What actually constitutes blasphemy?

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.

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 . . . .

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.

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.

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.

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

Like the Pope. #shutupj07

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!

I don't think we can understand the love Jesus inspired in his followers.

I agree - that's what I meant really.

that was to Ana

He doesn't need to be. He's not really. It's just a label. 'He' is just the historically accepted way of referring to God. But as he is seen as God the Father, it sounds daft to call him 'she'.

I think there may be a problem with the translation from the Greek with the word love.
In Greek I think there are several words that we translate as love.

Caritas is one , I think some are
Caring
Amor
Favour
Like.

The fact is we should go back to the original text and look at that.

Incidentally,I find it it intriguing that we have suggestions that Yeshua was

1 gay

2 married to Mary Magdalene!

Why does God (if you believe) have to be of either or any sex?

It was John. And I don't know if that would be blasphemous or not. I personally find it offensive.

If I believed in Her I would say She did!

This question is beyond the limits of my theological knowledge. I don't think there can be anything offensive about speculation and discussion. God gave us inquiring minds.

So would there be an issue if, for example, someone suggested that Jesus was gay? Suggesting that someone is gay in our society would not be considered offensive by that society (possibly by individuals but not by society as a whole). Would it be blasphemous to be literal about the "disciple that Jesus loved"? Btw who was it?

I always thought blasphemy was deliberately being offensive about a deity and or rituals & core beliefs of a religion, e.g making unpleasant pictures of jesus/mary etc. or perhaps putting rude words into prayers etc.

of course what causes offence to one person is a 'bit of a laugh' to someone else!

If you dont believe that God is responsible for good things then why do you believe he is responsible for the bad

Yes, they are

The question isn't blasphemous.

Surely they all think it's a symbol. nobody's that thick

It's fine to question God's authority, argue with God, complain to or about God. The Bible is full of people doing just that. Absent there's a link to a news item about the blasphemy laws a bit further back. Some Anglicans believe what Roman Catholics believe about the communion bread and wine. Some don't. Either way, they are treated as sacred. If you ask anything about what Anglicans believe, you will always get the answer, 'some do & some don't'. But the rituals and the liturgy are pretty similar.

So would the question, "Why does god allow earthquakes and famine and just let people suffer and die?" actually be blasphemous?

I think papal infallibility is on matters of doctrine. Is there anything more a matter a matter of doctrine than saints?

Don't Anglicans believe that the communion wafer is a symbol while Catholics believe it is the actual body of Christ? There is a big difference which has, of course, hugely affected the evolution of modern Europe.

Ps Does anybody know about the blasphemy law? Did they try to use that when there were objections to Jerry Springer, the Opera or had it already been repealed? (My objection would have been aesthetic and on the grounds of mindlessness rather than religious.)

I think blasphemy constitutes of somone using Gods name in a negative manner..

Thank you, mrshat.