impure_tale (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
impure_tale) wrote2011-02-14 10:46 pm
impure_tale) wrote2011-02-14 10:46 pm
156 - Text
Fellow denizens of the barge, I pose to you a question:
What is your definition of blasphemy?
I have a book here which defines it, rather simply, as irreverence toward the deities, artifacts, customs and tenets of a given religion. Which I suppose is a perfectly fair and universal explanation. But "irreverent" behavior -- don't you have to belong to that particular religion, or at least to the society that sanctions it, for it to count as blasphemy?
For instance, most religions that use the Bible or some form of it hold to the notion that "taking God's name in vain" is a sin. Does this not apply merely to followers of that faith? If, say, I were to not be a member of the church (can you imagine?), I would therefore have no reason to hold the teachings of the Bible as sacred. Oui? By that logic, then, if someone were to, say, drop something particularly heavy on my foot, enough to induce extreme pain, then for me to exclaim "Jesus Christ!" should be perfectly acceptable. In turn -- because it's not just about teasing the Christians -- the same would be assumed if I were to say "Sweet fucking Tak!" instead, no?
Is there a difference, aside from the fact that the religious whining is for once issuing the most loudly from a non-Christian?
This is not about respecting the differences of others -- I'm well aware that I could have made my point without such coarse language. I'm also well aware that if it were simply about respecting differing cultures, a Warden would not have been physically attacked today for "blaspheming" -- over Audio, where anyone could hear it, no less.
Has anything been done about this, by the way? Or were the lot of you simply having a laugh over it?
What is your definition of blasphemy?
I have a book here which defines it, rather simply, as irreverence toward the deities, artifacts, customs and tenets of a given religion. Which I suppose is a perfectly fair and universal explanation. But "irreverent" behavior -- don't you have to belong to that particular religion, or at least to the society that sanctions it, for it to count as blasphemy?
For instance, most religions that use the Bible or some form of it hold to the notion that "taking God's name in vain" is a sin. Does this not apply merely to followers of that faith? If, say, I were to not be a member of the church (can you imagine?), I would therefore have no reason to hold the teachings of the Bible as sacred. Oui? By that logic, then, if someone were to, say, drop something particularly heavy on my foot, enough to induce extreme pain, then for me to exclaim "Jesus Christ!" should be perfectly acceptable. In turn -- because it's not just about teasing the Christians -- the same would be assumed if I were to say "Sweet fucking Tak!" instead, no?
Is there a difference, aside from the fact that the religious whining is for once issuing the most loudly from a non-Christian?
This is not about respecting the differences of others -- I'm well aware that I could have made my point without such coarse language. I'm also well aware that if it were simply about respecting differing cultures, a Warden would not have been physically attacked today for "blaspheming" -- over Audio, where anyone could hear it, no less.
Has anything been done about this, by the way? Or were the lot of you simply having a laugh over it?
no subject
The point is that with or without religion, people find ways to manipulate, and people will continue to be spiritual, in their own way, regardless of whether or not it is regulated. It serves a purpose -- foolish though it is -- and people will find something to fill that void one way or another.
no subject
We Time Lords have overcome... spirituality long ago. But, I suppose, the same is probably not possible for humans... And what purpose could it serve anyway?
no subject
I suppose it may have started as a need to cope with things that could not be explained, as well as a means to reconcile oneself with death.
no subject
Pointless. If one can't explain something, he should search for an explanation, not make up some deity. And most of the concepts of afterlife I know seem rather unpleasant. The Time Lords simply invented the Matrix; we can be sure what awaits us after death.
no subject
Strikes unreadable.
Aside from this, I would ask you not to insult my people. I doubt you have met many Time Lords and neither the Master nor
the Doctormost of the Doctors are good examples to judge us by.no subject
I wouldn't boast on being the exception to the rule so prematurely.
If your people are so very superior, Monsieur, then they can shoulder so minor an offense as a human calling them what they are.
no subject
And I am not the exception; the ones you complain about are.
It is not about being unable to shoulder it, but about the principle of the thing. As I said, I will not tolerate anyone insulting me, nor will I tolerate it when it comes to my... associates.
no subject
Besides, you're all so very cute when you're angry.
no subject
And I am most certainly not cute, especially when I am angry. It would do you well not to provoke me.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject