphemy?
 
Upvote 0

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
37
Oxford, UK
✟24,693.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Sure it is - at least on a board the purpose of which is the discussion of religious beliefs there is no place for it.
(Notwithstanding the fact that I am against censorship altogether) I do understand the desire to minimize personal attacks in favour of objective discussion of views and beliefs.
There is no need for a standard like "blasphemy" which - as far as I can see - can have no purpose other than obscuring the distinction between personal attack and discussion of a belief.

That's exactly my problem with it. I am very much in favour of asking people to be civil to one another, but the inclusion of a rule banning blasphemy suggests that we must not only be courteous to other posters, but to the gods they believe in, and I find that difficult to swallow.
 
Upvote 0

Criada

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 6, 2007
67,835
4,093
57
✟114,628.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
There was a great deal of staff discussion on this.. the definition in the rules was the best we could come up with in the time restraints..
Given that having a blasphemy rule is a given, how would you word it to be more precise in its intent and application?
 
Upvote 0

Criada

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 6, 2007
67,835
4,093
57
✟114,628.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
There was a great deal of staff discussion on this.. the definition in the rules was the best we could come up with in the time restraints..
Given that having a blasphemy rule is a given, how would you word it to be more precise in its intent and application?
 
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,214
5,606
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,468.00
Faith
Atheist
How about "Deliberately using terms to denigrate the Christian God (or any god for that matter) will not be tolerated. Examples include 'biblegod', 'Mary's bastard', and the 'The Spook.'"

It's simple, gives latitude, extends fairness, and gets at the core-issue: using insulting terms to throw a wrench in an otherwise smooth-running discussion.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
There was a great deal of staff discussion on this.. the definition in the rules was the best we could come up with in the time restraints..
Given that having a blasphemy rule is a given, how would you word it to be more precise in its intent and application?
Well, if I knew the intent the problem wouldn´t exist, in the first place. That´s the very problem: I have no idea what the purpose of this rule might be (except for some very questionable purposes, that is).
That you are a priori not willing to do without a blasphemy rule is your problem, not mine.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
37
Oxford, UK
✟24,693.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
How about "Deliberately using terms to denigrate the Christian God (or any god for that matter) will not be tolerated. Examples include 'biblegod'

I always understood "biblegod" to be a useful term to indicate whose god you're talking about. I've never seen it used in a derogatory way, but only to denote that the Christian god is being discussed, rather than Shiva or Wotan or whomever.
 
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,296
1,213
60
✟50,122.00
Faith
Christian
There was a great deal of staff discussion on this.. the definition in the rules was the best we could come up with in the time restraints..
Given that having a blasphemy rule is a given, how would you word it to be more precise in its intent and application?

Personally, I would call something blasphemy in context, because it is meant to be disrepectful, in order to dis the belief of another. For example, I say some joke about Jesus on the cross saying, "Hey, I can see my house from here!" To some, it is funny. To others, it is mocking the death of Christ, and feels disrectful, the way it would feel disrespectful to make a joke about the tragedy in Canada on the Greyhound bus.

However, Life of Brian is "blasphemy" to the Catholic Church, I would assume. It makes jokes about the sacred. However, to a lot of people, that, and The Holy Grail actually have things to say. For example, the 3 Kings bring Brian gold, frankinscense and myrhh. His mother thanks them, but tells them to leave the myrhh (?), which is used to perfume the dead, at home. They then realize that they went to the wrong stable, and take back the gifts, and give them to baby Jesus.

If someone gave you something for your son's death, wouldn't you think it a bit odd? And how could the 3 Wise men find the babe "under the star"? The city was under the star, and one has to wonder about the Disney-like vision we have of a spotlight-like star, a halo around the babe's head, the very clean stable, and the freshly laundered shephards, Mary, and Joseph.

In another scene (I'm kind of forgetting, it's been a while), Brian loses a sandal. Someone then takes the sandal, as one would take the guitar pick of a rock star, makes the sandal itself holy, and begin to build their religion around it, to Brian confusion. In Italy, there are places where they bring out body parts of the disciples, somehow, thinking it necessary to be able to see the ear or hand or whatever grotesque part is preserved, in a sense, worshipping the creation, and not the Creator, nor focusing on the soul, rather than the body, which fades away.

Blasphemy is different things to different people, because claiming something to be true, which is the very antithesis of what another believes, becomes blasphemy itself, especially when it is addressed in a mocking tone, rather than acknowledged, and simply tolerated as a different way of thinking.

I was rather surprised when I watched What the Bleep Do We Know. A Father was talking about how most people's idea of God is that man lives his life, toiling for God, trying to avoid his wrath, with the hope that he will have some reward at the end of his life. He then says that that is definitely not who God is. That is a blasphemy.

He goes on to say God does not expect us to go blindly into the world, not knowing the "correct" choice of his will (do I take this job or that job, does God want me to be a Sunday School teacher, or an usher?) but offers us endless possibilties - and all of them for us to decide, and create our own destinies.

In How to Quit Religion without Quitting God, Zender, like Christ did, I believe, dared to cause offense and blasphemy within the church, when he wrote that Church is not someplace we should go, and begrudgingly, because it pleases God, and that Churches are set up with the false idea that we go to church, because God sits up in heaven, like a king, and commands his subjects to tell him how great he is, and no one dare say otherwise, lest they experience his wrath.

On the contrary, he says, churches, with their funnel-like shapes suggesting that we must stand on our head to please God, and to get his attention, should actually be inverted, because it is not God's attention who must be gained, but God standing on his head, trying to get ours, trying to get us to find him in love by loving us, by showering us with kindness, and mercy, and boundless gifts. I walked down a street, looking at a beautiful cathedreal in Minneapolis, one that seemed to be the inverted funnel, thought about what he said, and pictured in my mind thousands of gifts coming down from the sky, and knowing that God was saying, "yes, exactly. You don't have to do anything to get my attention, or to get my love, because it already exists. I am trying to get the love of you by giving you perfect love first. That's it.

And I thought, well, that makes sense! That is "Good News", but not the Good News that is usually taught. We simply acknowledge the "necessity" of Christ's death, demanded of a harsh God, in order to award mercy to "sinners", imperfections that God is unable to even look at, because he cannot bear sin, unless one is covered in Jesus' blood, and God has "red tinted glasses" that shows us as perfect, when we really aren't.

And yet, Christ was God. Christ welcomed and loved the prostitutes and taxcollecters, who were below the "sinners" in the eyes of those who taught the Scripture. He didn't demand perfection, but offered love, which caused them to change. He offered acceptance and love, so that they could love themselves enough to care to be better, to be happier. He went to those who were rejected, and offered them his love as well.

The only ones that it bothered were the Pharisees, because it humbled them. The only time he gets angry is when people make the temple a marketplace, and make money for something that is meant to be offered as a sacrifice, not an opportunity for profit, and a shortcut.

Christ, when you really look at it, was a radical, offended the Pharisees by not washing his hands before he ate, by telling people that forgiving someone 7 times is nothing, and that it should be 70 times that, that the rich man, in love with his physical possessions and his status in the eyes of man, must deny them, but will usually have a difficult time entering the Kingdom, even if he were dragged. He accused the teachers of the Scribes and Pharisees, the ones seen as holier than others, as priests are often seen today, as being not workers of God, but workers of Satan, who actually closed the doors to the Kingdom willingly, and then blocked others from entering, by misleading them unknowingly, following their egos, rather than humbling themselves. When Simon questioned Jesus being the son of God, due to his reception and welcoming of the prostitute washing his feet, he humbled him by showing that it was she who had a greater love for him in her demonstration of her humilty and servitude, than Simon did, who taught the law of God, but did not show the love to the God whom he claimed to love when he was in his presence - that he had been shown up by the love from a prostitute, someone whom he thought himself far greater than, and wouldn't even lower himself to speak to her. He chastized his disciples when they prevented the children from coming to him, because it is like children that we must become, and look to them for their goodness and purity and lack of judgement of others, their simplicity to simply love each other, and respect one another. He took power away from those who had it, and gave power through love and hope to those who had none. He rewarded the woman who gave her last 3 pennies, while condemning the rich man's love of wealth, the opposite of what we value still today. He reached out to the rejects: the lepers, the prostitutes, the tax collecters, and was rejected by those who claimed to know the scriptures so well, and cursed them and challenged their authority. He took scripture of vengence: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and commanded that rather than repaying harm with harm, to repay curse with blessing, wrong doing with forgiveness even before it is asked, and break the chain of harm. He told the holders of all the laws, who valued them so highly, while completely misunderstanding their point, making them burdens upon people rather than guides, that one simply need to love God, and love your neighbor, and all of the precious laws are fulfilled, something that the law people could understand easily, rather than need to seek the authority of another. He had disciples that were everyday people, fisherman, and even tax collectors, and tolerated even Thomas' doubt. He said that the greatest shall be the least, and the least shall be the greatest, in effect, turning the society, and their understanding of God, and their status, completely upside down.


As a result, they plotted to kill him to stop him.

He was a blasphemer, but only because he spoke the truth, and they didn't want to hear it. He showed those who believed themselves better of their own sin, those who judged the woman about to be stoned that they held no authority. Jesus, who had no sin, chose not to stone her, but to forgive her, and to tell her to sin no more. He demonstrated mercy, and forgiveness, compassion for her for those who condemned her, and thought themselves right to end her life.

I believe that were Jesus walking around today, the same thing would happen. He would challenge people like Pat Robertson, who gains wealth using fear, calling gays "the enemy" and threats to goodness, families, children, even the safety of the nation itself. He would question those who seem to believe someone is somehow better than they are, simply because they have studied the bible, and wear a collar, when there has clearly been shown a breakdown with the molestation charges, ignored to maintain the Church's holy and good reputation, a white washed tomb. And I think he would confront those who gleefully claim that they are going to heaven, while the other is going to hell, demanding to know why it makes them happy to condemn others to endless punishment when they know that God loves the world, not just the saved, and that Christ came to heal the sick, not the well. They should be joining him, not celebrating the ultimate demise of the neighbor, and in so, risk God's compassion for such a selfish heart.

I think that blasphemy can be good, as Christ clearly showed, but it must be done in love, with clear conviction, humility, and a true concern about the welfare of one's neighbor as much as, if not more than, one's own. In other words, one must take off their crown, as Christ did, humble themselves before the lost, and serve them, humble themselves to them, and act in love. Only when one can do that, when one can see his neighbor as himself, be he sinner or non, Christian or non, can he really become Christ, and heal others with that love.

Even today, the challenge and question of authority of The Pope, of The Catholic Church, a Pastor, or even a lay Christian, who is asked to humble themselves in love, to acknowledge that those they consider "sinners" are also loved by God, to be happy about that instead of resentful, to make Christians synonamous to the same love that Christ demonstrated, is blasphemy to many. In the same way, it takes the religion, and one's ego, and turns in on it's ear.

Were this a few hundred years ago, like Christ, i would be burned at the stake for suggesting simply that God loves all of us, something that the ego hates to hear, or that we should humble ourselves to God and others, rather than strive for power to control others, wealth to be the envy of others, or status, so that we can believe what isn't true - that we are above another, in the eyes of man, and in the eyes of God. To believe such a thing is a true blasphemy, because man has created God in his own image.
 
Upvote 0

Washington

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2003
5,092
358
Washington state
✟7,305.00
Faith
Agnostic
There was a great deal of staff discussion on this.. the definition in the rules was the best we could come up with in the time restraints..

Given that having a blasphemy rule is a given, how would you word it to be more precise in its intent and application?
If there's going to be rule that addresses how god---anybody's god---can be spoken of, I suggest it simply fall under the umbrella of inflammatory intent. No matter what words or statements are used when speaking of god, if they are not meant to inflame the reader they should be allowed. And, if there is any question about intent, the benefit of doubt should be given the writer until inflammatory intent has been established.

That some people simply can't stand to have their god spoken ill of is too bad, because it's almost impossible to discuss the pros and cons of any subject without stepping on an opponent's toes. If I say my god is great, and you disagree because you consider your god greater, and you then proceed to tell me what you think is wrong with my god in no uncertain terms, should I then have some kind of prerogative to muzzle you with charges of blasphemy because I simply don't like to hear what you think is wrong with my god? This is little different than clasping your hands over your ears and loudly proclaiming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!. It's childish.

So, to reiterate. The notion of blasphemy should be dropped and replaced by inflammatory intent, which is already in place for other issues. Right now the rule regarding blasphemy only serves to stifle honest and open discussion. If someone gets out of line and uses references to god as simple derogations designed to get a rise out of the reader, this is covered by the inflammatory rule. And, as adults, or near-adults, we should all be able to deal with the unthinking lout who may simply blurt out an inane "Your god stinks," without getting so bent out of shape as to holler, "Blasphemy!" Sure it may make the believer cringe, but if there was no intent to inflame, the reader should be able to recognize its context---a stupid remark made by a stupid person--- and get on with one's life. Not every inanity is worth paying attention to. In fact, few are.

"Them's fighten' words" should be beneath mature adults.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sealacamp

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2008
1,367
119
65
Fairburn Georgia
✟2,331.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it.

~Mark Twain


Great! So Twain reasoned away God and that makes it all ok then?

Sealacamp
 
Upvote 0

scraparcs

aka Mayor McCheese
Mar 4, 2002
52,793
4,844
Massachusetts
✟91,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Could you explain why you would be upset by someone speaking contemptuously of your husband?

If someone speaks contemptuously of someone you love, don't you feel a need to go, "Hey, my buddy's not so bad!"

How about "Deliberately using terms to denigrate the Christian God (or any god for that matter) will not be tolerated. Examples include 'biblegod', 'Mary's bastard', and the 'The Spook.'"

It's simple, gives latitude, extends fairness, and gets at the core-issue: using insulting terms to throw a wrench in an otherwise smooth-running discussion.

That is an excellent starting point. However...

Intent reading is a tricky thing.

There lies the rub, anything more specific than what is stated leads to objections of "but that wasn't my intent!" when a post is edited or deleted.
 
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,296
1,213
60
✟50,122.00
Faith
Christian
I think that it becomes a name calling thing that is unfruitful.

Even when sincerely believed, a Christian may refer to Shiva as "a false god", drawing from the bible itself. Clearly they would be insulted if one called Jesus "a false God", but they are unable to extend that courtesy to another, usually because it isn't about Christianity at all, but ego, and who is right being superior.

One should treat others as they want to be treated.
One cannot, however, call someone's god "a false God", and then cry foul, when the insensed person returns the same insult.

Honestly, I think the rules, with their good intentions, are going to be tools for Pharisee like tactics to entrap others for malicious intent.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.