Defining Blasphemy

evildave

Unregistered
E
This is a singular curiosity of religion and other dogmatic social institutions. The idea that certain subjects should not be raised *EVER*. Especially ones that bring into question the blind assertions the group makes.

Interestingly enough, there are points that religion can question, and not be blasphemy.

Questioning whether god exists, or claiming to be mightier than god is naturally blasphemy. Questioning how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is curiously not blasphemy. Perhaps because there is no official church position on the topic to conflict with.

Maybe it's only a question of scale. Trivial questions that indicate total buy-in on the important details is A-OK, but questions that show a little too much critical thinking are sure signs that the asker is certainly hell-bound.

What would be considered utter blasphemy for various religions, and what might be considered "border cases" for it?
 
Come to think of it, I have a good test which will prove I am mightier than god.

Set two chairs in the middle of a room. Have as many believers as you like select a chair, and then pray for god to move it to a specific location.

I will move the other chair to another specific location before the prayer chair moves to its appointed location.

This is much better proof that I am mightier than god than the traditional religious "proof" which involved killing the heretic. For one thing, the experiment can be repeated.

Of course, it may only prove that praying to god to do things for you is pointless. Something that even some religious scholars might agree with.

Perhaps tighter controls and/or a better formulated experiment can be devised.
 
Jesus chose to up the stakes on blasphemy, by becoming blasphemy to the Jews. His construct of blasphemy moved from the more petty quasi-religious things, such as types of speech or eating rituals, to the notion that blasphemy is ultimately a rejection of God.

Flick
 
And it's the one "unforgivable" sin, too. Fancy that.

That's correct.

Flick
 
Of course, technically, carrying on and believing in your previous religion after the missionaries have come, dropped off the message and gone (due to them presenting a poor case for their chosen religion) has just (from the missionary of Christianity's perspective) utterly damned these people beyond all redemption. Not only that, but if the message about "Jesus" is left behind and carried forward as a joke, you've irredeemably damned all the future generations to Hell for as long as they remember there was some ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ with a half-baked "message" from some Jesus demigod character.

So, all in all, being a poor missionary is doing a disservice to everyone.

Culturally speaking, everybody who's ever heard of Christianity and decided it's not for them is totally iredeemable, so there's no point in them ever giving it a second thought.
 
I think the idea of blaphsemy is the ultimate blasphemy. The notion that your words could harm or injure allmighty, all merciful God seems to imply that God is not that mighty or mercifull.

It's like a Nobel prize winning Olympic athelete supermodel bursting into tears because a 2-year old called him a "poopoo head."

How emotionally fragile is God, anyway? And isn't promoting the notion that God is emotionally fragile far more insulting than simply telling him to piss off?
 
And is it not wonderful that our body of scientific knowledge grows only through continual blasphemy!

Without blasphemy, there is only stagnation and decay. Thank the Lord for blasphemers!
 
How emotionally fragile is God, anyway? And isn't promoting the notion that God is emotionally fragile far more insulting than simply telling him to piss off?

I fail to see where emotion enters the equation at all. It's a matter of co-existence. Blasphemy is by defintion, "unholy." It's simply a matter of oil and water.

Flick
 
It's a matter of co-existence. Blasphemy is by definition, "unholy." It's simply a matter of oil and water.
Click to expand...

I agree.

In my mind, it would be a minor version of blasphemy to walk up to Einstein, spit in his eye and call him a stupid dipsh*t, just because you didn’t “approve” of the Theory of General Relativity.

It is something that he should be honored, admired and respected for. Only a person capable of believing otherwise would even be capable of contemplating this kind of blasphemy.
 
Foolish me, I take Stamenflicker off ignore long enough to read this post and all I get is this?

Blasphemy is by defintion, "unholy." It's simply a matter of oil and water.
Click to expand...

So... unholy stuff hurts God? God, who created the universe and commands legions of angels, can be hurt by dirty words? And iron chariots - don't forget that.

There really is no lower limit on how stupid theology can get.
 
evildave said:
What would be considered utter blasphemy for various religions, and what might be considered "border cases" for it?
Click to expand...

Pretty much anything posted in this forum would get you tortured and killed in medieval Europe :D
 
Foolish me, I take Stamenflicker off ignore long enough to read this post and all I get is this?

Do us both a favor and put me back on ignore.

Flick
 
Franko said:


I agree.

In my mind, it would be a minor version of blasphemy to walk up to Einstein, spit in his eye and call him a stupid dipsh*t, just because you didn’t “approve” of the Theory of General Relativity.

It is something that he should be honored, admired and respected for. Only a person capable of believing otherwise would even be capable of contemplating this kind of blasphemy.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that Einstein is dead, and you'd have to dig him up to do that, and he wouldn't notice (being dead and all), what's your point?

I'm sure you'd say the same thing about Charles Darwin and James D. Watson for their groundbreaking work in evolution and DNA, as well.

There will always be someone who builds on past work, and exceeds what the people of the past were able to do. This is not "blasphemy".

Someone may indeed overturn Einstein's work one day. But in order to be taken seriously, they will have to do a lot of work proving it. Any million retarded ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ can disparage his work, and it's completely meaningless; only reflecting poorly on the idiots who speak thusly.

Einstein built on the work of those who preceeded him. If he stood tall, it was only because he stood on the shoulders of giants. He understood this well. Any amount of jeering from the ignorant masses is meaningless. Unless they can *prove* Einstein was wrong, it's just so much Franko-Babble.

By comparison GOD ALMIGHTY (or his demigod son Jesus) are injured mightily by every little word spoken against them. It's apparently like some sort of kryptonite to them, having someone not believe.

Someone who knows he's right has nothing to fear from some negative words.

Someone who fears he's wrong will lash out to silence dissent.

It isn't gods who stones people or burn them at the stake. It's the people who believe in gods.
 
evildave said:
This is a singular curiosity of religion and other dogmatic social institutions. The idea that certain subjects should not be raised *EVER*. Especially ones that bring into question the blind assertions the group makes.

Interestingly enough, there are points that religion can question, and not be blasphemy.

Questioning whether god exists, or claiming to be mightier than god is naturally blasphemy. Questioning how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is curiously not blasphemy. Perhaps because there is no official church position on the topic to conflict with.

Maybe it's only a question of scale. Trivial questions that indicate total buy-in on the important details is A-OK, but questions that show a little too much critical thinking are sure signs that the asker is certainly hell-bound.

What would be considered utter blasphemy for various religions, and what might be considered "border cases" for it?
Click to expand...

If you bring up an argument against morality, and question the existence of God in order to make that argument, then it's blasphemy. This is probably why certain Catholics hate Nietzche so much.
 
Well, so far people haven't contributed anything from other religious worldviews.

Not being an adherent of Islam in many Islamic countries is a capital offense. With minor exceptions made for transient workers and other temporary visitors.

I'm not certain of what would be "Blasphemy" for Hinduism. Saying Brahma didn't make the world, or Vishnu isn't maintaining it, or Shiva isn't waiting to destroy it.

Of course, to a Christian drawing a parallel to Hinduism by demonstrating that the one god might have made the Universe, but turned it over to Jesus to run it, and Satan is trying to wreck it, might be considered 'Blasphemy'. Perhaps the reverse is true for a follower of Hinduism.

The nonreligious bunch probably don't too many common blasphemies. At least none they'd bother to kill over.

I have a hard time picturing a 'Buddhist Inquisition'. Except as something like in a Monty Python skit.
 
Of course, to a Christian drawing a parallel to Hinduism by demonstrating that the one god might have made the Universe, but turned it over to Jesus to run it, and Satan is trying to wreck it, might be considered 'Blasphemy'. Perhaps the reverse is true for a follower of Hinduism.

I think you'd be hard pressed to accurately describe Christian concepts of blasphemy apart from the fundamental tenant I described... granted practiced Christianity seems so far removed from the text, I'd best just shut my mouth. :)

Flick
 
evildave said:
I have a hard time picturing a 'Buddhist Inquisition'. Except as something like in a Monty Python skit.
Click to expand...

Nobody expects the Buddhist Inquisition! Our chief element is surprise. Fear, and surprise! No, our two elements are fear and surprise, and the sound of one hand clapping!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom