|
Post by guillaume on Jul 25, 2009 13:31:04 GMT
Not a post in a nearly week, not one answer... ok. Forum is dead. So bye bye ! Wake me up when you will wake up... until then, God Bless. I don't think Frank Sinatra made as many come backs. Instead of moaning why don't you spend a few hours each week promoting this site on other boards and invite Irish Catholics to take part here or offer to help Michael out with the moderating?Good Idea, As i can ban you, and delete your last posts of course, and other atheists, and make an only-for-catholics website. Then I will promote it and make few changes......
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jul 25, 2009 13:49:58 GMT
Ahhhh a lovely christian sentiment Guilllaume. What a really good, open, honest, warm and very good catholic you must be with a sentiment like that! I just hope its not your religion that has made you so bitter towards your fellow human beings. If so, that would be a poor reflection on the religious teaching you received. I personally have no lesson to receive from you and your atheists friends regarding my teaching of faith I receive from Mother Church. In anyway, a christian has to "tolerate" or accept blasphemy and provocation.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Jul 25, 2009 17:45:48 GMT
Thats a bit of a strange response william!! We have no intention of teaching you anything. I was merely commenting on how mean you appered in the above post towards athiest posters and hoping its not you religion that has made you so mean. Thats all........ Personally, I dont think blasphemy even exists and the only person who was doing the provking was yourself if you read what you posted.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 27, 2009 11:58:42 GMT
May I ask the moderator whether it is in order for other posters on this thread to refer to Guillaume as "William"? He is French and his name is Guillaume. I admit I used to refer to the poster calling himself Gabriel as Jibril, but that was when I had come to regard him as guilty of deliberate bad faith. I don't agree with all Guillaume's statements but that's a different matter. What is unChristian about saying this forum should be reserved for Catholics? The moderator founded the forum and can admit or exclude whoever he pleases. I do agree that it was unChristian when in another thread Guillaume said the atheists on this board were all possessed by the devil; some of them have shown themselves to be quite capable of being rude, arrogant and obscurantist without needing external assistance of that sort, and we ought not to postulate supernatural intervention unnecessarily - that last point is good Catholic doctrine. Hemingway says he doesn't believe blasphemy exists. This is a very odd statement as blasphemy certainly exists; Atheist Ireland are currently holding a competition to find the best (or worst) one so that they can utter it in public as soon as it becomes illegal to do so. I presume he means either (a) he doesn't believe the entities aginst whom blasphemy is directed actually exist (b)he doesn't believe blasphemy is wrong. Perhaps he could explain himself instead of metaphorically waving his William around.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jul 28, 2009 7:22:11 GMT
May I ask the moderator whether it is in order for other posters on this thread to refer to Guillaume as "William"? He is French and his name is Guillaume. I admit I used to refer to the poster calling himself Gabriel as Jibril, but that was when I had come to regard him as guilty of deliberate bad faith. I don't agree with all Guillaume's statements but that's a different matter. What is unChristian about saying this forum should be reserved for Catholics? The moderator founded the forum and can admit or exclude whoever he pleases. I do agree that it was unChristian when in another thread Guillaume said the atheists on this board were all possessed by the devil; some of them have shown themselves to be quite capable of being rude, arrogant and obscurantist without needing external assistance of that sort, and we ought not to postulate supernatural intervention unnecessarily - that last point is good Catholic doctrine. Hemingway says he doesn't believe blasphemy exists. This is a very odd statement as blasphemy certainly exists; Atheist Ireland are currently holding a competition to find the best (or worst) one so that they can utter it in public as soon as it becomes illegal to do so. I presume he means either (a) he doesn't believe the entities aginst whom blasphemy is directed actually exist (b)he doesn't believe blasphemy is wrong. Perhaps he could explain himself instead of metaphorically waving his William around. Dear Hibernicus, I do not mind at all being called William or Willy.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Jul 30, 2009 11:15:35 GMT
Hemingway says he doesn't believe blasphemy exists. This is a very odd statement as blasphemy certainly exists; Atheist Ireland are currently holding a competition to find the best (or worst) one so that they can utter it in public as soon as it becomes illegal to do so. I presume he means either (a) he doesn't believe the entities aginst whom blasphemy is directed actually exist (b)he doesn't believe blasphemy is wrong. Perhaps he could explain himself instead of metaphorically waving his William around. Maybe I should clarify my position. I dont think blasphemy as an act exists. However, the word in the english language certainly does. As there are no gods in existence (in my opinion) its impossible to offend something that isnt there. I dont think blasphemy is wrong either as how can you wrong an entity that isnt there to be wronged? In my opinion, someone has made up a term for offending something that isnt there. Atheist Ireland are running a campagin against the blasphemy law. That is the name of the piece legislation. They are not actively persuing having the word removed from the english language. Also william is the english translation of guillaume's name and I fail to see why you want people to find offence in that. If my name were "Sean" and Im a native Irish speaker, I would hardly be offended if you are an english person and suddenly refer to me as "John" now would I? If YOU were offended by my calling him william I apologise to you sincerely........... I try not to cause offence, but if my non-belief about a topic that some people believe passionately in, offends people on here well what does that say about them? I am not offended that you belive in god/s so why should you be offended by my unbelief? If you are right, "god" will sort us all out when we die. If I am right you have spent your life devoted to an imaginary friend. Either way I dont see cause for offence here. And by the way.... the whole william thing....? Very poor attempt at stirring the pot of ill feeling there hibernicus. Rise above it dude......
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 31, 2009 14:55:47 GMT
Hemingway makes two points. Let's take the less important first. To refer to someone whose preferred language is not English by the English version of their name is often seen as condescending and insulting - as implying that English is the only "proper" language. This is certainly how Irish-speakers often react when addressed by the English form of their name. If no insult was intended and Guillaume does not object it would be ridiculous tocomplain further. Hemingway's second point is evasive. The CONCEPT of blasphemy, like the concept of deicide, is quite comprehensible even if you do not believe in the existence of deities. Blasphemy can be objected to on three grounds (1) As an insult to God Himself (2)As an insult to society's prevailing values, which include belief in this particular religion/deity (3)As an insult to believers themselves, as it implies that they are idiots/insults their feelings in a way incinsistent with their right to dignity. The first version is only really enforceable in a confessional state which we don't have and probably shouldn't have under preesetnt circumstances. Atheist Ireland's little gane falls under the second and third heading - they wish society to be more secular than at present and see blasphemy as a way of moving it in thsi direction, and they are seen by many believers as arrogant bullies who use blasphemy to assert their own superiority over the "credulous" faithful. Basically I think a line ought to be drawn between reasoned argument and vulgar lampooning; the first is compatible with respect for the eprson with whom you are aruing, the second is not.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Jul 31, 2009 15:29:55 GMT
Blasphemy is a dangerous, harmful and useless law indeed. We have laws protecting people, and there are good reasons for this, and I would defend most of them.
However Blasphemy is not about protecting people, it is about protecting ideas. This is dangerous. If an idea is so bad it needs protection, because it can not stand up on its own, then the idea needs to be open to ridicule, and disregarded into the graveyard of other bad ideas.
If one can not argue for an idea, then maybe the idea is useless or wrong in the first place. Establishing laws to have an idea protected from scrutiny or ridicule is just dangerous.
Protect people, evaluate ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Aug 1, 2009 11:42:01 GMT
Hemingway makes two points. Let's take the less important first. To refer to someone whose preferred language is not English by the English version of their name is often seen as condescending and insulting - as implying that English is the only "proper" language. This is certainly how Irish-speakers often react when addressed by the English form of their name. If no insult was intended and Guillaume does not object it would be ridiculous tocomplain further. Oh for pitys sake grow up. What are you like. You realise how silly your "william" comment was and are trying to save face. What utter twaddle. Admit you over reacted and lets move on....... Hemingway's second point is evasive. The CONCEPT of blasphemy, like the concept of deicide, is quite comprehensible even if you do not believe in the existence of deities. Blasphemy can be objected to on three grounds (1) As an insult to God Himself (2)As an insult to society's prevailing values, which include belief in this particular religion/deity (3)As an insult to believers themselves, as it implies that they are idiots/insults their feelings in a way incinsistent with their right to dignity. The first version is only really enforceable in a confessional state which we don't have and probably shouldn't have under preesetnt circumstances. Atheist Ireland's little gane falls under the second and third heading - they wish society to be more secular than at present and see blasphemy as a way of moving it in thsi direction, and they are seen by many believers as arrogant bullies who use blasphemy to assert their own superiority over the "credulous" faithful. Basically I think a line ought to be drawn between reasoned argument and vulgar lampooning; the first is compatible with respect for the eprson with whom you are aruing, the second is not. Interesting points in the above. However, as I am of the opinion no entity exists that we can call god, well then the nullifies the existance of blasphemy as an act in my mind. To me it doesnt exist. What does it say about a person who is offened by an atheist who states that there is no god? Why cant you just accept that is their position without taking offence? As I said before, if you are right god will punish me and my kind. Give us up to tha almighty and he'll sort us out. Pray for my soul or whatever, dont get offended because I refuse to accept the existence of gods. That way you are heppy (you are helping save my soul thereby gaining "get into heaven easier" points with god) and I am happy, as I can live in a society believing what I want without the threat of violence or legal action if I wish to claim my unbelief. Do you realise, that in theory, under the proposed law, I could start up my own religion tomorrow and if I gain enough followers I could claim that almost anything is a blasphemy against my god and take legal action against anyone who carries out an act I determine to be blasphemy? Its a bad law.......
|
|