I was so disappointed

Finally got to see the first part of the programme last night. When he made that 'offensive' comment he was sat inches away from an animal that could have killed him there and then..he wasn't just eulogiisng about a beautiful sunset or something like that. I then had to re watch the second programme as I was so transfixed by the whole thing. It was an incredible programme but easy to forget how dangerous these animals are. there was a fashion a few years back for people to buy wolf/dog hybrids as pets until it was realised how dangerous they were. The man really was risking his life to make this prgramme.

Of course feelings do get hurt Jane - well said. How thoughtless to say that someone is simply 'playing the hurt feeling card.

I don't think God's feelings are hurt by someone repeating a quote in His book about His son when they are inches from an animal which could devour them at any moment.

If He did create all things - including the man who reacted in awe and terror - then he knows what made that the first thing that came out of his mouth. It was not blasphemy, it was sheer shock and amazement. The designer of the frail organism that was confronted with the top predator (designed in the same workshop) would know the effect its fearful symmetry would have.

If He does exist - then he is far bigger and stronger and has too much understanding of everything to be hurt by those few words.

If God does not exist, then blasphemy does not exist. Those who believe that He does exist choose to follow the rules that they attribute to Him. That is their prerogative.

I should have added - they have no need to feel hurt on God's behalf. He can take care of himself.

If they resent what was said, it is that - resentment, not hurt.

That's very interesting Elegran I think you've probably 'nailed it' .

I didn't see the programme but it seems someone said a few words when confronted with a frightening situation.

I'm sure he didn't mean to hurt anyone.

Just as I'm sure, jings, a Christian, didn't mean to blaspheme when she said "Oh, God!" in her last post.

There's no need for anyone to be so easily offended.

No one has asked Gordon about this. Are we just assuming that he isn't religious in any way or could it be that he uttered those words because he 'is'. In which case, I it would[I think] be ok?

Surely, it isn't really up to the rest of us to decide whether someone else should feel hurt or offended. Either you are, or you aren't.

Bags you believe there is no God. Fine. But does that really matter to you? Not sure how it can tbh. But a person's religious belief is important to them. Because it is something they - positively - believe in. So, can't you respect that, and not keep going over old ground.

Why do you always feel the need to argue so vehemently that there is no God? I'm genuinely puzzled.

The bloke in the original post was blaspheming because, if he wasn't he would have simply said shite me! oh God, please save me.

If he had said "Zeus!!! That is scary!" would he have been blaspheming against Zeus, or does it only work if it is a god of which the hearer is a follower?

As far as I know, Zeus didn't issue any commandments to his followers, so blasphemy wouldn't apply in that case.

Nah. It's all blasphemy. (If it's still a living religion I would think)

But I don't think Zeus worship is.

I am on the side of Nankate, I thought Gorden Buchan"s terminology Theatatrical, Contrived and Immature. There would have been many more expressions he could have used, Attenborough would have .

Perhaps this what we have to put up from now onwards, shame really !!

After all, it wasn"t as if he was there alone with these wild animals, there would have been a camera crew + people to take care of things if it got out of hand [if you get my drift].

tchhmm]

PS I agree with the posts of 18.28 and 18.33.

Gordon is of a younger generation than DA.
They do seem to use all language in a different manner.

Oh heck! People aren't allowed to be theatrical, contrived and immature any more either! Blasphemy's peanuts compared with that!

It's about control, all this. Religious rules and behavioural rules to control how people behave and what they say. To make them conform to superior people's ideas.

Stuff that.

Buchan did nothing wrong.

I really am sad to say I don"t think

Jesus H Christ
Jesus wept

are particulary modern expressions
.
I do believe they were around in the 50"s & 60"s and probably even before , just some have chosen to resurrecte them, on Television ,shame on them adds nothing to the presentation IMO.But then what do I know ??

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Attenborough uses such phrases when he's not on air.

Superior people? Superior in what way?

Saying how other people should speak, what words and phrases they're not allowed to use in case someone decides to have hurt feelings if they use this word or that phrase. It's a patronising kind of superiority.

Oh, not literally superior then. Just assuming the mantle.

Interestingly, Mary Beard complained on Twitter recently about something she thought was patronising, but she wrote f++ing in her tweet. That seems patronising to me. Since everyone knows what word she meant, why 'disguise' it?

I wonder if the diction police would disapprove of hers too? Or would they accept that someone as clever and good with words as she is can choose their own words regardless of whether they like her choices?

Just wondering. As you do.

Yes, ana, in reply to your last