Blasphemy. Pure blasphemy!

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Those who dare to speak in the name of God aren't guilty of "blasphemy". Their "guilt" is absolved by their advanced case of LUNACY.

Clever....Very clever....Two-edged sword post...

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by TJDave

The concept of blasphemy is absurd.

Agree.
(to a point, anyway.)

I accept the apostolicity of a hierarchal Church as a critical ingredient of "Who deserves my attention"?, believing that salvific truth (in this case the role of conscience and prudential judgement) is handed on ("paradosis" in the NT), not voted on or discovered anew.

Since I doubt the governor has had a personal theophany ala the Apostle Paul, she does not meet the standard for ecclesial authority.

Agree again.

With a small caveat.

special note: My goal is simply to provide a worthwhile answer, as opposed to turning this into a Religion XVIII (or whatever superbowl version number they're up to in there).

Anything done by man comes with pre-ordained corruption guaranteed.

That includes "understanding."

God is the only authority.

Unfortunately, as a general rule, every man depends upon another man for whatever understanding he has.

IOW, all teaching - and therefore, all understanding - is suspect.

Unless, of course, it comes directly from God.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Agree.
(to a point, anyway.)



Agree again.

With a small caveat.

special note: My goal is simply to provide a worthwhile answer, as opposed to turning this into a Religion XVIII (or whatever superbowl version number they're up to in there).

Anything done by man comes with pre-ordained corruption guaranteed.

That includes "understanding."

God is the only authority.

Unfortunately, as a general rule, every man depends upon another man for whatever understanding he has.

IOW, all teaching - and therefore, all understanding - is suspect.

Unless, of course, it comes directly from God.

I think it's a philosophical discussion Dave, regarding the governor's authority, without opening Religion Redux. Same as the existence or not of "blasphemy". One works backwards from the philosophical claim of no God.

If Revelation isn't protected, then for the Christian, Christ is potentially a failure and a "liar", utterly dependent on the "telephone game".

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I think it's a philosophical discussion Dave, regarding the governor's authority, without opening Religion Redux. Same as the existence or not of "blasphemy". One works backwards from the philosophical claim of no God.

If Revelation isn't protected, then for the Christian, Christ is potentially a failure and a "liar", utterly dependent on the "telephone game".

Sorry, but I do not understand what you said.

Which is fine.

If you want to continue, I'm all ears, but perhaps private is better?

[MargieRose]

"The English word in question is translated, in all twelve of its New Testament references, from the Greek word blasphemia (Strong's Concordance #G988). It means to vilify, speak evil of, or rail against a person."

Well, just who do you think Hochul is vilifying for not "listening to what God wants" (as if she personally knows); that he or she be vaccinated for the sake of and the well being of others? SHE has raised herself UP!

Some of you, methinks, are digging too deep into the meaning of the word blasphemy, regarding this instance with Hochul.

"Absurd" it is not!

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by MargieRose

"The English word in question is translated, in all twelve of its New Testament references, from the Greek word blasphemia (Strong's Concordance #G988). It means to vilify, speak evil of, or rail against a person."

Well, just who do you think Hochul is vilifying for not "listening to what God wants" (as if she personally knows); that he or she be vaccinated for the sake of and the well being of others? SHE has raised herself UP!

Some of you, methinks, are digging too deep into the meaning of the word blasphemy, regarding this instance with Hochul.

"Absurd" it is not!

So asking real simple questions. . . .

Has the State of New York done more damage than good with Covid-19?

What can a new N-95 mask do for someone who has concerns every time they go out?

[porchy44]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I think it's a philosophical discussion Dave, regarding the governor's authority, without opening Religion Redux. Same as the existence or not of "blasphemy". One works backwards from the philosophical claim of no God.

If Revelation isn't protected, then for the Christian, Christ is potentially a failure and a "liar", utterly dependent on the "telephone game".

I believe your saying there is "no blasphemy" for atheists. Because you cannot insult what you do not believe exists.

Also Christ has acted in human history and has disclosed or "revealed" certain things to us. You either have to believe Christ is Lord or a Liar or a lunatic. There's no middle ground.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Sorry, but I do not understand what you said.

Which is fine.

If you want to continue, I'm all ears, but perhaps private is better?

It's fine, Dave. I think we both agree about the governor.

FYI, I still compose my prerace odds based upon a database you posted long ago on N.A. races. The pcts. have changed a bit over the years (7-1 won at 9.8%), but I simply adjust the cumulative pct. chances to equal 100. Thank you.

[Richie]

Originally Posted by porchy44

I believe your saying there is "no blasphemy" for atheists. Because you cannot insult what you do not believe exists.

Also Christ has acted in human history and has disclosed or "revealed" certain things to us. You either have to believe Christ is Lord or a Liar or a lunatic. There's no middle ground.

his miracles are documented

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by porchy44

I believe your saying there is "no blasphemy" for atheists. Because you cannot insult what you do not believe exists.

Also Christ has acted in human history and has disclosed or "revealed" certain things to us. You either have to believe Christ is Lord or a Liar or a lunatic. There's no middle ground.

Yes, Porchy. There were a few absolute statements ("There is no...") about a philosophical position.
And C.S. Lewis, yes. If accepting Christ, I have always thought the obviousness of your second paragraph. Unless he protects his Revelation, it succumbs to the humanness Dave mentioned.

It was Nietzsche who proclaimed a "hermeneutic of suspicion" regarding history.

[porchy44]

Originally Posted by Richie

his miracles are documented

Yes. his actions are open for historical investigation.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by porchy44

I believe your saying there is "no blasphemy" for atheists. Because you cannot insult what you do not believe exists.

Also Christ has acted in human history and has disclosed or "revealed" certain things to us. You either have to believe Christ is Lord or a Liar or a lunatic. There's no middle ground.

Of course there is middle ground. You can be someone like me...who believes that Christ was just a terribly misrepresented rabbi with a small religious following. IMO...Jesus wasn't the "Lord", nor was he a "liar or a lunatic". The liars were those who took the teachings of a man who had no regard whatsoever for material wealth...and created a multi-billion dollar business conglomerate with them.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by porchy44

Yes. his actions are open for historical investigation.

Jesus's reported actions do not pass historical scutiny. That's why they require "faith" in order to be accepted at face value.

[porchy44]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Of course there is middle ground. You can be someone like me...who believes that Christ was just a terribly misrepresented rabbi with a small religious following. IMO...Jesus wasn't the "Lord", nor was he a "liar or a lunatic". The liars were those who took the teachings of a man who had no regard whatsoever for material wealth...and created a multi-billion dollar business conglomerate with them.

I disagree. We can learn what Jesus thought about himself from the Gospels and Paul. Evidence indicates the writers were able, intended and did write reliable history. Jesus own words are good reason to think he claimed to be divine.

1. he claims to be yahweh (John 8:58)
2. He says he has power to judge and raise the dead. (John 5;25)
3.He says he was before Abraham Jn 8:57-58)

I could cite many more. So a good man is is the one thing he could of not possiblbly been according to common sense and logic.

Also his earliest followers believed he was God. Its remarkable that some modern critics think they know Jesus better than his own apostles- Peter Paul, John etc.

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by fast4522

So asking real simple questions. . . .

Has the State of New York done more damage than good with Covid-19?*

What can a new N-95 mask do for someone who has concerns every time they go out?**

*I'd say more damage, especially with the new mandates. I really can't think of any positives that can be attributed to New York, regarding how it has dealt with the China virus.

**N-95 masks are better than cloth or filtered-paper masks, but even they have shortcomings. Hospital personnel used to only use them for short periods of time, when needed; after which, they were discarded. I have no problem with being required to wear a mask...but, only that.