Blasphemy... the Christian I-Win button?

[Freodin]

You agree that people should respect each other here but you disrespect me by claiming I am nitpicking and don't even want to understand what you are saying.

I gathered that you likened yourself to Jesus who was silenced for blasphemy after reading your post and in order not to be presumptuous I asked you if this was indeed the case only to have you respond to me the way you did. And yet it is you who complain about how you are being treated.

Why do you do that?

I apologize. You are right, I should not have spelled out that I think you don't want to understand. It is just that I know from experience that questions like yours are usually asked from a point of assuming that unbelievers always have the most base and selfish motives.

But you got your answer: no, that is not what it is about. It is not about me and about me being mistreated. It is also not about Jesus. It is about the very concept of blasphemy, and they ways it is and can be used and abused.
I think Jesus is a good example, because it shows Christians what can happen. The problem I found (again, I am assuming, but based on prior experiences) is that Christians cannot see the problematic because they have to adhere to the a priori position that Jesus didn't deserve it, while other victims of blasphemy accusations did.

And that is why I said you were nitpicking... and I stand to that assertion. You were asking for specific examples. But it isn't about examples. This isn't about a list of phrases that should be allowed, or a list of phrases that should be forbidden.
Any example is just that: an example that shows that everything can be seen as blasphemous. It just depends on the one who feels insulted... or wants to feel insulted.

 

[Freodin]

I wasn't.

Aaand... my bad feeling is confirmed. Literalist!

If you think that is somehow better to ask other people about my motives... well, suit yourself.

I knew I had a reason why I stopped talking to you. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[juvenissun]

Nicely phrased.


And that is the problem. Is the first an insult... or is it just a claim? Is the second an argument, or is it an nicely wrapped insult?

That completely depends on the one making the judgement.


Hm. I thought that maybe I had been to vague in my first post, but no, it is right there, finishing off the post.

"Does Christianity need such a rule? Do Christians need to be protected from anything that someone might construct as an insult?"

So however you want to play it down, and make this up to be a personal feely-thingy... it is not. It is a serious question about a part of Christian practice. A question that no one has even attempted to answer yet.

No. Christian does not need protection in any argument as long as it is a reasonable argument (i.e. "has reasons")

But an acceptable argument needs 1. a statement (claim); and 2. an explanation.
It is very easy to turn a theological argument into a blaspheme without an explanation. So if you give a term or a description which "could be" an insult, then give explanation. This is not too much to ask for.

For example, you can call me stupid. Without an explanation, it is an insult. With an explanation, it is an argument.

 

[Sojourner1]

As long as there is this power imbalance of who decided which side is "insulting" or makes "false accusations"... how can things be fine?

Only a day before, "God is a mythical being" would have been considered a "defamation of God" and a "false accusation". Why, Christians still believe that it is false and defaming!
But we can talk about it, respectfully and like mature persons. So why not about "God is narcissistic"... or even "The Bible is a fairy tale"?

"Clearly" inflammatory is a good idea. But often "clearly", isn't.

I ask you again to look at AV1611VET's first post here on this thread. Is it "clearly" inflammatory? I think it is. (Not that I care about it.) You might disagree. You have the power to act on your opinion. I don't.

We aren't going to remove the no blasphemy rule for this forum. I have given a couple of examples regarding what would be considered blasphemy. I have also agreed that it's not blasphemy to present an argument that God is not real and is part of a myth that was written by human beings. Surely you can see the difference between presenting that argument in comparison to saying something like "God is an imaginary genie in the sky". You can either agree to follow the current SoP for this forum, or not agree. If you don't agree to follow the SoP then don't post in this forum. If you agree to follow it then you're welcome to post here. It's really that simple. There doesn't need to be any further discussion about it.

 

[Freodin]

We aren't going to remove the no blasphemy rule for this forum. I have given a couple of examples regarding what would be considered blasphemy. I have also agreed that it's not blasphemy to present an argument that God is not real and is part of a myth that was written by human beings. Surely you can see the difference between presenting that argument in comparison to saying something like "God is an imaginary genie in the sky". You can either agree to follow the current SoP for this forum, or not agree. If you don't agree to follow the SoP then don't post in this forum. If you agree to follow it then you're welcome to post here. It's really that simple. There doesn't need to be any further discussion about it.

I'm sorry, I thought this was the Christian Apologetics forum.
"The purpose of the Christian Apologetics forum is to give non-Christians the opportunity to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, and Christians the opportunity to rationally defend their beliefs."

I challenge the concept and application of blasphemy, in all religions, but here in Christianity especially.

Is there anyone who can provide a rational defence for it, or will this stop at "It's the rule, we don't debate it, follow it or else!"?

 

[drstevej]

nm

 

[Sojourner1]

I'm sorry, I thought this was the Christian Apologetics forum.
"The purpose of the Christian Apologetics forum is to give non-Christians the opportunity to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, and Christians the opportunity to rationally defend their beliefs."

I challenge the concept and application of blasphemy, in all religions, but here in Christianity especially.

Is there anyone who can provide a rational defence for it, or will this stop at "It's the rule, we don't debate it, follow it or else!"?

No, you started this thread to challenging the no blasphemy rule in the SoP of this forum. You didn't start the thread to "challenge the concept and application of blasphemy, in all religions, but here in Christianity especially." You specifically challenged the guidelines of the SoP in your OP. I answered your questions about blasphemy and updated the SoP to remove one part you disagreed with and which I agreed needed to be changed. I told you that we aren't going to remove the blasphemy rule. The blasphemy rule in the SoP isn't a "practice" of Christianity. We don't have to defend the rules that we have on CF, if you don't like the rules then don't post here. This thread is now closed. If you have any other questions or concerns about the SoP, please start a thread in the Member Services Center.