Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 08-09-2013, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Blasphemy is a victimless crime .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

A victimless crime is a term used to refer to actions that have been ruled illegal but which are argued not to directly violate or threaten the rights of any other individual. It often involves consensual acts in which two or more persons agree to commit a criminal offence in which no other person is involved. For example, in the United States, current victimless crimes include prostitution, gambling, and illicit drug use.

At post #6 and in Huon's three posts above are only some of the names of a great many victims of "Blasphemy Laws" between the 12th and the 18th century.

I do not understand at all how blasphemy may be viewed as a "victimless crime" given the definition furnished above. The way I see it is that blasphemy was treated as a crime for the duration if these centuries, a crime of the church then a crime of the state and/or nation. Those who were denounced to have "blasphemed" were the victims of the "blasphemy laws" which arguably, in today's world, are capable of being perceived as "criminal legislation".

Obviously those in power during these depraved centuries perceived that God and/or Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit need protection.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto · 08-09-2013, 08:27 PM

There are no victims of the alleged crime of blasphemy because no one is harmed.

There are victims of the criminal prosecution of blasphemy.

mountainman · 08-10-2013, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are no victims of the alleged crime of blasphemy because no one is harmed.

I take your point in the modern sense but .....

The idea was that God, and/or Jesus, and/or the Holy Spirit and/or "The Christian Religion" is harmed or reproached or offended....

In 1676 Sir Matthew Hale, who presided, emphatically asserted the jurisdiction of the English secular Courts; saying

"Contumelious reproaches of God or of the religion established are punishable here. . . .
The Christian religion is a part of the law itself."

Blasphemy may also be described as "verbal offence against the sacred".

Here the idea is that the sacred is being harmed (and required protection).

Leonard W. Levy. Blasphemy: Verbal Offense against the Sacred from Moses to Salman Rushdie, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995. xi + 688 pp. $18.95 (paper), ISBN 978-0-8078-4515-8, reviewed by Virginia E. Hench (William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawa'i at Manoa) Published on H-Law (January, 1996)

Quote:

Leonard W. Levy's Blasphemy is a comprehensive history of a curious crime: verbal offense against the sacred.
The offense is curious, because, as Levy asks,

"if vengeance belongs to the supernatural governor of life, why invoke the criminal law?"

This question is, of course, unanswerable, but Levy makes a compelling case for his theory
that temporal rulers have historically used blasphemy accusations as proxies for persecution
of political dissent in systems where the prevailing powers identify themselves with Divine right.

The (political) majesty of the ruler(s) of Christian nations and states was perceived to be harmed by the crime of blasphemy.

This also relates to crimes of Lèse-majesté

Quote:

Lèse-majesté /ˌliːz ˈmædʒɨsti/[1] (French: lèse majesté [lɛz maʒɛste]; Law French, from the Latin laesa maiestas, "injured majesty"; in English, also lese-majesty, lese majesty or leze majesty) is the crime of violating majesty, an offence against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state.

This behavior was first classified as a criminal offence against the dignity of the Roman Republic of Ancient Rome.

Here, originally, before the 12th century outside the OP, the (political) majesty of the Roman Emperor was being harmed.

Therefore to summarise ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are no victims of the alleged crime of blasphemy because no one is harmed.

The bottom line here is that the (Christian) rulers set themselves up as the victims

(and they [and their regime] were therefore being [politically] harmed by blasphemy)

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 08-11-2013, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Go back to the OP. Blasphemy is a victimless crime and persecutions for blasphemy are some of the low points of European history - but does any of this support Pete's contention that blasphemy laws can explain why we never even hear of mythicism before the 18th century?

Certainly. The power of the Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant Churches on every attitude which could be understood "against religion" was very restricting. But the idea that "God does not exist" was at that time (and still is) more important than the idea that "everything about Jesus is mythical".

Thanks Huon,

Another way of stating this is that the idea that "Jesus is mythical - does not exist" is merely a SUBSET of the then (criminal) idea that the "God [of the Christian Bible] does not exist".

Quote:

Originally Posted by in 1676 by Sir Matthew Hale

"Contumelious reproaches of God or of the religion established are punishable here. . . .
The Christian religion is a part of the law itself."

contumely

Quote:

1. Rudeness or contempt arising from arrogance; insolence.

2. An insolent or arrogant remark or act.

Mythicism is still perceived by historicists as "Contumelious reproach".

Since it was severely punishable by the laws of the lands we are very unlikely to find any references to it before the blasphemy laws were relaxed in the 18th and 19th centuries.

None of this history is mentioned by the historicists.

They are not doing history, but apologetics.

Quote:

God can exist without Jesus, ask the religious Jews.

And Jesus is not mentioned in the earliest Jewish sources.

Are there any religious Jews who question the existence of Jesus?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874 · 08-12-2013, 12:16 AM

Again, it must be not be forgotten that at the very same time it was blasphemy to argue Jesus did not exist that it was also blasphemy to argue Jesus was an ordinary man whose father was human and was NOT a God Incarnate.

Essentially, the HJ argument was just as blasphemous as the MJ argument.

In fact, from at least the 2nd century and for hundreds of years, the HJ argument was REJECTED by the Jesus cult.

Origen's Against Celsus 1

Quote:

It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. And their not doing this in a credible manner, but (their) preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions.

mountainman · 08-12-2013, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, it must be not be forgotten that at the very same time it was blasphemy to argue Jesus did not exist that it was also blasphemy to argue Jesus was an ordinary man whose father was human and was NOT a God Incarnate.

Essentially, the HJ argument was just as blasphemous as the MJ argument.

No it was not because they claimed that the God Father sent his powers down to the planet Earth and that these divine powers appeared in the history of planet Earth during the rule of Augustus as an historical reality. The God Father himself appeared in and influenced the history during the 1st century was their claim.

It was heretical and blasphemous to believe otherwise.

Quote:

In fact, from at least the 2nd century and for hundreds of years, the HJ argument was REJECTED by the Jesus cult.

Origen's Against Celsus 1

Quote:

It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. And their not doing this in a credible manner, but (their) preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions.

It is indeed impossible to be certain that Celsus is fairly represented by the texts Origen quotes to refute him.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 08-12-2013, 08:15 PM

Mythicism is still perceived by historicists as "Contumelious reproach".

Mythicist Language is Designed to Make Lies Sound Truthful - June 30, 2013 By James F. McGrath

Quote:

Neil Godfrey's latest rant [1] includes a quote from George Orwell, and describes the fact
that I will be addressing mythicism and religious freedom in a conference paper as “Orwellian.”

And once again, there is no evidence of awareness of Poe's Law, as a mythicist writes things
that seem like a ridiculous parody, something that no one could really believe, and yet it is real and not satire.

[1] How Did McGrath Get Himself Inside Thomas Brodie?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 08-12-2013, 08:23 PM

Mythicism is still perceived by historicists as "Contumelious reproach".

Mythicism: like Creationism and Holocaust denial?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bart Ehrman

Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence for their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for the traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that a majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing – whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth – will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced.

This is the most egregious slur against mythicists, attempting to put them in the same boat as a laundry-list of familiar cultural ‘bad guys’ and whipping boys.

Mythicists are people who are not persuaded of what a majority believes, so they are part of the ‘anyone’ Ehrman excoriates.

And what is this ‘evidence’ that this majority finds overwhelmingly persuasive?

Mostly it’s the Bible. And the weight of more than a thousand years of cultural domination of christian dogma.

I find it appalling that Ehrman trivializes the Holocaust by dragging it into his argument in a transparent attempt to tar mythicists with the same broad brush. Is this how a scholar is supposed to conduct himself? And this is no slip of the pen – he makes the same comparison in articles and interviews during the media blitz advertising his book.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874 · 08-13-2013, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Essentially, the HJ argument was just as blasphemous as the MJ argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

No it was not because they claimed that the God Father sent his powers down to the planet Earth and that these divine powers appeared in the history of planet Earth during the rule of Augustus as an historical reality. The God Father himself appeared in and influenced the history during the 1st century was their claim.

It was heretical and blasphemous to believe otherwise.

It is documented that the Jesus cult writers argued that Jesus was NOT the son of a man and did NOT have a human father.

The HJ argument was Blasphemous at least since the 2nd century.

It is documented that the Jesus cult argued that those who claimed Jesus had a human father were of the DEVIL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In fact, from at least the 2nd century and for hundreds of years, the HJ argument was REJECTED by the Jesus cult.

Origen's Against Celsus 1

Quote:

It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. And their not doing this in a credible manner, but (their) preserving the fact that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It is indeed impossible to be certain that Celsus is fairly represented by the texts Origen quotes to refute him.

You seem to be arguing using double standards.

It may be impossible to ascertain your claims about Origen, Celsus, Eusebius and Arius.

Please, is it not impossible to ascertain that Arius was fairly represented by texts of the Church writers??

Did Arius ever argue that "there was a time when Jesus was NOT"?

The Deposition of Arius

Quote:

Wherefore without delay, brethren beloved, I have stirred myself up to show you the faithlessness of these men who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not....

I can only examine what is attributed to writers of antiquity.

As soon as new data is found then I may review my position.

It is completely acceptable at any level to use data supplied by writers of antiquity to develop an argument.

Since the 2nd century, Jesus cult writers argued that Jesus had NO human father.

Essentially, the HJ argument has been and still is REJECTED for over 1000 years.

mountainman · 08-13-2013, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Essentially, the HJ argument was just as blasphemous as the MJ argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

No it was not because they claimed that the God Father sent his powers down to the planet Earth and that these divine powers appeared in the history of planet Earth during the rule of Augustus as an historical reality. The God Father himself appeared in and influenced the history during the 1st century was their claim.

It was heretical and blasphemous to believe otherwise.

It is documented that the Jesus cult writers argued that Jesus was NOT the son of a man and did NOT have a human father.

But they also argued that this mythical creature made an appearance on planet Earth during the rule of Augusta. They argued that the Jesus figure whether angelic, divine, an LXX composite, mythical or Jedi, made an appearance in history and "appeared in the flesh" in the 1st century. So the idea was that there were two components, one human and one divine, both of which were historical. God preserve us!!

See Christology

Quote:

Christology (from Greek Χριστός Khristós and -λογία, -logia) is the field of study within Christian theology which is primarily concerned with the nature and person of Jesus Christ as recorded in the canonical Gospels and the epistles of the New Testament.[2] Primary considerations include the relationship of Jesus' nature and person with the nature and person of God the Father. As such, Christology is concerned with the details of Jesus' ministry, his acts and teachings, to arrive at a clearer understanding of who he is in his person, and his role in salvation.[3] A major component of the Christology of the Apostolic Age was that of Paul the Apostle. His central themes were the notion of the pre-existence of Christ and the worship of Christ as Kyrios (Greek: Lord).[4]

Following the Apostolic Age, there was fierce and often politicized debate in the early church on many interrelated issues. Christology was a major focus of these debates, and was addressed at every one of the first seven ecumenical councils. The second through fourth of these councils are generally entitled "Christological councils," with the latter three mainly elucidating what was taught in them and condemning incorrect interpretations.[5]

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 issued a formulation of the being of Christ — that of two natures, one human and one divine, "united with neither confusion nor division."[5]

This is called the doctrine of the hypostatic union,[5] which is still held today amongst most Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, referred to as Chalcedonian Christianity. Due to politically charged differences in the 4th century, schisms developed, and the first denominations (from the Latin, "to take a new name") formed.[5]

The claim is that a mythical creature was born from a virgin birth and walked on water and transfigured and was killed deady-bones and yet rose from the dead to answer late questions from the apostles. Jesus supposedly had both human and divine attributes, like Clark Kent and Superman.

How can you separate Clark Kent and Superman?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-09-2013, 08:27 PM	#32
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There are no victims of the alleged crime of blasphemy because no one is harmed. There are victims of the criminal prosecution of blasphemy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.