However, what of the picture above? It is from a church in Belgium and shows the pulpit held up by an angel with his fee(t) on Mahomet and his book of lies.
Posted on 05/08/2015 2:26:32 PM PDT by ebb tide
Toronto's Catholic Register is parrotting this story from RNS referring to a front-page article at L'Osservatore Romano calling the cartoons of Mohomet "blasphemous."
This is quite incredible really.
One can blaspheme God.
One cannot blaspheme a man.
If Mahomet ever really existed can be debated. If he did, he was a warlord; a murderer, a child-molester and a Jew-hating Christ denier -- and antichrist.
He was no prophet.
I'm not suggesting that we should engage in mocking anyone; but I won't call the mocking of a man, blasphemy because it is not.
Shame on those Catholics who would use such a word reserved for Him who is truly One in Three Persons.
Shame on the Catholic Register and its Editors to use such a headline.
Do these people have any theological or historical or religious education? Are they just plain stupid or do they really believe the lies they are trying to sell as truth?
More of Mahomet's useful idiots they are.
Postscript:
Late evening (May 6) I watched an interview with Franklin Graham. He spoke the same line as Bill Donahue previously. As Christians, we should not be provoking anyone to anger. This is not to excuse in any way the attempted attack in Garland, the perpetrators got what they deserved and have been judged by God for their action and their false religion. However, what of the picture above? It is from a church in Belgium and shows the pulpit held up by an angel with his feed on Mahomet and his book of lies. Is that any different from the cartoons? Should we now erase this history? Mahomet was what he was. Yet at the same time, should we go out of our way to provoke people when we know their response will be violent as we have insulted them? Perhaps we should. What the event in Garland did is to show America that jihadists are within and at the same time, two of them were eliminated. Perhaps we need to see this in broader terms than personal or religious insult. We are in a war for our very existence. However, we will not win this war unless we call upon the Lord our God to defend us and to do that, we need to return to Him. Graham and Donahue are right. On an individual basis, it is wrong for me or you to go up to a Muslim and insult them. The question of speaking the truth of what is a curse upon the world and the cause of millions of deaths in this century and tens to hundreds of millions since its inception in the seventh century is something quite different.
However, what of the picture above? It is from a church in Belgium and shows the pulpit held up by an angel with his fee(t) on Mahomet and his book of lies.
lol
That’s not very ecumenical ebb.
One can blaspheme a man. In many places it is blaspheme to ridicule a king, queen, lord, prince, princess or other designated person. In the US it is blaspheme to ridicule the current president.
The penalty for blaspheme varies by the actual power of the person involved, and how seriously he takes himself or how seriously others take their worship of him. Sometimes the penalty is the IRS. Sometimes it is just not being invited to the White House Press Club dinner.
Presumably they mean “blasphemous to Muslims,” since they certainly aren’t blasphemous to Catholics, albeit perhaps in poor taste.
Is it blasphemous to Satanists to pray the prayer of St. Michael the Archangel? Or would that also be in poor taste?
The reality is that, in the age of the internet and talkradio, that idea is viewed as being so 20th century.
But Muslims don’t believe Mohammed was God. How would it be “blasphemous” even to them?
LOL!
Probably. Your point being ... ?
Actually, the term “blasphemy” refers to a gross disrespect for sacred things. E.g., it’s possible to blaspheme the Blessed Virgin (in fact, you’ll recall a traditional Catholic Marian hymn that says “when wicked men blaspheme thee, I’ll love and bless thy name”.
While etymologically blasphemy may denote the derogation of the honour due to a creature as well as of that belonging to God, in its strict acceptation it is used only in the latter sense. Hence it has been defined by Francisco Suárez as "any word of malediction, reproach, or contumely pronounced against God
I personally don't like to use the word blaspheming to denote comments or actions against Mary as that only adds to the misconception that we think of her as God.
My point being is why should the Vatican given a hoot about what the muslims believe to be “blasphemous”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.