What actually constitutes blasphemy?

exactly why I said she... God is referred to as male but as you say that is just tradition...

Would it matter if JC had been gay? would his teaching /actions be negated? As we will never 'know' and only speculate it seems a pointless worry for Christians!

Jesus wouldn't have loved anyone more than anyone else.

Like the Pope. #shutupj07

j07 The "maleness" of the Christian God, together with that of the other Abrahamic religions, is surely because they are all patriarchal. Back to blasphemy.

Or because the societies which first recognised the one God were patriarchal? When something is beyond human understanding we look fo analogies and tell stories. Because we speak of God as 'he' doesn't make 'him' so. There are references in the OT to God compared to a female. He spreads his wings over us like a mother hen, for example.

Yes. That would account for it absent. Although when it comes down to individuals and their own faith, it becomes a very personal thing. All my life I have thought of God as my Heavenly Father.

It would only be when he became human that god would have needed to be either male or female. For immortal heavenly beings, there is no need to procreate to populate an empty world, so no need for sex, no need for male and female.

Then god decided to send a bit of himself down as a human being, to show those pesky things he had created how they ought to be doing things. but they were all either fitted with or fitted for (his idea - "male and female created he them") so he spun a coin and it came down tails, not heads. If it had fallen the other way . . . .

The Holy Spirit is often referred to as she and has been throughout the ages. The Book of Wisdom or Sophia in the OT is also seen as female.

Lilygran I don't think the Spanish Inquisition was especially enthusiastic about inquiring minds. Blasphemy certainly came within its remit and querying orthodoxy in any way counted as blasphemy. The Inquisition may have been abolished some 180 years ago, but there is definitely still a whiff of it in today's Vatican.

Isn't there just, lilygran!

On the one hand, theoretical discussion about the nature of God. On the other hand, concrete examples of human stupidity.

and not much point to any of it #circlesroundin

I was beginning to feel a glimmer of enlightenment – thank you posters – but haven't a clue what this last bit is about.

I've read somewhere, that in early Hebraic religion, God had a wife!
This was gradually phased out.
Presumably by men.
Although you can only be Jewish if your mother was.
Jewish mothers traditionally seem to have dominant role!

It's all very confusing.

Just found this:

theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

I think it would probably count as blasphemy, but a lot of it is very funny.

Blasphemy is when you use the name of God with bad intention

So what is god's name? I mean 'God' isn;t a name - it's a job description.

jeni The dominant role of the female seems to be confined to the Jewish home.

I like "the act of depriving something of its sacred character" as a definition of blasphemy. But then I don't hold anything to be 'sacred' anyway - which doesn't mean there aren't things and folks that I respect.

Joan, thanks

Very funny, Joan......and true!

Its soooo annoying that people ridicule and do not respect other people beliefs.

When I say in Gods name I mean in the name of God but I think you probably knew that already

Why is it ok to have a go at people that do believe in God, I dont have a go at people that are atheist because I respect its their choice, I would have alot to say about non believers but choose to live and let live.

A bit more respect for believers is called for I think.

I laugh at atheist jokes too: the subject of religion is just too tempting though...... I've heard priests and vicars making jokes about their own religion. And why not?

Cathy, we don't 'have a go' at believers - we just don't share their beliefs. We are sometimes very critical of the actions of some religious organisations, for example the way the Catholic church failed to deal with many years of child abuse. This did not mean we were critical of individual Catholics, most of whom were as sickened as the rest of us.
Other denominations have been equally guilty of colluding in child abuse, such as sending children out to Australia to be used as virtual slaves.

Some beliefs do not deserve respect , such as the commonly held belief in most world religions that women are not capable of taking an exactly equally role in the life of the religion.

Do you respect the belief that anybody who wants to cease to be a muslim should be put to death?

There is a difference in respecting an individual and respecting their beliefs. Most of us who are atheists are very happy for believers to be able to follow their own religion as long as there is no effort to impose their beliefs on us through the law. That is why we do not think religious beliefs should be allowed to influence the laws on same-sex marriage, divorce, abortion, contraception, the right to die, etc. If believers want to follow their own church's guidance on these matters, that is up to them, but their beliefs should not be imposted on everybody. Most of my friends who are believers agree with me in this.

Apologies for a couple of typos - I need another cup of tea.
Some of the best Jewish jokes I heard were told by Rabbis and I have heard some great jokes from priests too.
Surely a religion should be strong enough to be able to have a laugh at itself?

I agree with you Greatnan. What does exasperate me though, is when I read gross misrepresentation of a carefully considered position or the lumping together of all people with a religious belief of any description. There are many easy targets but dividing people into atheists and believers by some, is not helpful.

I also feel that imposition of certain behaviours by reason of the religious belief of a ruling hegemony is wrong. However, I would strongly defend the right of any group or person to say / proclaim / demonstrate in favour of what they believe to be morally right.

Once again we are in agreement, Micelf. It has never been part of my thinking to prevent anybody worshipping in any way they choose, so long as their choice is not imposed on me. I am opposed to the use of Sharia courts in the UK because I believe they are unfair to women in many cases. Anybody is free to protest within the law. Are you thinking of any specific instance where a group has not been allowed to do this?

Not in this country, happily. But we all know there are oppressive regimes in other parts of the world which deny the freedom to worship, and which impose, to me at least, abhorrent practices. The one child policy in China for example, which was aborting babies almost at term.