varusword75 wrote:
Why so concerned with goats?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Thou shall not depict the Lord getting head
Thou shall not depict the Lord getting headFollow
I'm pretty sure bestiality is a crime, even in backwater Tennessee. You need to stop deflecting and get some help. We're rooting for you.
varusword75 wrote:
sh*tz,
They only seem unrelated to dimwitted publicly educated automatons.
Quote:
I love how you can take a completely unrelated topic and act like it's closely connected without missing a beat
They only seem unrelated to dimwitted publicly educated automatons.
Like yourself.
Almalieque wrote:
I know that I wouldn't approve of a picture of Buddha in sexual activities.
Here's a SFW example, It doesn't take much imagination to figure out what happens lower in the painting.
varusword75 wrote:
Destroy a pornographic depiction of Jesus that gets you 2yrs...
Destroy a copy of the koran gets you a call from the president...
Destroy a copy of the koran gets you a call from the president...
Oh, yeah, the person destroying the piece of "art" didn't own it.
Why do you hate private property rights?
MDenham wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Destroy a pornographic depiction of Jesus that gets you 2yrs...
Destroy a copy of the koran gets you a call from the president...
Destroy a copy of the koran gets you a call from the president...
Oh, yeah, the person destroying the piece of "art" didn't own it.
Why do you hate private property rights?
Professor shintasama wrote:
Quote:
plus I have a healthy sex life.
Goats? I'm more concerned for the okra.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Im new here but is Varus always stupid like this or is he just a terribly unsuccessful troll?
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
-REDACTED-
Scholar
1,150 posts
Wonder Gem rdmcandie wrote:
Im new here but is Varus always stupid like this or is he just a terribly unsuccessful troll?
Yes.
"Bud Shark" wrote:
And I ran over there, and by the time I got there she had reached in and grabbed the print and was ripping it up, so I pulled her away from the print and put her in the corner and then the police came.
I think it is hilarious how the guy they interviewed in the second link said he told the lady to go to the corner after he caught her ripping up the piece. if more crimes were punished this way then maybe people will grow up!
Belkira wrote:
Do you know what the definition of blasphemy is?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blasphemy wrote:
1.impious utterance or action concerning god or sacred things.
2.Judaism .
a.an act of cursing or reviling God.
b.pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.
3.Theology . the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
4.irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies against life itself.
2.Judaism .
a.an act of cursing or reviling God.
b.pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.
3.Theology . the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
4.irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies against life itself.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Quadkit wrote:
So the feelings of some get to be placed above the rights of others? Or should be placed? The right of free speech does not include the qualifier "Unless it might offend someone!" You can agree or disagree with the art, but you don't get to take away the right to make it, or justify its destruction in such a manner.
You should know by now that Alma's answer is that he in no way advocated the taking away of free speech rights or the destruction of someone else's property, but he was instead commenting on BD's position of what blasphemy is or isn't.
If I've learned nothing else from Alma, I've learned that he is precise in how he responds to people.
QFT
Aethien wrote:
You should probably have a clue about the religion you're talking about before you say anything. Buddhism isn't strange to showing gods and godesses having sex in their religious imagery.
Here's a SFW example, It doesn't take much imagination to figure out what happens lower in the painting.
Here's a SFW example, It doesn't take much imagination to figure out what happens lower in the painting.
Seriously man? I was making an example, I would have hoped that you had realized the concept that I was trying to make. We were talking about people being respectful to other religions that they don't follow. That's no excuse to be ignorant of the subject, but it is surely a rational explanation for it.
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Do you know what the definition of blasphemy is?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blasphemy wrote:
1.impious utterance or action concerning god or sacred things.
2.Judaism .
a.an act of cursing or reviling God.
b.pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.
3.Theology . the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
4.irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies against life itself.
2.Judaism .
a.an act of cursing or reviling God.
b.pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.
3.Theology . the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
4.irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies against life itself.
Very good.
So that means you know that you were wrong in your comment to BD, I assume.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Do you know what the definition of blasphemy is?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blasphemy wrote:
1.impious utterance or action concerning god or sacred things.
2.Judaism .
a.an act of cursing or reviling God.
b.pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.
3.Theology . the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
4.irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies against life itself.
2.Judaism .
a.an act of cursing or reviling God.
b.pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.
3.Theology . the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
4.irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies against life itself.
Very good.
So that means you know that you were wrong in your comment to BD, I assume.
No, please explain.
Almalieque wrote:
No, please explain.
Sure. Here's the post we're talking about:
Almalieque wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
The funny thing about blasphemy is that it's only blasphemy if you subscribe to the religion. When people debate whether religious nuts actually force their religion onto others, this is the kind of thing I usually refer to.
If you don't like it, look the other way. I'm pretty sure Jesus would have turned the other cheek...
If you don't like it, look the other way. I'm pretty sure Jesus would have turned the other cheek...
Not true or at least it shouldn't be true. If you respect other people's beliefs, you would consider such similar acts as intolerant as well. Of course you wont feel the same way, but I know that I wouldn't approve of a picture of Buddha in sexual activities. There will be somethings that a person might be ignorant of that is considered offensive, that another might disagree, but this is just common sense.
If one doesn't hold something sacred (i.e. someone else's religion) then it's not blasphemy to speak ill of said thing. Blasphemy does not equal intolerance. BD was simply saying it's only blasphemy if you're a part of that religion. You said that wasn't true, but it is.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
No, please explain.
Sure. Here's the post we're talking about:
Almalieque wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
The funny thing about blasphemy is that it's only blasphemy if you subscribe to the religion. When people debate whether religious nuts actually force their religion onto others, this is the kind of thing I usually refer to.
If you don't like it, look the other way. I'm pretty sure Jesus would have turned the other cheek...
If you don't like it, look the other way. I'm pretty sure Jesus would have turned the other cheek...
Not true or at least it shouldn't be true. If you respect other people's beliefs, you would consider such similar acts as intolerant as well. Of course you wont feel the same way, but I know that I wouldn't approve of a picture of Buddha in sexual activities. There will be somethings that a person might be ignorant of that is considered offensive, that another might disagree, but this is just common sense.
If one doesn't hold something sacred (i.e. someone else's religion) then it's not blasphemy to speak ill of said thing. Blasphemy does not equal intolerance. BD was simply saying it's only blasphemy if you're a part of that religion. You said that wasn't true, but it is.
Rather you believe something is sacred or not doesn't mean it isn't held sacred. That's exactly what the definition said, it didn't say "anything that you believe or accept to be sacred", you're simply adding that in the definition. That is why you and BD are wrong. It simply said "anything held sacred". It may not be sacred to you, but it doesn't mean it isn't still held sacred.
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
No, please explain.
Sure. Here's the post we're talking about:
Almalieque wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
The funny thing about blasphemy is that it's only blasphemy if you subscribe to the religion. When people debate whether religious nuts actually force their religion onto others, this is the kind of thing I usually refer to.
If you don't like it, look the other way. I'm pretty sure Jesus would have turned the other cheek...
If you don't like it, look the other way. I'm pretty sure Jesus would have turned the other cheek...
Not true or at least it shouldn't be true. If you respect other people's beliefs, you would consider such similar acts as intolerant as well. Of course you wont feel the same way, but I know that I wouldn't approve of a picture of Buddha in sexual activities. There will be somethings that a person might be ignorant of that is considered offensive, that another might disagree, but this is just common sense.
If one doesn't hold something sacred (i.e. someone else's religion) then it's not blasphemy to speak ill of said thing. Blasphemy does not equal intolerance. BD was simply saying it's only blasphemy if you're a part of that religion. You said that wasn't true, but it is.
Rather you believe something is sacred or not doesn't mean it isn't held sacred. That's exactly what the definition said, it didn't say "anything that you believe or accept to be sacred", you're simply adding that in the definition. That is why you and BD are wrong. It simply said "anything held sacred". It may not be sacred to you, but it doesn't mean it isn't still held sacred.
So you are calling me a blasphemer for that delicious cheeseburger I just had?
After all, cows are sacred in India.
Almalieque wrote:
Rather you believe something is sacred or not doesn't mean it isn't held sacred. That's exactly what the definition said, it didn't say "anything that you believe or accept to be sacred", you're simply adding that in the definition. That is why you and BD are wrong. It simply said "anything held sacred". It may not be sacred to you, but it doesn't mean it isn't still held sacred.
Yeah, you're not right. Something being sacred is subjective. A religion I do not believe in is not sacred. I can't blaspheme against something I do not hold sacred.
By your understanding of the definition, any negative utterance would be blasphemy because someone, somewhere, might hold whatever you're talking about as being sacred.
Edit: Or what Bard said.
Edited, Oct 11th 2010 12:29pm by Belkira
Bard wrote:
So you are calling me a blasphemer for that delicious cheeseburger I just had?
After all, cows are sacred in India.
After all, cows are sacred in India.
If you went to India and pulled out a Triple Whopper with cheese in front of a group of Indians, yes, that would be considered blasphemy. Cows aren't considered sacred here in the US, that's the whole point of the respecting other peoples beliefs. Just because you don't subscribe to that religion, doesn't mean it isn't held sacred neither does it mean that you're wrong for not considering it sacred. At the same time, if you respect other people's beliefs, then you wouldn't do something that is obviously disrespectful. That is why I said that there are things that people might disagree with, but some things are considered "common sense".
Belkira wrote:
Yeah, you're not right. Something being sacred is subjective. A religion I do not believe in is not sacred. I can't blaspheme against something I do not hold sacred.
I didn't deny that it was subjective, but the definition didn't say "only considered blasphemy if you hold it sacred". You all are just adding that in. It says for things that are considered sacred. Period.
It's very simple. To you, it may not be considered blasphemy because you don't consider it sacred, but to the person that does consider it sacred, it's blasphemy.
If you talk bad towards something that is sacred, then you don't think too highly of that something. Else, you wouldn't talk bad towards it in the first place.
Belkira wrote:
By your understanding of the definition, any negative utterance would be blasphemy because someone, somewhere, might hold whatever you're talking about as being sacred.
I'm simply stating the definition. If the definition had any indication of what you all were saying, then I would agree, but since it doesn't, then I disagree.
Like you said, its subjective. To you, it wont be blasphemy because you don't believe in it, but to the ones who believe it, it will be blasphemy. It goes both ways, you just can't choose a side to make you look good. If you are respecting other people beliefs, then the religious person should realize that you don't hold x,y or z sacred. At the same time, you should also take in consideration what is considered sacred in order to not offend anyone. Some things will probably not be met half-way, but some things are obvious, like sexual acts with sacred things or beings that aren't typically displayed as such.
Almalieque wrote:
I didn't deny that it was subjective, but the definition didn't say "only considered blasphemy if you hold it sacred". You all are just adding that in. It says for things that are considered sacred. Period.
Yes. And to me, it's not considered sacred. Period.
Almalieque wrote:
It's very simple. To you, it may not be considered blasphemy because you don't consider it sacred, but to the person that does consider it sacred, it's blasphemy.
YES! Christ, that's what we've been saying!!
BD, in the post you misunderstood, wrote:
The funny thing about blasphemy is that it's only blasphemy if you subscribe to the religion.
Almalieque wrote:
If you talk bad towards something that is sacred, then you don't think too highly of that something. Else, you wouldn't talk bad towards it in the first place.
Almalieque wrote:
I'm simply stating the definition. If the definition had any indication of what you all were saying, then I would agree, but since it doesn't, then I disagree.
But you do agree with us:
Almalieque wrote:
Like you said, its subjective. To you, it wont be blasphemy because you don't believe in it, but to the ones who believe it, it will be blasphemy.
Which is the whole freaking point.
Almalieque wrote:
It goes both ways, you just can't choose a side to make you look good. If you are respecting other people beliefs, then the religious person should realize that you don't hold x,y or z sacred. At the same time, you should also take in consideration what is considered sacred in order to not offend anyone. Some things will probably not be met half-way, but some things are obvious, like sexual acts with sacred things or beings that aren't typically displayed as such.
Once again, respect does not equal blasphemy. You obviously misunderstood what BD was trying to say, then tried to backpedal. It's not working.
Edited, Oct 11th 2010 1:04pm by Belkira
I think this is a good time for this.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I didn't deny that it was subjective, but the definition didn't say "only considered blasphemy if you hold it sacred". You all are just adding that in. It says for things that are considered sacred. Period.
Yes. And to me, it's not considered sacred. Period.
Almalieque wrote:
It's very simple. To you, it may not be considered blasphemy because you don't consider it sacred, but to the person that does consider it sacred, it's blasphemy.
YES! Christ, that's what we've been saying!!
BD, in the post you misunderstood, wrote:
The funny thing about blasphemy is that it's only blasphemy if you subscribe to the religion.
Almalieque wrote:
If you talk bad towards something that is sacred, then you don't think too highly of that something. Else, you wouldn't talk bad towards it in the first place.
Almalieque wrote:
I'm simply stating the definition. If the definition had any indication of what you all were saying, then I would agree, but since it doesn't, then I disagree.
But you do agree with us:
Almalieque wrote:
Like you said, its subjective. To you, it wont be blasphemy because you don't believe in it, but to the ones who believe it, it will be blasphemy.
Which is the whole freaking point.
Almalieque wrote:
It goes both ways, you just can't choose a side to make you look good. If you are respecting other people beliefs, then the religious person should realize that you don't hold x,y or z sacred. At the same time, you should also take in consideration what is considered sacred in order to not offend anyone. Some things will probably not be met half-way, but some things are obvious, like sexual acts with sacred things or beings that aren't typically displayed as such.
Once again, respect does not equal blasphemy. You obviously misunderstood what BD was trying to say, then tried to backpedal. It's not working.
Edited, Oct 11th 2010 1:04pm by Belkira
Well then I misunderstood that comment. I took that comment as "you can't commit blasphemy to something that you don't consider sacred". That is false. What I"m saying is, you can commit blasphemy to something that you don't consider sacred, just to you, it's not blasphemy, but it is still blasphemy.
But if you agree with the latter, then yes we agree.
Almalique wrote:
If you went to India and pulled out a Triple Whopper with cheese in front of a group of Indians, yes, that would be considered blasphemy.
No, it wouldnt.
They might think you were a complete ****, but they would think that about you wether you had a burger or not.
Same result you get wherever you go I imagine.
Edited, Oct 11th 2010 8:56pm by paulsol
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Almalieque wrote:
What I"m saying is, you can commit blasphemy to something that you don't consider sacred, just to you, it's not blasphemy, but it is still blasphemy.
If I speak ill of Jesus, Mohammad, or any number of sacred entities, it's only blasphemy in the ear of the beholder. Blasphemy itself is subjective, not the comment (or artwork) in question.
Edited, Oct 11th 2010 4:07pm by BrownDuck
-REDACTED-
Scholar
1,150 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
What I"m saying is, you can commit blasphemy to something that you don't consider sacred, just to you, it's not blasphemy, but it is still blasphemy.
If I speak ill of Jesus, Mohammad, or any number of sacred entities, it's only blasphemy in the ear of the beholder. Blasphemy itself is subjective, not the comment (or artwork) in question.
Edited, Oct 11th 2010 4:07pm by BrownDuck
Didn't you two just say the same thing in a different way? Seems every thread with Alma turns into semantic games eventually.
Recent Visitors: 362
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (362)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Thou shall not depict the Lord getting head
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC