 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 May 17 - 04:22 AM The Governor of Jakarta is starting a 2 year jail sentence for blasphemy. BBC 24 minutes ago, "Mr Purnama was accused of blasphemy for comments he made during a pre-election speech in September 2016. He implied that Islamic leaders were trying to trick voters by using a verse in the Koran to argue that Muslims should not vote for a non-Muslim leader. His remarks, which were widely shared in an edited video, sparked outrage among religious hard-liners. They staged regular large rallies calling for him to face trial." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39853280 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Joe Offer Date: 09 May 17 - 04:41 AM It's hard to believe that any modern nation would have anti-blasphemy laws. Nonetheless, I do think that blasphemy can be considered to be unpleasant, unkind, and impolite. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Thompson Date: 09 May 17 - 05:16 AM France does it right: the law proscribes hate or violence against, and slander or libel against, people due to their membership of a religious group, nationality, ethnic group, race, sexual orientation or handicap. That's what Ireland should have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Iains Date: 09 May 17 - 05:42 AM If the given story of Christianity was blemish free the Catholic church would not have maintained such a stranglehold, for so many decades, on the material released from the dead sea scrolls . Whatever the fact or fiction is of those events back in the middle east over 2k years ago, the reality is that large parts of modern Christianity was based on a hijacked narrative and agenda of the Pauline heresy, massaged and focused on appealing to the gentile Roman authorities who held sway over large parts of the Middle East at that time. The Magdelen controversy and the disputed status of James are another two aspects of Christian doctrine where the given story is questionable. Another is the disputed marital status of Jesus the man. The gospels frequently raise more questions than they answer. Attempts to create a universal narrative accepted by all resulted in seven Ecumenical Councils. They all failed to a varying extent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Stu Date: 09 May 17 - 06:44 AM "Those who ridicule them, ridicule all those who hold those stories sacred." This statement which could apply to science too, but there are those on this forum who have denigrated the work of scientists. People of honest intent who strive to make the world a better place by seeking to understand it for the common good all the people of the human race regardless of their religious belief, political opinion or the nation they belong too. I guess the difference is scientists expect to question and be questioned, whereas religious folk see questioning (and piss-taking) as a personal assault on their beliefs; I can understand this to a degree though as we all become defensive when our own worldview are questioned and I can find it hard to be objective when dealing with (or example) religious extremists. Also, not all religions are the same. Comparing the revealed religions with those of many indigenous people is false equivalence. The more naturistic belief systems (such as those held by the aboriginal folk of Australia or the First Nations people of the Americas) emphasise humankind as needing a deep respect of the land as common treasury and a profound and personal interconnectedness to nature. This rather than the far more simplistic, "dominion" that the god of desert tribesmen gives to his acolytes and separates them (in their minds) from all other life on the planet; that is a dangerous, destructive and profoundly misguided idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Thompson Date: 09 May 17 - 08:12 AM Surely the point is that religion should be private and personal, not national? Laïcité works best. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: bobad Date: 09 May 17 - 08:43 AM Those who ridicule them, ridicule all those who hold those stories sacred. I don't buy that for a second, it's that kind of nonsense that lead to the Charlie Hebdo killings among others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 May 17 - 09:06 AM Yes Bobad, but stick to just ridiculing Christians and Jews and nothing bad will happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Mo the caller Date: 09 May 17 - 09:20 AM " Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Georgiansilver - PM Date: 07 May 17 - 01:12 PM I don't force my beliefs or Faith upon anyone... why should he be allowed to blaspheme mine~? But the very tenets of the Christian faith blaspheme Judaism. The law is nonsense. Has the English version been repealed or just allowed to lapse (until some offended believer uses it). And reading the report it sounds as if SF was asked a direct question which he answered by stating what he thought about the Christian (hypothetical) god. Yes, inciting hatred should be banned. Some other antireligious statements may be bad manners, but not illegal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Dave the Gnome Date: 09 May 17 - 09:33 AM Yes Bobad, but stick to just ridiculing Christians and Jews and nothing bad will happen. This is on the basis that only Islam does bad things in the name of religion is it? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: bobad Date: 09 May 17 - 09:37 AM Keith, I don't equate religion, which is but a collection of ideas, with the people who practice it. No idea is beyond scrutiny, scepticism and yes, even ridicule. To quote Maajid Nawaz: "No idea is above scrutiny and no people are beneath dignity." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: bobad Date: 09 May 17 - 10:05 AM This is on the basis that only Islam does bad things in the name of religion is it? Ok Dave, here's an exercise for you. First burn a Bible in a public place in London then burn a Koran in a public place in London then come back and let us know how that went for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Dave the Gnome Date: 09 May 17 - 10:13 AM First burn a Bible in a public place in London then burn a Koran in a public place in London then come back and let us know how that went for you. This is on the basis that only Islam does bad things in the name of religion is it? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: bobad Date: 09 May 17 - 10:33 AM Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 May 17 - 10:43 AM "why should he be allowed to blaspheme mine" Apples and oranges Mo You may not force your beliefs on others but the State does which is what this is about Wan't a list of the invective poured on the heads of atheists bu=y the various churches? We are now debating in Ireland whether the fact that children applying for school positions are now having to provide baptismal certificates before their names are even considered Couple this with the old Jesuit saying "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man " and you have brain-washing big-time The shortage of non-faith schools has reached the human-rights abuse level.90-odd percent of out primary schools are run by the church A couple of years ago a woman who died had been told by a member of staff as an explanation, "Ireland is a Catholic country" In the latest controversy over the ownership of Ireland's main maternity hospital, we have been informed by the church hierarchy that the nuns running it will be subject to Church rules rather than State law. You may not consider that forcing beliefs or Faith upon anyone....... What gets he here is the behaviour of some of those self-described 'Christians' who are whining the loudest. I have many relatives who are Chrisian, either in belief or in practice. I live in a Christian country surrounded by Christian people and hve spent decades viting their homes, colecing their songs and enjoying their company One of the fond memories Ihave is the splash of holy water on the back of my neck, having neglected to bless myself from the little container hanging by the door - a generous gesture wishing to strangers "good Luck" as we left In several arguments I have had I have been brought to the point of screaming, "how dare you inhuman hate-filled bigots describe yourself as 'Christian' when you don't display the slightest sign of Christian generosity, humanity, humility..... or any of the qualities I have come to understand as Christian values. We've had a display from such hypocrites a little higher up this correspondence - if the individuals concerned, by Jack's a kipper! It is the kind of mealy-mouthed hypocrisy of those who whinge about being persecuted yet are happy to launch themselves on persecution-sprees on religions and ethnic minorities on forums such as this There's not a bad example of this going on right now by some of our class Islamophobes. God spare us all from such bigots Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: robomatic Date: 09 May 17 - 10:46 AM Meanwhile, in the real world: Jakarta Governor Found Guilty of Blasphemy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Dave the Gnome Date: 09 May 17 - 11:42 AM It seems poobad is at a loss for words again. Dribble, dribble, dribble? :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 May 17 - 12:27 PM Bobad, I agree. Jim, persecution-sprees on religions and ethnic minorities on forums such as this There's not a bad example of this going on right now by some of our class Islamophobes. I challenge that and ask for an example. The single one you produced before was over 6 years old of me, and I had repeatedly made it clear that I did NOT believe the offending under discussion could be blamed on religion. Unlike you I have never denigrated any religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 May 17 - 12:55 PM "I challenge that and ask for an example." Not again Keith!! The six year old one will do for a start - the worst example of cultural/racial hatred ever to appear on this forum It doesn't matter how long ago you put it up - you continue to maintain that view, you have certainly never withdrawn it, and you've blamed others for holding it yet never produced anybody else who has stated it publicly We've dealt with your describing the prophet as a pedophile More recently you have added Travellers and Irish children to your list of hates. It is this behaviour that gets any religion a bad name, and pathetic attempts to defend Christian behaviour only compounds that behaviour. We are responsible for what happens in our own society and really do not have to answer for that of others. You had little trouble in identifying who I was referring to My case rests - Christians have little room to criticise others until they begin to get their own house in order - the first steps to doing so are to recognise the mess it is in. People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones (as the old joke goes) You ask for an example - try "Yes Bobad, but stick to just ridiculing Christians and Jews and nothing bad will happen" The last word on this to you here - I'm too old to wrestle worms Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Iains Date: 09 May 17 - 01:16 PM Jim. "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man " and you have brain-washing big-time. Having had a Jesuit secondary education and knowing many that also had a primary education from Jesuits as well, I can assure you the brainwashing is a myth. What the Jesuits did provide, for those that were willing, was a superb education. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 May 17 - 01:20 PM The six year old one will do for a start - the worst example of cultural/racial hatred ever to appear on this forum I said I knew nothing about the culture. The ascribing to culture came from people who were of that culture, Left Wing politicians or both. I just said I believed them because of their knowledge and in the absence of any other theory. No hatred against any demographic was expressed. If it was, quote it. you continue to maintain that view, you have certainly never withdrawn it, I have refuted it every few weeks for over six years! Every time you dredge it up. More recently you have added Travellers and Irish children to your list of hates. Completely untrue, and your claim was about persecution of religions. and pathetic attempts to defend Christian behaviour Produce an example Jim. You just made that up. Christians have little room to criticise others What Christian has criticised any other faith here? The last word on this to you here - I'm too old to wrestle worms It is clear this is a personal vendetta. If you make accusations against me, you should provide examples. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 May 17 - 01:25 PM "Completely untrue, and your claim was about persecution of religions." No it wan't Keith - it was about unchristian Christians The rest is old news too well established to enter into here Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Joe Offer Date: 09 May 17 - 02:17 PM I think I may have confused what was said by some in the Forum here, with what Fry actually said. Reading the article (click) closely, I find that most of what Fry has to say is simply a less-pious rephrasing of questions theologians have been asking for centuries. From what I see in the article, I don't think what Fry has to say is "ridicule." Does anyone have links to other things Fry has to say on the subject? On the other hand, I do think that much of what I've seen from Charlie Hebdo WAS blasphemy, or at least ridicule. As I said above, I do think that blasphemy can be considered to be unpleasant, unkind, and impolite - not an excuse for violent attacks, but certainly not an invitation to respectful dialogue. I think this world has a great need for respectful dialogue - and we don't get there by insulting those who think differently, or by insulting that which they hold sacred. But reading the article a second time, I kinda liked what Fry had to say. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Senoufou Date: 09 May 17 - 03:41 PM I've just been having a look at several of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, and they really are disgraceful, and extremely inflammatory in my opinion. Some depict the Prophet naked, asking if a photographer 'likes his arse', and others show him bent down with his genitals on view. This greatly offends me, and I'm not a Muslim (although married to one) and would obviously incite anyone with a religious belief in Islam to great anger. I'm not saying it justifies the resulting terrorism, but I do think it's a perfect example of 'Incitement to Religious Hatred'. It isn't the same thing at all as Fry's remarks which, as you say Joe, are merely musings, albeit not very tactfully expressed. I'm sure most people would see the difference. 'Blasphemy' is one thing, and is rude and hurtful, but Inciting Religious Hatred is quite another. The former should provoke condemnation and rebuke. But the other should (and is, in UK) punishable by Law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Greg F. Date: 09 May 17 - 04:40 PM Inciting Religious Hatred is quite another. Perhaps this should be taken up with Twitler ans the Trumpists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 09 May 17 - 06:01 PM I seem to recall that Charlie hebdo are equal opportunity mockers: including Christians in their "art'. As for Fry , I don't favour prosecution . Why turn him into a martyr !? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Pete from seven stars link Date: 09 May 17 - 06:07 PM I appreciate some of your insight into the synoptic gospels joe . However I wonder what your source us to say that believers in the past took the stories as not factual . Was not a main thrust of Matthew validation of the messiah by fulfilment of scripture ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Mrrzy Date: 09 May 17 - 06:35 PM I'm perfectly willing to ridicule anyone's ridiculous beliefs, no matter how sacredly held, if they [the beliefs] are ridiculous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Stanron Date: 09 May 17 - 06:48 PM It is only since about 1500 that the Bible was no longer only read in Latin or Greek by the educated clergy. Before that the common man only knew what he was told by his local priest. The concept that he would interpret this information in some way as anything other than 'Gospel Truth' would have been treated as heresy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 May 17 - 07:58 PM Well I'm home from Florence now. Nice work today, EasyJet. It's been a long day, starting with a visit to the Accademia gallery first thing this morning to see Michelangelo's David. The rest of the gallery pales next to that masterwork - the Uffizi gallery is much better, positively mind-blowing, the ground floor of the Bargello gallery is stunning and the Santa Croce basilica is sublime. Back to David, as fine a work of art as has ever been produced, the theme thoroughly biblical, thoroughly Christian, beautifully presented and displayed, no need to jostle for a great view of him despite the crowds. Florence is all crowds. It was clear that a large number of tourists were sufficiently obsessed with David's elegant genitalia and excellently-muscled buttocks to persuade them to get as many selfies as possible featuring themselves next to these impressive attributes of his, pointing at them and pulling appropriately eye-popping faces. Come to think of it, in four days of taking in hundreds, if not thousands, of religious works of art, I've seen some magnificently-benippled breasts, arses as pert as you like and even a fair number of lovely external ladies' front bottoms. Gosh, and so many naked putti! Oddly, only once did I see a crucified Jesus sans strategic loincloth, his family jewels proudly on view, and that was on a small wooden crucifix attributed to none other than Michelangelo. Mischievous fellow he was, I reckon, a twinkle in his eye. He even managed to annoy his patrons, those awful Medicis, by depicting Bacchus in a sculpture as a somewhat tipsy student-type rather than the somewhat effeminate, more usual depiction of him. I thought that the Bacchus was a towering masterpiece and concluded that those pope-generating Medicis had no taste. The thing is that depicting religious figures as real human beings, naked, vulnerable, flawed, often less than well-endowed, frequently looking rather vacant as they gaze heavenward with clasped hands, has been a sine qua non of religious art. They say that art conceals art, but great art also conceals ridicule. And you can bet your life that the selfie brigade of today have had their equivalent all down the ages. So don't give me all that precious stuff about ridiculing the Prophet. Belief in impossible deities and their hangers-on (all those bloody angels!) is highly irrational and has served humanity extremely badly. Trying to protect those beliefs, or sheltering them from the disrespect and ridicule that they so richly deserve, is a waste of energy. There's probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy yourself instead! But the art is different... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Joe Offer Date: 09 May 17 - 08:16 PM So, Steve, this is a question I've had most of my life and I couldn't see well enough to get a definite answer when I was in Florence: Was Michelangelo's David circumcised? Here's a clip from Fry on religion that seems to be the basis of the article about Fry that was mentioned in the first post:But my answer to Fry's complaints about God, is that people are here on earth with the ability to solve the problems. Why don't the people use their god-given abilities to fix the problems? And the thing that gets me, is that all these critics use a fundamentalist view of God as basis for their criticism. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Greg F. Date: 09 May 17 - 08:56 PM people are here on earth with the ability to solve the problems. Those problems that "God" created, Joe? Haven't you got that hind end foremost? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Joe Offer Date: 09 May 17 - 09:12 PM Well, yeah, Greg, that's correct if you happen to believe in a God that writes the script and that we are all puppets acting out that script. I think that's a rather shallow view of God, and I do not subscribe to it. But it's that shallow view that Fry and Hitchens and Dawkins and so many others subscribe to. Very few believers hold that view of God. But many of the unbelievers do - and then they attack the absurd god that is their own creation. I believe the problems you speak of evolved, due to both accident and logical consequences; and that we have both the ability and the obligation to redirect that evolution. -Joe- And I still want to hear what Steve has to say about David and circumcision. David cut off a lot of Philistine foreskins - what about his own? [1 Samuel 18:27] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 May 17 - 09:19 PM I took a lot of photos of David, Joe, and I can confirm that he is gloriously possessed of penis intactus. Funnily enough, in a coffee bar in the Piazza San Marco this morning, just after our visit to the Accademia, scoffing our focaccia capreses washed down with an uplifting coffee as only the Italians know how (we had to hurry as we needed to get to the airport at Pisa - luckily, Musso's legacy of the trains running on time still holds), I saw this bloke that reminded me strongly of you. It got even worse when I heard him speak to discover that he was an American. For a minute I thought I was busted. Only then did I realise that he wasn't good looking enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 May 17 - 09:23 PM Massive straw man in your response to Greg there, Joe. We prefer to leave the God constructions to you. Mind you, was that straw man circumcised? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Joe Offer Date: 09 May 17 - 10:10 PM Well, Steve, Kevin McGrath looks an awful lot like me. So does Charley Noble. If I happened to see either of them in Florence, I would be horribly enswamped in an identity crisis, and I wouldn't know which one was me. Facebook often confuses me with Charles Clark, but that's not true. I'm far better-looking. I'm glad you confirmed my suspicions about Michelangelo's David. Since I had eight years of "custody of the eyes" training in seminary, I spent most of my time looking at David's face.... Yeah, I couldn't quite deal with Greg's puppet-master God. I'm sorry he got bogged down in God-constructing like that. My ideas on God are far more foggy and likely to change at any moment - I like it that way. I suppose I ought to admit that in an earlier day, I might well have been burned at the stake for my theological concepts. I did get fired for said concepts, but I'm still alive and relatively unscathed. I'm of the opinion that for most questions worth considering, there are myriad valid answers. What bugs me about Fry and Hitchens and Dawkins and their ilk is that they, like fundamentalist Christians and Muslims and whatever, are obsessed about being in possession and control of "the right answer," and that everyone else must be wrong. They're like that annoying kid in school who always had to be right. I'd much rather consider a wide variety of possibilities - and one of those possibilities is always in the context of the possible non-existence of God. Another is in the context of a biblical literalist concept of God, but I prefer the atheist alternative. But that being said, I'll accept your word on it that David wasn't circumcised....and will maintain custody of my eyes. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 May 17 - 04:01 AM Mrrzy, I'm perfectly willing to ridicule anyone's ridiculous beliefs, no matter how sacredly held, if they [the beliefs] are ridiculous. Why? Does it matter to you if some otherwise nice, inoffensive person believes something that you consider ridiculous? What do you gain by ridiculing them? Why be "willing" to ridicule them? Live and let live as harmoniously as possible I say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 May 17 - 05:46 AM Nice letter in the Irish Times this morning Blasphemy and the law Sir, - As a gesture of solidarity with Stephen Fry, I quote a sentence from my book, The God Delusion: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." Every one of these adjectives is amply documented, with full biblical citations, in Dan Bark¬er's book, God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction. I shall be giving a public lecture in the National Concert Hall, Dublin, on June 12th, and I shall therefore be available for arrest on a charge of blasphemy.-Yours, etc, Richard Dawkins, New College, Oxford. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 May 17 - 06:01 AM Well, Joe, I took around thirty photos of the statue from all angles, close-up and full-figure (I've deleted the duffers now but still have around ten lovely images), but I still had to look back at them in order to answer your question. I suppose I was seeing the bigger picture! I don't think that Dawkins et al et Shaw et al have the answers. I think we see that you probably have the wrong answers and we challenge you to verify yours with evidence. Neither Dawkins nor the other alleged absolutists have ever said that there is no God. We think it's a very intriguing concept, for several reasons, but would like to see your real evidence. Note the word "real." Talk of scripture fulfilment, or saying it's true because it's in the Bible (hi, Nigel!) isn't evidence. Also, note the word "arguably" in Jim's link. It isn't us who are the absolutists. We're just your awkward inconveniences. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Stu Date: 10 May 17 - 06:22 AM I have to confess to being a little envious of you Steve... Mrs Stu and I have been discussing a trip to Italy for some time, and I'd love to see Rome, perhaps with Florence and Sicily (for a trip up Etna and local fossils) on the itinerary too. I'd dearly love to see the art and architecture of the place. Oh, and the food. Ah well, one day if the shilling star ever shines again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 May 17 - 06:49 AM It's only in the last three or four years that we've started going on holiday to Italy and Andalucia. For the latter we pay next to nothing for accommodation as my sister's friends own a cortijo in the Alpujarra. For Sicily we've used a company called Sicilian Experience (they're in London at Palace Street, SW1) and they are a very small, friendly setup (Suzanne and Fabricio) who know all the properties they recommend. They tailor your holiday for you, flights, airports, transfers, the lot, they bend over backwards to give you exactly what you want and you won't beat them on price by doing it yourself. We've stayed in Taormina, Siracusa (Ortigia) and the Aeolian Islands (think Il Postino and Stromboli) with them and had three fabulous hols that didn't break the bank. This year we're finding that fixing everything up for yourself for trips to mainland Italy is cheaper than booking through a company and it's not too difficult. Most of the joys of Florence are indoors. Our B&B lady told us that November and December are good times to go as it's incredibly crowded in spring and summer. And it's bloody expensive. Even the churches charge a fortune to get in and the only way to beat the crowds and avoid queuing at the main galleries and the Duomo for hours is to pay extra and book in advance. Florence exists in order to empty your bank account. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Rob Naylor Date: 10 May 17 - 06:53 AM Joe Offer: I think that's a rather shallow view of God, and I do not subscribe to it. But it's that shallow view that Fry and Hitchens and Dawkins and so many others subscribe to. Very few believers hold that view of God. But many of the unbelievers do - and then they attack the absurd god that is their own creation. But it's the shallow view of God that fundamentalists, creationists etc push forward when trying to promulgate their ideology into education, particularly in the USA but also through things like "ACE" schools in the UK. I may see no evidence of or "need" for the universe to have an intelligent creator, but can accept and respect the idea of a non-anthropocentric "force" in the universe, or a concept of God that is close to Spinoza's. What I can't accept or respect are the views of Biblical literalists and creationists who try to shoe-horn observed and measured reality into an absurd view of God with deliberate misunderstandings, lies and refusal to even try and understand the weight of evidence for an old universe. What kind of compassionate, omnipresent, omniscient God needs Jews to paint their door lintels with lambs' blood so that he can identify which children he shouldn't kill? When he himself has hardened Pharoah's heart against freeing Jewish slaves? Aside from the fact that there is no evidence at all that Exodus ever took place, this kind of Biblical literalism and shallow view of a deity is the one that Dawkins et al rail against *precisely* because that's the kind of thing the fundies are constantly trying to insinuate into the education system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Stu Date: 10 May 17 - 09:01 AM Thanks for the info Steve, much appreciated. I have to say, this is a fascinating discussion. Never come across Spinoza, interesting stuff. "...or a concept of God that is close to Spinoza's" Spinoza's god isn't the god of the Abrahamic religions though is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: punkfolkrocker Date: 10 May 17 - 09:25 AM "Does it matter to you if some otherwise nice, inoffensive person believes something that you consider ridiculous? What do you gain by ridiculing them?" Keith - well... on that level.. my brother in law seems to me to be a very intelligent, decent, witty bloke.. It just so happens he is a Welsh chapel minister, with his own 'church' & congregation, and some fairly fundamentalist views on humanity and our relationships and behaviour... On the social occasions we meet, religion is not discussed for obvious reasons of family harmony... - some kind of tacit understanding.. At a family wedding, another minister in his faith [ who preached fervently at great length ] showed himself up to be one of the most loathsome men I have ever encountered.. again I remained tactfully & respectfully silent... On forums like this however, I will not be so tolerant of his kind of vile smug misogynistic religious hate mongers... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 May 17 - 09:37 AM It's Fabrizio, not "Fabricio!" I know you're more paleontologically-inclined, Stu, but the Aeolian islands are geologically brilliant. They're all volcanos and all very young, with Stromboli (say it like a native: STROMboli) permanently active and Vulcano quite edgy with its Plinian tendencies. We stayed at the humble but very nice Rocce Azzure hotel on Lipari, a good hub for visiting the other islands. Lipari town is probably the best centre, lively but very charming. A night-time boat trip around Stromboli is a must, and if you're up for it a short boat ride to Vulcano will enable you to walk up to the crater rim (1500 feet, an hour through the cinders and lava deposits) where you get fumaroles, scary smells, a perfectly-formed crater and the best view on planet Earth. There's a sinister bubbling mud pool that's a popular place to go for a dip and smell all sulphureous for a few days. If you have money left over you can waste it on little souvenirs made out of pumice and obsidian to give to your friends. Some of Il Postino was filmed on the peaceful green island of Salina. We didn't get there, but there's always next time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 May 17 - 09:48 AM Accusing people who think that there's almost certainly no God of taking a shallow view of him is absurd. I won't fight that battle on your territory if you don't mind. All I can do is to try to elicit from believers what their view of God is, if they're inclined to give it, preferably delivered without waffling sanctity. That's quite interesting, but what isn't interesting is the thought that I should somehow develop my own, non-shallow, view of him. Why would that game be worth the candle? All I want is your evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Greg F. Date: 10 May 17 - 10:01 AM unbelievers .... attack the absurd god that is their own creation. As opposed to believers who worship the absurd god that is their own creation, I suppose, Joe?. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: punkfolkrocker Date: 10 May 17 - 10:24 AM btw.. as this thread is about Irish attitudes to religion.. There's a really good movie - a bleak tragicomedy about a genuinely 'good' Irish priest. I watched it twice in two days.. so obviously i recommend it !!! Calvary It's still on BBC iplayer "Drama. An Irish priest who is threatened during a confession finds himself in a race against time to discover the identity of his potential killer. Release date: 2014 19 days left to watch 1 hour, 35 minutes" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Stu Date: 10 May 17 - 10:35 AM The geology would be one of the reasons for visiting. I've never visited an active volcano (unless you count Yellowstone) and the Italian volcanos have played such a major part in shaping european culture I'd love to visit one. I thought Etna as it is active, but will look up the others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Stephen Fry Blasphemy From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 May 17 - 11:07 AM Pfr. On forums like this however, I will not be so tolerant of his kind of vile smug misogynistic religious hate mongers... I would not expect you to be, and I would join you. I have not come across any member like that though. Have you? |
