Blasphemy

[ThinkFreeDom]

How do you reconcile the concept of blasphemy, and the gravity of the sin in many religious traditions, with the concept of an omnipotent god?

It seems clear to me that blasphemy has evolved to protect the religion, much as a government might censor critiscism of a leader to try and maintain the mystique which is vital for the control of the populace. Obviously many of you will disagree with me on this and I would be interested to hear your view.

I suppose, without being disrespectful, I am asking why, if your god is the omnipotent creator of the universe, would he be so sensitive about the inane utterings of one of the six billion humans that he created?

 

[OllieFranz]

How do you reconcile the concept of blasphemy, and the gravity of the sin in many religious traditions, with the concept of an omnipotent god?

It seems clear to me that blasphemy has evolved to protect the religion, much as a government might censor critiscism of a leader to try and maintain the mystique which is vital for the control of the populace. Obviously many of you will disagree with me on this and I would be interested to hear your view.

I suppose, without being disrespectful, I am asking why, if your god is the omnipotent creator of the universe, would he be so sensitive about the inane utterings of one of the six billion humans that he created?

We have a confused idea of what blasphemy is. It started when blasphemy was conflated with taking the Lord's name in vain. And continued when the definition morphed into the idea of "cussing" using a varation of the Name, and finally into just "cussing."

Blasphemy is the Greek word for what we in English call Slander or Libel. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a very specific Jewish sin, which Jesus has extended include Christians as well. In Hebrew, this sin is called Chilull ha'Shem (dis-honoring the Name [of God]). It involves telling diliberate lies to discredit God. The most common form these lies take is distorting the deeds of devout men, or impugning their motives. For example, the reason Jesus brings up the subject in Matthew 12 is that certain Pharisees were telling the people that Jesus was healing people and casting out demons by the power of (in the name of) Satan, not God.

Taken this way, people are free to say what they like, but they can also be justly held accountable for the consequences of what they say, and others are just as free to counter their lies with the truth.

 

[Imagican]

Not only is Blasphemy merely 'using the Lords name in vain', it is DENIAL of the Holy Spirit or speaking out AGAINST the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[OllieFranz]

Not only is Blasphemy merely 'using the Lords name in vain', it is DENIAL of the Holy Spirit or speaking out AGAINST the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,

MEC

Yes, that was my point. The reason it seems a silly law is because we have changed our definition of what it is to something silly,

When you realize that blasphemy in the Bible is discrediting God, His power, His love and the dedication of people who honor His ways with deliberate lies to turn them away from the true religion and its salvation, you realize just how serious a sin it is.

 

[ThinkFreeDom]

Neither of you has addressed the paradox of an all-powerful God needing the protection of the rules against blasphemy.

It is very obvious that blasphemy is a human concept, designed to protect religious beliefs from intellectual scrutiny.

It is morally wrong to declare someone to be sinful for their opinions. Blasphemy has always been used as justification for persecution, and this continues today as we can see with the case of the alleged Koran burning in Pakistan and the violence in the Middle East over the 'anti-islamic' film.

 

[OllieFranz]

Neither of you has addressed the paradox of an all-powerful God needing the protection of the rules against blasphemy.

It is very obvious that blasphemy is a human concept, designed to protect religious beliefs from intellectual scrutiny.

It is morally wrong to declare someone to be sinful for their opinions. Blasphemy has always been used as justification for persecution, and this continues today as we can see with the case of the alleged Koran burning in Pakistan and the violence in the Middle East over the 'anti-islamic' film.

I agree with you except for one point. What you are describing is not blasphemy according to the Bible. Blasphemy is not opinion. It is harmful lies about people who are doing God's good in the world. If you believe in slander and libel laws, then you should have no trouble accepting the Bible's condemnation of blasphemy.

For example, if I started writing to newspapers every Christmas telling people not to give to the Salvation Army because they take the money you give them to help destitute families and use it to buy slave children from third world countries to use as human sacrifices, that would be a grievous lie. If I managed to get anyone to believe me, that would be blasphemy. There should be a remedy for these lies. And there is libel and slander laws. It is that simple.

 

[ThinkFreeDom]

I agree with you except for one point. What you are describing is not blasphemy according to the Bible. Blasphemy is not opinion. It is harmful lies about people who are doing God's good in the world. If you believe in slander and libel laws, then you should have no trouble accepting the Bible's condemnation of blasphemy.

For example, if I started writing to newspapers every Christmas telling people not to give to the Salvation Army because they take the money you give them to help destitute families and use it to buy slave children from third world countries to use as human sacrifices, that would be a grievous lie. If I managed to get anyone to believe me, that would be blasphemy. There should be a remedy for these lies. And there is libel and slander laws. It is that simple.

So insulting God wouldn't be considered blasphemy. Good, that is good to know.

But I don't understand how telling lies about human beings can be considered blasphemy, I don't this is the definition that most people ascribe to. Slander and libel are distinct from blasphemy.

 

[OllieFranz]

So insulting God wouldn't be considered blasphemy. Good, that is good to know.

No. Simply "insulting" God is not blasphemy. And not everything any old stuffed shirt claiming to speak for god considers to be insulting is an insult to God.

But I don't understand how telling lies about human beings can be considered blasphemy, I don't this is the definition that most people ascribe to. Slander and libel are distinct from blasphemy.

That's because they don't speak Greek. Βλασϕημια ("blasphemia") is simply the Greek word for slander. But because we usually use words like libel and slander for the idea of simple defamation, and only use blasphemy when translating the Bible, we have the expectation that it means something more, something related to God and the Church.

And since the Church power structure grew around the same time that Greek was dropped in favor of Latin, and grew more as Latin evolved into today's modern languages, it was in the Church's interest to direct that expectation into the idea that it is an insult to God, and an unforgivable sin, as well, to question the Church's authority or that of the favored representatives of the true faith.

The popular definition, no matter how much authoritative people in the Church promote it in their own self-interest, is not the Biblical definition of blasphemy. And it is not what the Jesus was condemning in Matthew 12

 

[ThinkFreeDom]

No. Simply "insulting" God is not blasphemy. And not everything any old stuffed shirt claiming to speak for god considers to be insulting is an insult to God.

That's because they don't speak Greek. Βλασϕημια ("blasphemia") is simply the Greek word for slander. But because we usually use words like libel and slander for the idea of simple defamation, and only use blasphemy when translating the Bible, we have the expectation that it means something more, something related to God and the Church.

And since the Church power structure grew around the same time that Greek was dropped in favor of Latin, and grew more as Latin evolved into today's modern languages, it was in the Church's interest to direct that expectation into the idea that it is an insult to God, and an unforgivable sin, as well, to question the Church's authority or that of the favored representatives of the true faith.

The popular definition, no matter how much authoritative people in the Church promote it in their own self-interest, is not the Biblical definition of blasphemy. And it is not what the Jesus was condemning in Matthew 12

It may have Greek origin but it is a widely used English word with an accepted definition. You don't have to speak Ancient Greek in order to understand the definition of an English word.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as below:

Definition of blasphemy
noun (plural blasphemies)

[mass noun] the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk: he was detained on charges of blasphemy.

Your definition is simply not correct, I am afraid, the English word has a different definition to the Ancient Greek one.

The fact is that people have been tortured, threatened and murdered for insulting Gods who are omnipotent and therefore immune to insult. Blasphemy represents a crime against humanity, perpetrated by the religious on behalf of the religious.

 

[OllieFranz]

It may have Greek origin but it is a widely used English word with an accepted definition. You don't have to speak Ancient Greek in order to understand the definition of an English word.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as below:

Definition of blasphemy
noun (plural blasphemies)

[mass noun] the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk: he was detained on charges of blasphemy.

Your definition is simply not correct, I am afraid, the English word has a different definition to the Ancient Greek one.

The fact is that people have been tortured, threatened and murdered for insulting Gods who are omnipotent and therefore immune to insult. Blasphemy represents a crime against humanity, perpetrated by the religious on behalf of the religious.

As I said, the Church has changed the definition to something that Jesus and the Gospel writers would not recognize.

I'm not denying that it happens that Churches call these other things blasphemy or denying that "Christian" leaders promote condemning these things in the name of stamping out blasphemy. I'm saying that when it happens, it is not justified by anything in the Bible. That what they are doing has nothing to do with what Jesus was talking about. That they are not defending God, they are aggrandizing themselves. At the expense of honest inquiry.

 

[ThinkFreeDom]

As I said, the Church has changed the definition to something that Jesus and the Gospel writers would not recognize.

I'm not denying that it happens that Churches call these other things blasphemy or denying that "Christian" leaders promote condemning these things in the name of stamping out blasphemy. I'm saying that when it happens, it is not justified by anything in the Bible. That what they are doing has nothing to do with what Jesus was talking about. That they are not defending God, they are aggrandizing themselves. At the expense of honest inquiry.

Are you saying that insulting God is not blasphemy?

 

[OllieFranz]

Are you saying that insulting God is not blasphemy?

I suppose that depends on the exact nature of the insult, the intended effect of the insult, and the actual effect of the insult.

But generally, no, I don't believe that God cares, unless honest, caring men of God are deliberately harmed by the lies.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

How do you reconcile the concept of blasphemy, and the gravity of the sin in many religious traditions, with the concept of an omnipotent god?

It seems clear to me that blasphemy has evolved to protect the religion, much as a government might censor critiscism of a leader to try and maintain the mystique which is vital for the control of the populace. Obviously many of you will disagree with me on this and I would be interested to hear your view.

I suppose, without being disrespectful, I am asking why, if your god is the omnipotent creator of the universe, would he be so sensitive about the inane utterings of one of the six billion humans that he created?

Blasphemy is detrimental to truth, obviously. Scripture warns against it so adamantly that even after the fact of Christ's grace, it is told that blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

And for good reason. Christianity is supposed to be a full communion within the body of Christ. People can split, but Christ cannot.
All you are left with, after ignoring the consequences of blasphemy, is a divided people who end up warring with each other.
It has happened with the Church many of times. Schisms, Protestants, and so on. You end up with a thousand different interpretations that put Christendom on a crutch.

The reason why I am Catholic is because it does not hold to Sola Scriptura, it holds to the teaching of the saints succeeded through history, and holds such sacred teachings and traditions alongside Scripture with equal authority.
This is all reinforced by the fact that the Church is moved by the Spirit. All saints are born through this, and the papacy is chosen by God. Peter was given the Keys, and he is the rock which the Church stands on. The very gates of Hell cannot prevail against it.
Luther and Calvin do not have this prestige, nor any other denominational standing.

 

[doc8645]

How do you reconcile the concept of blasphemy, and the gravity of the sin in many religious traditions, with the concept of an omnipotent god?

It seems clear to me that blasphemy has evolved to protect the religion, much as a government might censor critiscism of a leader to try and maintain the mystique which is vital for the control of the populace. Obviously many of you will disagree with me on this and I would be interested to hear your view.

I suppose, without being disrespectful, I am asking why, if your god is the omnipotent creator of the universe, would he be so sensitive about the inane utterings of one of the six billion humans that he created?

I think your absolutely right in your evolution. The dictionary definition I would agree with what the other poster quoted except not so much the "profane talk". And yes, it was mostly by man's definition to keep the masses in line. Throughout the dark ages hundreds of thousands were tortured, imprisioned, killed, and banished due to their differences in religious beliefs and principles, then more again during the Protestant reformation period. They were labeled as heretics or blasphemers.

But basicly (Biblically) it was mostly anybody claiming to be God or having the power and authority of God. Thats what the pharisee's kept accusing Jesus of, except that He was God!! So, basicly its not that " an all powerful God needing the protection of the rules against blasphemy". rather its more of a warning about messing with God's people and the Holy Spirit and how deeply He feels about it. (IMO)

doc8645

 

[Sojourner1]

Mod Hat On​

​

​

​

Thread has been moved from the Christian Philosophy & Ethics forum to the Exploring Christianity forum.

Mod Hat Off​

​

​

​