What is your opinion regarding 'blasphemy '?

[Masterblaster]

Is it the same as free speech.
What makes it objectionable.
Can you give an example of blasphemy.
Does it need to be controlled. Why?

[TRANSPONDER]

Slander was and still is punishable.

Blasphemy might be called slander against God. If He wishes to press a civil suit, that would be His right, and only His.

Treasonous discourse is illegal and punishable. Is heresy a justifiable offence?

Blasphemy might be considered "treasonous discourse" against God. If God wishes to press charges, that would be His right. No one else has the authority to do so on His behalf.

And yet as Data shows at great length above, earthly personages claim to speak for God and dictate what should be done in His Holt Name. Strikes me as a serious case of taking his name in vain and His authority to bolster their own opinions and authority. Which is i suppose what Jesus was protesting about in the gospels.

[Masterblaster]

Hello bjs1, T etc

Bjs1 says this - "Blasphemy might be considered "treasonous discourse" against God. If God wishes to press charges, that would be His right. No one else has the authority to do so on His behalf."

You make the obvious point on all this - nobody is required to protect God. Judge not and be not judged as you judge so too will you be judged. Stay out of this and take your protocol precepts with you. If you want to set up a template for good living then that is a commendable undertaking but do not legitimize it in God's name. Declare it an undertaking under God's patronage but do not say that he made it. Do not suggest that God has any specific investment in either the success or failure of your undertaking. Your efforts are a sacrifice to God from your deepest desires. Hopefully it will be shown to flourish under God, going forward.

[Data]

Is it possible to offend God directly?
Does God need protection.
Is God vulnerable or malleable in any way. How?

I don't know what you mean by directly. You could have asked the question without that specification, and I would say yes. God can be offended. When you add directly, I have to know what you mean by directly.

God doesn't need protection.

I don't think God is vulnerable. Malleable is "(of a metal or other material) able to be hammered or pressed permanently out of shape without breaking or cracking: easily influenced; pliable." God isn't easily influenced because no other being is as capable as he is, but that isn't to say that he is unreasonable or rigid. He listened to the advice of people when dealing with people and has allowed mankind and Satan and his demons temporary freedom to wreak havoc.

[alexxcJRO]

Is it the same as free speech.
What makes it objectionable.
Can you give an example of blasphemy.
Does it need to be controlled. Why?

Q: Is killing in the name of God justifiable?

I guess not since all religious people are " atheist/infidels", "blasphemers", "worshiping false gods" to the rest of religious people except to their religion. Feeling of hypocrisy or the Golden Rule should stop them alone.

Christians, Muslims and other religious people have killed and persecuted people because "blasphemers", "infidels", "worshiping false gods".

It does not need to be controlled.
It's called Freedom of Expression and Religion.
A Muslim can blaspheme against Christian God: Yahweh-Jesus by saying Jesus is not God. Is their religion and belief.
An atheist as myself can blaspheme against the Christian God: Yahweh-Jesus and Allah by saying they are only imagined, Jesus was a mere human and Mohammed was not a divine prophet of Allah but also a mere human and so on.

[Difflugia]

Slander was and still is punishable.

At least in the US, there are limits. Things like satire of public figures are protected. Also truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel.

Is heresy a justifiable offence?

Heresy has nothing to do with God, but means one disagrees with the priests.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

This blasphemy charge appears to be a subjective one , without any real ,identifiable crime on which to pin it. To approximate God into specifics appears to entice us into dead end declarations that are in their essence, deeply disrespectful.

I agree that killing in God's name is a blasphemous act. What happens if a person says that God loves them. Is that blasphemous? Where exactly did God indicate that he/it loved us. I missed that bit. We can approach God through human love because it is probably our most creative attribute.
God tortures people in Hell......is that blasphemy. God lives in a house with many mansions......what about that,? God is human like and he had a son who was an actual person, and no ,he does not have a wife????
Does that qualify as a blasphemous lie.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

I think the real question in this doctrinal soup is. What is truth about God?.

[Data]

This blasphemy charge appears to be a subjective one , without any real, identifiable crime on which to pin it.

Everything is subjective because no one thinks exactly the same as anyone else. People have varying degrees of knowledge. A lot of people think the more assumptions they make the more intelligent they are, but they make assumptions because they don't know. Words change over time so you can't read the current into some other time. There are different cultures, different beliefs, different sources. If you read my post above you see some of that. To the writers of the Bible blasphemy meant slander against someone. Later it became exclusive in application to God, but the Bible indicates that to wish or call down evil on anyone was a crime against God because you would be putting yourself in his position without the authority to do that. The use of the word has changed but it's meaning remains.

To approximate God into specifics appears to entice us into dead end declarations that are in their essence, deeply disrespectful.

No, it does that to theology. It is only disrespectful to someone who, almost always out of ignorance and assumption, would dictate God into specifics which aren't compatible with the Bible.

I agree that killing in God's name is a blasphemous act.

The Bible is full of example where God not only approved of killing in his name but insisted upon it so where do you get that idea from? Just because someone says they are killing in God's name when they aren't? Doing that is blasphemous. So how do you tell the difference?

What happens if a person says that God loves them. Is that blasphemous? Where exactly did God indicate that he/it loved us.

Who is us?

I missed that bit. We can approach God through human love because it is probably our most creative attribute.

Sometimes people say things they think sounds good. You can't always tell what they mean by them, but saying a thing and a thing being true isn't necessarily the same. Not that I disagree with you - I'm just saying. Empty phrases and empty hearts abound.

God tortures people in Hell......is that blasphemy.

To say it's true when it isn't is blasphemous, so yes.

God lives in a house with many mansions......what about that,?

A figurative expression.

God is human like and he had a son who was an actual person, and no ,he does not have a wife????
Does that qualify as a blasphemous lie.

What does the Bible say? Jerusalem. The Christian congregation.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

I think the real question in this doctrinal soup is. What is truth about God?.

Truth only means something that is commonly believed. Specifically what truth about God?

[Masterblaster]

Hello Data
Thank you for considering my ideas. You say - Truth only means something that is commonly believed.

I can go with that. I do not want to talk about Islam or any other doctrines other than those of early Christianity. Let us consider something that was commonly accepted and established and believed at that time. The God of the Temple of Jerusalem in 1AD, the God of Jesus and of his followers and his listeners, the God of the Jews.
1.Was that God being blasphemed through the antics of elaborate Temple protocols at that time.
2.Was that commonly believed God blasphemed by subsequent Christian doctrine constructs.

But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness

[Masterblaster]

The God of Jesus's time, carries with it no ambiguity.

Exodus 3:6 “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”
Matthew 22:32
"I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

It is this God, accepted and believed by all Jews at that time.

[Data]

1.Was that God being blasphemed through the antics of elaborate Temple protocols at that time.
2.Was that commonly believed God blasphemed by subsequent Christian doctrine constructs.

But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness

1. Exactly which antics of which Temples? Which protocols?
2. Exactly which subsequent Christian doctrine?

Exactly what is the purpose of the text you've given in bold?