evildave
Unregistered
E
... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Buddha... Four! Four... Oh, I'll start again!
Defining Blasphemy
- Thread starter evildave
- Start date
-
- Tags
- defining
evildave said:
Well, there's Eddie Izzard's "Church of England Inquisition":
"cake or death?!!"
"cake please."
"well, we're out of cake. we only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush. so what do you want?"
"so my choice is ... or death? well, i'll have the chicken then please."
But as for a Buddhist Inquisition, they're so bloody obtuse a lot of the time, how would anyone tell?
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,892
I don't understand this claim. Did Jesus, in his life time, blaspheme his religion? Not that I know of. Please cite biblical reference.
This just sounds like a made-up excuse for why early Christians dropped so many of the Jewish laws, from that Hebrew bible they still cite selectively to this day. The real reason was that they were recruiting from outside the Jewish community, and all those pesky restrictions, not to mention circumcision, were a hindrance to that recruitment.
Am I wrong? Show me.
gentlehorse
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2001
- Messages
- 2,605
hgc said:
emphasis mine--
I never thought about that.
Potential Recruit: If I join, you'll want to slice up my what???
Recruiter: Note to self: Ix-nay on the ircumcision-say.
On a more serious note: I believe that when Jesus admitted to believing himself to be the son of God, the Jews considered this to be blasphemous. I could be wrong, I guess.
From Matthew, chapter 26:
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,892
LOL. Yup. That's pretty much how it happenend. Remember, the Jews were not just members of a "religion." They were a tribal people, with a big fancy temple on top of a hill (thanks to Herod), and a big book of rules about how to live their lives. They didn't think to recruit outsiders to their way of thinking. It's easy to circumcise an 8-day old baby. Not so easy an adult.
The Christians just started out as a group of Jews with a new thang, who went looking for other Jews to get right their messiah. There was no shortage of potential messiahs then, and there've been plenty of messiah claims from within Judiasm since. The most recent example is the late Lubavitch Rebbe Menachem Schneerson. The Christians were successful enough that they outgrew the Jewish community. It's only natural that they'd adapt appropriately.
Plutarck
Unregistered
P
I think one of the words we're looking for is "taboo":
n.pl. ta-boos also ta-bus.
1. A ban or an inhibition resulting from social custom or emotional aversion.
2. A prohibition, especially in Polynesia and other South Pacific islands, excluding something from use, approach, or mention because of its sacred and inviolable nature. An object, a word, or an act protected by such a prohibition.
adj. Excluded or forbidden from use, approach, or mention: a taboo subject.
v. tr. ta-booedalso ta-bued ta-boo-ing ta-bu-ing ta-boos ta-bus. To exclude from use, approach, or mention; place under taboo.
[Tongan tabu, under prohibition.]
Taboo is actually a distinct concept, different from blasphemy:
blasphemy
n.pl. blas-phe-mies.
1. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.
[Middle English blasfemie, from Late Latin blasphemia, from Greek, from blasphemein, to blaspheme. See BLASPHEME.]
blaspheme
v. blas-phemed, blas-phem-ing, blas-phemes.
v. tr.
1. To speak of (God or a sacred entity) in an irreverent, impious manner.
2. To revile; execrate.
v. intr. To speak blasphemy.
[Middle English blasfemen, from Old French blasfemer, from Late Latin blasphemare, from Greek blasphemein : blas-, of unknown meaning + pheme, speech. See bha-2.]
So, it can be said that blasphemy is taboo, but blasphemy and taboo themselves are still distinct concepts.
The thing is, the concept of "taboo" is not actually a unique aspect of...well, anything but what is apparent human nature under certain conditions and in certain environments.
In some companies, for instance, the reasonability of Product Cost Accounting is taboo - it may not even be brought up. In many social settings there are taboos, such as when someone else's parent committed suicide - it is not to be brought up or discussed in any way.
Consider being in a simultaneous 'romantic' relationship with more than one person by mutual consent of all parties - many times even the discussion of such a thing is taboo. Beasteality and pedophilia are often also taboos, not ever to be discussed unless merely to reinterate their inherant evil.
Blasphemy just happens to be another taboo; that is, blasphemy is banned due to emotional aversion and/or social custom.
n.pl. ta-boos also ta-bus.
1. A ban or an inhibition resulting from social custom or emotional aversion.
2. A prohibition, especially in Polynesia and other South Pacific islands, excluding something from use, approach, or mention because of its sacred and inviolable nature. An object, a word, or an act protected by such a prohibition.
adj. Excluded or forbidden from use, approach, or mention: a taboo subject.
v. tr. ta-booedalso ta-bued ta-boo-ing ta-bu-ing ta-boos ta-bus. To exclude from use, approach, or mention; place under taboo.
[Tongan tabu, under prohibition.]
Taboo is actually a distinct concept, different from blasphemy:
blasphemy
n.pl. blas-phe-mies.
1. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.
[Middle English blasfemie, from Late Latin blasphemia, from Greek, from blasphemein, to blaspheme. See BLASPHEME.]
blaspheme
v. blas-phemed, blas-phem-ing, blas-phemes.
v. tr.
1. To speak of (God or a sacred entity) in an irreverent, impious manner.
2. To revile; execrate.
v. intr. To speak blasphemy.
[Middle English blasfemen, from Old French blasfemer, from Late Latin blasphemare, from Greek blasphemein : blas-, of unknown meaning + pheme, speech. See bha-2.]
So, it can be said that blasphemy is taboo, but blasphemy and taboo themselves are still distinct concepts.
The thing is, the concept of "taboo" is not actually a unique aspect of...well, anything but what is apparent human nature under certain conditions and in certain environments.
In some companies, for instance, the reasonability of Product Cost Accounting is taboo - it may not even be brought up. In many social settings there are taboos, such as when someone else's parent committed suicide - it is not to be brought up or discussed in any way.
Consider being in a simultaneous 'romantic' relationship with more than one person by mutual consent of all parties - many times even the discussion of such a thing is taboo. Beasteality and pedophilia are often also taboos, not ever to be discussed unless merely to reinterate their inherant evil.
Blasphemy just happens to be another taboo; that is, blasphemy is banned due to emotional aversion and/or social custom.
stamenflicker
Unregistered
S
I don't understand this claim. Did Jesus, in his life time, blaspheme his religion? Not that I know of. Please cite biblical reference.
If you actually read the gospels at some point in your life and have not come to this conclusion, then let me suggest a re-read. If you really need a reference, then I could probably give you 20 or 30 of them.
Jesus healed on the Sabbath, allowed his disciples to pluck grain on the Sabbath, he talked openly with women, contaminated himself by congregating with lepers.... ad nausem. Most of all he claimed to be God-- a major blasphemy.
Basically the Jews conspired with the Romans to murder him because he was the epitome of blasphemy to them. That's the gospels in a nutshell. A fringe Jew redefining what was holy and what was profane. Please pick up a copy of this exciting story from your local bookstore.
Flick
If you actually read the gospels at some point in your life and have not come to this conclusion, then let me suggest a re-read. If you really need a reference, then I could probably give you 20 or 30 of them.
Jesus healed on the Sabbath, allowed his disciples to pluck grain on the Sabbath, he talked openly with women, contaminated himself by congregating with lepers.... ad nausem. Most of all he claimed to be God-- a major blasphemy.
Basically the Jews conspired with the Romans to murder him because he was the epitome of blasphemy to them. That's the gospels in a nutshell. A fringe Jew redefining what was holy and what was profane. Please pick up a copy of this exciting story from your local bookstore.
Flick
evildave
Unregistered
E
"The Jews" "Conspired"? Jesus WAS a "Jew".
Conspired is a bit of a strong word. Especially when the "claiming to be god" thing was a capital crime at the time. As was working on the sabbath.
Is it "conspiracy" for the judicial powers to enforce the law? Damn, that traffic cop CONSPIRED to give me a ticket.
The only "conspiracy" involved was a little political maneuvering to get the Romans to kill (martyr) "Mr. Popular" so the weak local authorities wouldn't have to take the political hit.
Of course, the story's already told several conflicting ways in the bible, and they discarded a additional variations of the stories to settle on the popular "standard" ones when they compiled the bible and formed "The Church" from all the petty Christian cults. Whatever the original truth of what Jesus/Joshua/Whatever said and/or did, what's in the Bible is probably hopelessly twisted and mangled.
But hey, that's my literalist perspective. Maybe the whole story is allegorical, and the meaning is "No good deed will go unpunished."
Conspired is a bit of a strong word. Especially when the "claiming to be god" thing was a capital crime at the time. As was working on the sabbath.
Is it "conspiracy" for the judicial powers to enforce the law? Damn, that traffic cop CONSPIRED to give me a ticket.
The only "conspiracy" involved was a little political maneuvering to get the Romans to kill (martyr) "Mr. Popular" so the weak local authorities wouldn't have to take the political hit.
Of course, the story's already told several conflicting ways in the bible, and they discarded a additional variations of the stories to settle on the popular "standard" ones when they compiled the bible and formed "The Church" from all the petty Christian cults. Whatever the original truth of what Jesus/Joshua/Whatever said and/or did, what's in the Bible is probably hopelessly twisted and mangled.
But hey, that's my literalist perspective. Maybe the whole story is allegorical, and the meaning is "No good deed will go unpunished."
James Chambers mentions in Devil's Horsemen that there was, indeed, a time and a place where Buddhists prosecuted unbelievers, namely Muslims. The time was early 13th century and the place was Transoxania, in Middle Asia [Hopefully I don't remember the place wrong, it was trans-something]. As the relations between different religions were not the focus of the book, the whole thing was mentioned only in one or two paragraph in a section that described what had been happening in the area before Ghengis Khan decided that he liked the place. I haven't seen any other mentions of religious prosecutions by Buddhists anywhere else.evildave said:
stamenflicker said:I don't understand this claim. Did Jesus, in his life time, blaspheme his religion? Not that I know of. Please cite biblical reference.
If you actually read the gospels at some point in your life and have not come to this conclusion, then let me suggest a re-read. If you really need a reference, then I could probably give you 20 or 30 of them.
Jesus healed on the Sabbath, allowed his disciples to pluck grain on the Sabbath, he talked openly with women, contaminated himself by congregating with lepers.... ad nausem. Most of all he claimed to be God-- a major blasphemy.
Basically the Jews conspired with the Romans to murder him because he was the epitome of blasphemy to them. That's the gospels in a nutshell. A fringe Jew redefining what was holy and what was profane. Please pick up a copy of this exciting story from your local bookstore.
Flick
LMAO I got yer conspiracy riiiiight here, heh heh heh...
Say "the Jews did it" because you can't prove that they didn't, and say it was all one big cover up so you can use your lack of evidence to prove it. There's no need to throw the Jews into this whole mess, especially since they tend to disown and exclude blasphemers instead of punishing them. Besides, Jesus looks like he pissed off the Romans more than anybody else, because he went against their politics repeatedly (to Rome, politics were everything since they were essential to the survival of the people). The man got kicked out of how many towns again? Was he even worshipping the gods, doing his civil duty to protect the state and appease them? Worst of all he was gaining a following, encouraging otherwise productive citizens to quit their jobs and join his weird cult. I think the Jews would take the blame for all this, since they gave him the idea in the first place. Sure some of the Jews didn't like him either, but the Romans aren't likely to change their opinions of the heretics because they didn't like another particular heretic.
stamenflicker
Unregistered
S
Say "the Jews did it" because you can't prove that they didn't, and say it was all one big cover up so you can use your lack of evidence to prove it. There's no need to throw the Jews into this whole mess, especially since they tend to disown and exclude blasphemers instead of punishing them. Besides, Jesus looks like he pissed off the Romans more than anybody else, because he went against their politics repeatedly (to Rome, politics were everything since they were essential to the survival of the people). The man got kicked out of how many towns again? Was he even worshipping the gods, doing his civil duty to protect the state and appease them? Worst of all he was gaining a following, encouraging otherwise productive citizens to quit their jobs and join his weird cult. I think the Jews would take the blame for all this, since they gave him the idea in the first place. Sure some of the Jews didn't like him either, but the Romans aren't likely to change their opinions of the heretics because they didn't like another particular heretic.
What story have you been reading?
Flick
What story have you been reading?
Flick
neutrino_cannon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Messages
- 2,574
Indeed, someone may overturn or effectivly replace einsteinian physics. We still like Newton though. His ideas are for many easier to grasp, and good enough for most modern day engineering. as I recall, relativity was something of a blasphemy in the good old days (tm).
I enjoy blaphemy, it invigorates my mind and increases lung capacity.
I enjoy blaphemy, it invigorates my mind and increases lung capacity.
stamenflicker
Unregistered
S
Besides, Jesus looks like he pissed off the Romans more than anybody else, because he went against their politics repeatedly (to Rome, politics were everything since they were essential to the survival of the people). The man got kicked out of how many towns again? Was he even worshipping the gods, doing his civil duty to protect the state and appease them?
This is 100% bogus according to the gospel narratives. Jesus is shown to be favored by most Romans in the gospels. He is basically teaching acceptance of Roman occupation. Even the murderous Pilate "finds no fault in him."
If you want to make these sort of statements as historical statements that trump the Bible story, I'd suggest you use sources.
Jesus is run out of towns by the Jews, not Romans. If anything the Romans probably just got a kick out of it. (Ever seen "Life of Brian"?)
Next time you feel like contributing something regarding the "history" of the Jesus narrative, might I suggest you read the gospels?
Flick
This is 100% bogus according to the gospel narratives. Jesus is shown to be favored by most Romans in the gospels. He is basically teaching acceptance of Roman occupation. Even the murderous Pilate "finds no fault in him."
If you want to make these sort of statements as historical statements that trump the Bible story, I'd suggest you use sources.
Jesus is run out of towns by the Jews, not Romans. If anything the Romans probably just got a kick out of it. (Ever seen "Life of Brian"?)
Next time you feel like contributing something regarding the "history" of the Jesus narrative, might I suggest you read the gospels?
Flick