Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Abolition of the crime of blasphemy
84 Answers
Today a cross party group are seeking the abolition of the crime of blasphemy.
This crime only protects Christianity and signatories calling for it's abolition bizzarrely include Richard Dawkins and the ArchBishop of Canterbury
Yet it's getting a somewhat luke warm response from the Government.
Is there any good reason to keep a piece of archaic legislation like this that hasn't been sucessfully used for decades?
Does Jesus need the protection of the law?
This crime only protects Christianity and signatories calling for it's abolition bizzarrely include Richard Dawkins and the ArchBishop of Canterbury
Yet it's getting a somewhat luke warm response from the Government.
Is there any good reason to keep a piece of archaic legislation like this that hasn't been sucessfully used for decades?
Does Jesus need the protection of the law?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Au contraire - I don't believe for one second you're so stupid as to pick up a poisonous snake merely because the Bible states that as a believer you will be protected from harm.
However, it remains the case that that is what the Bible states. Fortunately, as an apostate, you're far too sensible than to put your life in danger by believing it.
However, it remains the case that that is what the Bible states. Fortunately, as an apostate, you're far too sensible than to put your life in danger by believing it.
Maybe I will one day reach a position where by Gods' grace, my faith will be strong enough to dispel doubts completely, and I may be able to live my life trusting not in my own strength and abilities, which I tend to do, but in God dealing with whatever situation I find myself in. Including snakes I might add.
jno - Read the New Testament. We do not live by the law, but are freed from it. That was the whole purpose of Jesus' coming, to free us from the burden of the law. We live not under law, but under Gods' grace, mercy and forgiveness.
It is incredible just how many ABers wish to put me back under the law!
Is it a conspiracy of solicitors and lawyers?
It is incredible just how many ABers wish to put me back under the law!
Is it a conspiracy of solicitors and lawyers?
Sorry to jump in here, but if that's the case Theland, then why did Jesus say
"'Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled' - (Matt. 5:17-18).
Sure it wasn't St Paul who did away with the law?
"'Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled' - (Matt. 5:17-18).
Sure it wasn't St Paul who did away with the law?
Naomi - Jesus also told His followers that their righteousness had to exceed that of the Pharisees!
How? Impossible surely! The Pharisees were teachers of the law, so how could mere peasants compete with them?
But Jesus was right! Our righteousness has to surpass that of the Pharisees, in fact, we have to fulfil every jot and tittle or we are under sentence from the law. Jesus was right.
Only Jesus, the Son of God, the sinless Man could fulfill the law, and He did, and then He went to the cross, taking upon Himself, our sin, my sin, your sin, and transferring to us, to anybody who would trust Him, His righteousness, so that Gods' perfect justice could be satisfied, and we could be offered the free gift of forgiveness. No wonder it is called, "The Good News."
How? Impossible surely! The Pharisees were teachers of the law, so how could mere peasants compete with them?
But Jesus was right! Our righteousness has to surpass that of the Pharisees, in fact, we have to fulfil every jot and tittle or we are under sentence from the law. Jesus was right.
Only Jesus, the Son of God, the sinless Man could fulfill the law, and He did, and then He went to the cross, taking upon Himself, our sin, my sin, your sin, and transferring to us, to anybody who would trust Him, His righteousness, so that Gods' perfect justice could be satisfied, and we could be offered the free gift of forgiveness. No wonder it is called, "The Good News."
The doctrine that justice is somehow satisfied by the drawing of the life blood of an innocent victim is at the heart of Christianity. Sacrifice of the good for the sake of the evil epitomizes evil. Following such a doctrine is an attempt to negate personal responsibility, to elevate death to a stature greater than life, and to pronounce pain, fear and guilt as superior to an earned joy.
There a no words too unkind to describe the followers of such a doctrine or the person attributed to leading them. To hell with your God.
There a no words too unkind to describe the followers of such a doctrine or the person attributed to leading them. To hell with your God.
Naomi - This is indeed what the text means. This is basic Christianity, not distorted by political correctness, man made religion, and ecumenism.
It is, as the bible said it would be, a scandal, an affront, and many will be angry at it, as has been seen on here over and over again. Yet it is Gods plan, and it is a plan that saves us from our sin, at no cost to us, save that we trust in a loving God who gave all for us.
It is, as the bible said it would be, a scandal, an affront, and many will be angry at it, as has been seen on here over and over again. Yet it is Gods plan, and it is a plan that saves us from our sin, at no cost to us, save that we trust in a loving God who gave all for us.
Can we get back to the issue, please?
I have often made it clear on this site that I think all religious belief to be absurd.
Now supposing I were to go further than that and be gratuitously, deeply, shockingly, nastily offensive to religiousness and religionists to such an extent that even non-believers were appalled?
I would expect to receive my punishment from society, the people I live, work and socialise with. They would probably tell me off, shun me, cross me off their guest lists, refuse to speak to me again and cold-shoulder me in the pub. And that would be fair enough.
But for the law to have the temerity, the impudence, the presumption to tell me that I may not be offensive if I wish to be is monstrous.
This law is a disgrace to the statute book and should have been repealed years ago.
I have often made it clear on this site that I think all religious belief to be absurd.
Now supposing I were to go further than that and be gratuitously, deeply, shockingly, nastily offensive to religiousness and religionists to such an extent that even non-believers were appalled?
I would expect to receive my punishment from society, the people I live, work and socialise with. They would probably tell me off, shun me, cross me off their guest lists, refuse to speak to me again and cold-shoulder me in the pub. And that would be fair enough.
But for the law to have the temerity, the impudence, the presumption to tell me that I may not be offensive if I wish to be is monstrous.
This law is a disgrace to the statute book and should have been repealed years ago.
Yes, Theland, yes.
I don't see why there should not be cartoons about Mohammed. The great and the good have been lampooned for centuries; why should Mohammed have special dispensation? I would not call a homosexual a queer, but if I did I would expect the social punishment as detailed in my last.
I reserve the right to be offensive if I wish to be, even if I do not exercise that right.
You must see unfair it is to have just one section of one religion mollycoddled in this way. And there are only two ways to make it fair. The first is to extend the law to cover all religions, but that is unthinkable. I surely don't have to point out why, though I will if you like.
So we should adopt the second way, repeal of the law.
I don't see why there should not be cartoons about Mohammed. The great and the good have been lampooned for centuries; why should Mohammed have special dispensation? I would not call a homosexual a queer, but if I did I would expect the social punishment as detailed in my last.
I reserve the right to be offensive if I wish to be, even if I do not exercise that right.
You must see unfair it is to have just one section of one religion mollycoddled in this way. And there are only two ways to make it fair. The first is to extend the law to cover all religions, but that is unthinkable. I surely don't have to point out why, though I will if you like.
So we should adopt the second way, repeal of the law.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.