Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe after God comments

[EC]

Police in the Republic of Ireland have launched an investigation after a viewer claimed comments made by Stephen Fry on a TV show were blasphemous.

Officers are understood to be examining whether the British comedian committed a criminal offence under the Defamation Act when he appeared on RTE in 2015.

Fry had asked why he should "respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world.... full of injustice".

He later said he was not "offensive towards any particular religion".

According to a report in the Irish Independent newspaper, no publicised cases of blasphemy have been brought before the courts since the law was introduced in 2009 and a source said it was "highly unlikely" that a prosecution against Fry would take place.
'Such misery'

Appearing on The Meaning of Life, hosted by Gay Byrne, in February 2015, Fry had been asked what he might say to God at the gates of heaven.

Fry said: "How dare you create a world in which there is such misery? It's not our fault? It's not right. It's utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?"

He went on to say that Greek gods "didn't present themselves as being all seeing, all wise, all beneficent", adding "the god who created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish".

The Irish Independent reported a member of the public made a complaint to police in Ennis in the same month the programme was broadcast. He was recently contacted by a detective to say they were looking into his complaint.

The viewer was not said to be offended himself but believed Fry's comments qualified as blasphemy under the law, which carries a maximum penalty of a fine of 25,000 euros (£22,000).

More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39830447

[Suppressed]

Any god who must be "protected" from the asking of such reasonable questions, and the holding of such understandable beliefs, isn't much of a god.

[Frank Cannon]

Any god who must be "protected" from the asking of such reasonable questions, and the holding of such understandable beliefs, isn't much of a god.

I believe you are quoting Jefferson there....

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

[dfwgator]

I wonder if he asks those same questions about Islam?

[Frank Cannon]

I wonder if he asks those same questions about Islam?

Actually yes....



He is a fairly consistent Atheist and outspoken on all religions.

[roamer_1]

Any god who must be "protected" from the asking of such reasonable questions, and the holding of such understandable beliefs, isn't much of a god.

Except that both you and he are missing the answer to that question, and when you know it, you won't like it very much... And you'll have been wrong all the same.

[Suppressed]

Except that both you and he are missing the answer to that question, and when you know it, you won't like it very much... And you'll have been wrong all the same.

What is the answer?

[Suppressed]

Here's the relevant part of the interview (don't blame me for the typos--it's not my work)...















































http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

@roamer_1

[Cripplecreek]

Any god who must be "protected" from the asking of such reasonable questions, and the holding of such understandable beliefs, isn't much of a god.

Bingo.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Except that both you and he are missing the answer to that question, and when you know it, you won't like it very much... And you'll have been wrong all the same.

So, what is the answer @roamer_1 ?

[Ghost Bear]

It's a philosophical argument that goes back (some say) as far as Epicurus, ~300 BC, The Problem of Evil.

Epicurus, it is said, put it this way:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

I don't know the answer. It's a question I often ponder though.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

It's a philosophical argument that goes back (some say) as far as Epicurus, ~300 BC, The Problem of Evil.

Epicurus, it is said, put it this way:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

I don't know the answer. It's a question I often ponder though.

If there is an omnipotent, omniscient God, then I am unable to comprehend Him, let alone to judge Him.

[Wingnut]

So, what is the answer @roamer_1 ?

Let it alone riv....   Otherwise this thread will turn to shit with people quoting scripture and bable on cut and pasting bible verses.

[Frank Cannon]

Let it alone riv....   Otherwise this thread will turn to shit with people quoting scripture and bable on cut and pasting bible verses.

You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them. - Ezekiel 16:17

[ABX]

It's a philosophical argument that goes back (some say) as far as Epicurus, ~300 BC, The Problem of Evil.

Epicurus, it is said, put it this way:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

I don't know the answer. It's a question I often ponder though.

Probably the second oldest philosophical question after 'why am I here'.

[Wingnut]

Proverbs 11:4 Wealth is worthless in the day of wrath,  but righteousness delivers from death.

[Frank Cannon]

Proverbs 11:4 Wealth is worthless in the day of wrath,  but righteousness delivers from death.

[Wingnut]

[driftdiver]

It's a philosophical argument that goes back (some say) as far as Epicurus, ~300 BC, The Problem of Evil.

Epicurus, it is said, put it this way:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

I don't know the answer. It's a question I often ponder though.

Or theres another option.  Epicurus was out of his mind due to his health.

[Suppressed]

Or theres another option.  Epicurus was out of his mind due to his health.

Regardless of ad hominem, his point stands.

[roamer_1]

What is the answer?

Sixty million children dead in the womb, and you have to ask? I'll leave it to you to work it out for yourself.

[Suppressed]

Sixty million children dead in the womb, and you have to ask? I'll leave it to you to work it out for yourself.

Far more than that.  You forget that "god" or something kills millions each year, often before the mother even knows she's pregnant.

Why?

There are now as many miscarriages as abortions, and from http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-complications/miscarriage/

Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages. This occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy.

[roamer_1]

Far more than that.  You forget that "god" or something kills millions each year, often before the mother even knows she's pregnant.

Why?

Well, gee, do you think it might have something to do with unbridled promiscuity and the diseases it causes? With chemical-laden foods? With screwing with natural chemistry?

Why are cancer rates substantially lower in indigenous people, and those cancers they do have caused largely by things imported from 'modern' society?

We have ventured so far from the good life (from Torah), that it can no longer even be conceived.

[Restored]

It's is illogical to ask "If there is a God, why doesn't He...?" because you can't simultaneously believe and not believe. If you believe, you must allow Him to be God, not your servant. Where were you when he made the Leviathan?
If you believe He doesn't exist, it is pointless to ascribe attributes to Him. The Biblical God is God, not Superman. He didn't do an awful lot of intervention. It works badly in the long term.

Besides, Jesus said 3 times in the Book of John that Satan is the ruler of this world. If he thinks that worm is so bad, why doesn't Fry do something about it? Instead of pointlessly whining to an entity he doesn't think exists, that is.

[Suppressed]

Well, gee, do you think it might have something to do with unbridled promiscuity and the diseases it causes? With chemical-laden foods? With screwing with natural chemistry?

Why are cancer rates substantially lower in indigenous people, and those cancers they do have caused largely by things imported from 'modern' society?

We have ventured so far from the good life (from Torah), that it can no longer even be conceived.

So you think that miscarriages just started happening recently?

And the reason they are equal with abortion is the abortion rate falling.


Sure, I believe there are many things in modern living causing problems.  I believe that we haven't fully investigated the synergistic effects of contaminants -- risk calculations are done on a per-contaminant basis.  There are contaminants of emerging concern that we don't fully understand.  There are physical things that cause chemical changes within us.  Emotional stresses that hurt our bodies.  Etc.

But the fact is, if you believe souls are imparted at conception, God has killed a great number of babies before they were born.  If a person did that, we'd call him a murderer. 


These are legitimate concerns and questions...no government should criminalize exploring them and asking them.