The Blasphemy Thread

[FrustratedFool]

Just a question.
You can answer Y or N to it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Nothing like a clear, concise and robust rebuttal, is there.

It's good to be direct with people.

Direct from your ass.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well those aren't facts, at all, but the answer to your question is, "No"

So facts cannot be blasphemous.  Interesting.

So it wouldn't be considered blasphemy to say the Koran and Bible are factually incorrect works of humans and that either Mohammed was a false prophet or Jesus wasn't the Son of God (both can't be true together)?  I suspect many believers would disagree.

Precisely correct. It’s not what you say that makes a statement blasphemous, it’s how you say it and - to an extent - the intent behind it. For example, you can say, ‘Jesus was a convicted criminal’ or ‘Jesus was condemned to die by Pontius Pilate.’ Both are true statements (in terms of the story) and mean the same thing. The first is blasphemous, the second isn’t.

Boru

[Ahriman]

Just a question.
You can answer Y or N to it.

Can't really answer the question, it's based on a false premise. You don't actually know those claims you're making are true or not.

[FrustratedFool]

Just a question.
You can answer Y or N to it.

Can't really answer the question, it's based on a false premise. You don't actually know those claims you're making are true or not.

Know is a strong word. If you're using it in the full philosophical sense then we can know very little indeed.

But I trust you're not using the word rhat way and mean it in its more common sense. In which case we can be safe in asserting that if Mohammed is a true prophet then Jesus cannot be the Son of God, but that if Jesus is the Son of God then Mohammed wasn't a true prophet. So either it's factually true that Mohammed isn't a prophet, or Jesus wasn't the Son of God, or both are false. The first would be considered blasphemy by Muslims, the second by Christiansz the third by both. Whichever way you slice it you have a truth and a blasphemy together.

So it seems odd to me to say facts cannot be blasphemous, since it appears rhey can.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Just a question.
You can answer Y or N to it.

Can't really answer the question, it's based on a false premise. You don't actually know those claims you're making are true or not.

It doesn’t matter if they’re true, since we’re talking about claims made in fictive works - they’re still facts in that context. For example, it’s a fact that Atticus Finch defended Tom Robinson, even though it never happened.

Boru

[FrustratedFool]

It's virtually all Christian blasphemy here. Needs more variety.

Thor is a twat.
Joseph Smith was a con artist.
L Ron Hubbard was an insane con artist.
Satan is an imbecile.
Guru Nanak was stupid.

We can even blaspheme secular 'gods':
MLK was an adulterer
JFK was a warmonger
Gandhi was a sex weirdo
Putin is a cunt
Mother Theresa caused suffering
Etc etc

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's virtually all Christian blasphemy here.  Needs more variety.

Thor is a twat.
Joseph Smith was a con artist.
L Ron Hubbard was an insane con artist.
Satan is an imbecile.
Guru Nanak was stupid.

We can even blaspheme secular 'gods':
MLK was an adulterer
JFK was a warmonger
Gandhi was a sex weirdo
Putin is a cunt
Mother Theresa caused suffering
Etc etc

(Bold mine)

Not applicable. I mean, he was a weirdo, but Buddhism has no concept of blasphemy.

Boru

[FrustratedFool]

Wasn't Gandhi Hindu?

Also, plenty of Buddhist believers use violence against those who they feel are sacrilegious against Buddha.

[Foxaèr]

Wasn't Gandhi Hindu?

I think he was human.