Blasphemy, blas-for-you...

[cantata]

What exactly is blasphemy, and why shouldn't (or should) I blaspheme?

 

[Athene]

Blasphemy is basically speaking or writing about God in a profane and/or contemptuous way.

If you don't believe in the existence of a sacred deity there are no bars stopping you from blaspheming the god of whichever religion you want however if you are around people who do believe there is a god then good manners should dictate that speaking badly of their deity is not a good idea.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it.

~Mark Twain

​

 

[Washington]

If you don't believe in the existence of a sacred deity there are no bars stopping you from blaspheming the god of whichever religion you want however if you are around people who do believe there is a god then good manners should dictate that speaking badly of their deity is not a good idea.

This has always puzzled me. Of course it's not a matter of blasphemy upsetting any god, but that his believers are unable to accept anyone showing him what they consider to be disrespect. For whatever reason (psychological needs?) believers place a good deal of value on the expressed opinion of nonbelievers. "If you don't like my god you better not saying anything bad about him 'cause I can't deal with it. If you're going to say anything about him I need you to say only nice things."

 

[cantata]

This has always puzzled me. Of course it's not a matter of blasphemy upsetting any god, but that his believers are unable to accept anyone showing him what they consider to be disrespect. For whatever reason (psychological needs?) believers place a good deal of value on the expressed opinion of nonbelievers. "If you don't like my god you better not saying anything bad about him 'cause I can't deal with it. If you're going to say anything about him I need you to say only nice things."

Yes, that's the part I don't understand, either.

I can't see what the possible harmful consequences of blasphemy could be to gods or their followers.

 

[Athene]

This has always puzzled me. Of course it's not a matter of blasphemy upsetting any god, but that his believers are unable to accept anyone showing him what they consider to be disrespect. For whatever reason (psychological needs?) believers place a good deal of value on the expressed opinion of nonbelievers. "If you don't like my god you better not saying anything bad about him 'cause I can't deal with it. If you're going to say anything about him I need you to say only nice things."

Why is it immature that a Christian would be upset if somebody started speaking contemptuously of their God, in front of them? If somebody spoke contemptuously of my husband in front of me I would be upset, does that make me immature? Does that mean I place a high value on the expressed opinion on everybody because I would be upset if anybody spoke contemptuously of my husband?

 

[cantata]

Why is it immature that a Christian would be upset if somebody started speaking contemptuously of their God, in front of them? If somebody spoke contemptuously of my husband in front of me I would be upset, does that make me immature? Does that mean I place a high value on the expressed opinion on everybody because I would be upset if anybody spoke contemptuously of my husband?

Could you explain why you would be upset by someone speaking contemptuously of your husband?

 

[katautumn]

It depends on who you ask. I've heard that blasphemy would be taking God's name in vain. I've heard it is rejecting God and denying his existence. I've heard it could be referring to God or Jesus in an offensively humorous manner.

 

[Washington]

Why is it immature that a Christian would be upset if somebody started speaking contemptuously of their God, in front of them? If somebody spoke contemptuously of my husband in front of me I would be upset, does that make me immature?

So why is it you place such value on the opinion of others? Personally, I find many opinions not worth listening to, most of them from people I don't know. It's only people who have gained my respect, either through their accomplishments or personal interaction, that I bother to value. Why would I invest any emotional consideration in the opinions of those who have not earned my respect? Because there are many ill-informed, and addled-headed thinkers in the world, it simply isn't prudent to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and accept their opinions as defacto valid, and therefore be concerned with them.

If someone doesn't like the color of my shirt, so what? It's my opinion of my shirt that counts. Why should I value their opinion of my shirt over my own? Of course, if they're a fashion guru or a friend whose fashion sense I've come to trust I might well take them seriously, but this takes them out of the category of a passing opinion, which is what we're talking about here. If I said your god stinks, so what? For all you know I could be one of those addled-brained nincompoops who couldn't think their way out of third grade. Is my opinion that I might think your god stinks really important? If so, you might want to considerd why. If I were you I certaninly wouldn't put much credence in my opinion. You don't really know me. This doesn't mean that asking "why" one has such an opnion is out of line, but I think taking offense over it crosses the line of rational response.

 

[NPH]

.

 

[cantata]

I think we need a firmer understanding of what is meant by blasphemy. There would appear to be mixed opinion.

 

[Washington]

I think we need a firmer understanding of what is meant by blasphemy. There would appear to be mixed opinion.

From my short investigation of the word, "blasphemy" seems to have been coined to describe an irreverent remark made against some aspect of ones own faith. In time it does seem to have been broadened to include such remarks made by those outside the faith, but this appears to be nothing more than the same kind of reaction expressed in this thread. Some people simply have trouble coping with the opinions of others. They can't deal with opinions that don't conform to their own. Of course they're entitled to define their terms anyway they like: "Blasphemy includes such utterances made by anyone," but I seriously question the soundness of the psychological underpinnings that attempt to silence these remarks.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I always thought the rule against blasphemy was just a continuation of the "No Flaming" rule. Basically meaning, don't flame someone else's religion, either.

I mean, if an atheist were to say they don't believe that God exists, some people would take that to be blasphemy. I can't think that this is the sort of forum where someone would get into trouble just for expressing their beliefs.

 

[Washington]

I always thought the rule against blasphemy was just a continuation of the "No Flaming" rule. Basically meaning, don't flame someone else's religion, either.

I mean, if an atheist were to say they don't believe that God exists, some people would take that to be blasphemy. I can't think that this is the sort of forum where someone would get into trouble just for expressing their beliefs.

As I understand it, flaming is the intentional attempt to raise the ire of someone else. Blasphemy, on the other hand, has no such purpose, but is merely an irreverent remark as judged by someone of the faith. If I honestly think your god stinks, and say so, and your code of blasphemy includes remarks that indicate your god stinks, then I would be guilty of blasphemy, but not of flaming.

 

[WatersMoon110]

As I understand it, flaming is the intentional attempt to raise the ire of someone else. Blasphemy, on the other hand, has no such purpose, but is merely an irreverent remark as judged by someone of the faith. If I honestly think your god stinks, and say so, and your code of blasphemy includes remarks that indicate your god stinks, then I would be guilty of blasphemy, but not of flaming.

Well, yes, in the Real World. But on CF, I always thought the rule meant no flaming religions either.

 

[Athene]

As I understand it, flaming is the intentional attempt to raise the ire of someone else. Blasphemy, on the other hand, has no such purpose, but is merely an irreverent remark as judged by someone of the faith. If I honestly think your god stinks, and say so, and your code of blasphemy includes remarks that indicate your god stinks, then I would be guilty of blasphemy, but not of flaming.

On this particular forum when poeple make irreverent remarks it is generally with the aim of raising the ire of someone else.

The fact that we've included non-Christian religions and sacred texts amongst those that can not be mocked and ridiculed should indicate that we're looking at something broader in spectrum then simply being irreverent to the Christian God. I would echo Watersmoon110's comment that it is a continuation of the no-flaming rule to include the faith and sacred texts of not only Christianity but other religions. If you go by this definition then you are unlikely to fall foul of the no-blasphemy rule.

 

[Washington]

Well, yes, in the Real World. But on CF, I always thought the rule meant no flaming religions either.

But my point is that unless blasphemy is purposely used to flame, which is not its usual purpose, it should not qualify as "flaming religions." Of course there's no preventing anyone from taking offense at anything, which I've seen happen with those who seem to want to take offense, but if one's purpose is not to flame then it would be unfair to claim it as such. I think flaming should be considered only in the context of purpose.

 

[quatona]

I think we need a firmer understanding of what is meant by blasphemy.

I think the more vague its meaning is kept the better it serves its purpose.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Blasphemy is like inappropriate contentography ...

 

[Washington]

I think the more vague its meaning is kept the better it serves its purpose.

Not if it's being used as a criterion for possible banning, as outlined in the Ethics & Morality guidelines. We all need to know the conditions and limits under which a remark qualifies as blasphemy.

Personally, as I've explained elsewhere, I feel it's an ill-conceived standard.